Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Oct 1967

Vol. 230 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 47—Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £42,556,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, 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.

The net estimate for my Department for the financial year 1967-68 is £42,556,000. This represents an increase of £571,000 as compared with the original estimate for 1966-67. Deputies will be aware, of course, that certain reductions have been made in the administration subheads of the Social Welfare Vote as a result of the transfer of employment exchanges to the Department of Labour. The appropriate reductions have also been made in the figures for 1966-67 as published in this year's Book of Estimates so that valid comparisons can be made between the figures for the two years.

The main increase in 1967-68 as compared with 1966-67 arises under Subhead E—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund. This subhead provides for payment from the Exchequer to the Social Insurance Fund of the amount by which expenditure from the Fund exceeds the Fund's income. As will be seen from the appendix to the published estimate the total expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund in 1967-68 is estimated at £34,028,000, an increase of £1,324,000 over last year's figure. Total income of the Fund is estimated at £20,754,000, an increase of £500,000. Accordingly the estimated excess of expenditure over income is £824,000 higher than last year.

The only other substantial increase is under the heading of unemployment assistance, where an additional £273,000 is being provided. This increase is largely attributable to the increased rates of unemployment assistance in operation since the beginning of November, 1966.

Two subheads show decreases as compared with 1966-67, namely noncontributory old age pensions and non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions. The reduction in the old age pensions subhead is due, mainly, to the fact that there are only 52 pay days in 1967-68 as compared with 53 in 1966-67. I should mention that the Estimate for this service includes a sum of £180,000 in respect of the estimated cost of the increase of 5/- a week granted last year to pensioners with no means. In the case of widows' and orphans' pensions there is again a pay day less in the current year; in addition there is a normal continuing decline in the number of pensioners, and this is expected to be intensified as a result of the easing of the contribution conditions for the widow's contributory pension as provided for in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1966. It is estimated that 1,100 non-contributory widow pensioners will qualify for the contributory pension under that provision.

Details of the estimated expenditure on the social insurance services are given in the appendix to the Estimate. The main increases forecast for the current year as compared with the original Estimate for 1966-67 are: Disability Benefit, £348,000; Unemployment Benefit, £359,000; Old Age (Contributory) Pension, £50,000, and Widow's (Contributory) Pension, £400,000. In the case of disability and unemployment benefit the original provision for 1966-67 had to be increased by means of the supplementary estimate for Social Welfare which was before the Dáil in March last. The amounts being provided for 1967-68 represent decreases on the revised provision made for 1966-67. The increase of £400,000 on widow's contributory pension is due partly to the easing of the contribution conditions to which I have already referred, and partly to the continuing increase in the number of pensioners.

I do not propose to deal with the increases in rates of payments under the various social welfare schemes and the other improvements announced in the Budget, as these have already been discussed when the implementing legislation was before the House in July. The Estimate for 1967-68 does not, of course, make provision for the increased expenditure arising from the Budget, and this will have to be covered by a Supplementary Estimate later in the year.

A most important development during the year in the evolution of the services for which my Department is responsible has been the bringing into operation, as from 1st May, of the Occupational Injuries Act, 1966. This Act brought about a revolutionary change in our social insurance legislation. I think it will be agreed that the change has been brought about effectively and quietly and without any disruption. Affected persons to whom the service applies have been able to make their claims without difficulty and, while naturally cases of some complexity arise from time to time, the scheme is on the whole working smoothly and efficiently.

Before concluding I should, perhaps, mention some other improvements which have been made in our schemes and which, as they did not require legislation, may not have come to the notice of Deputies. For instance, the question of pensions not being payable to pensioners resident outside this country was raised during the course of the year. I have now amended the governing regulations and, in consequence, contributory old age and widows' and orphans' pensions under the social insurance scheme and disablement benefit and death benefit under the Occupational Injuries Scheme are now payable to persons domiciled anywhere outside this country.

Up to 1st May, regulations provided that payment of disability benefit was suspended while a beneficiary was in hospital, unless he had dependants. Any benefit unpaid accrued to his credit and was paid, subject to a maximum of £220, on his discharge from hospital. By an amending regulation, this position has been altered, and as from 1st May any disability benefit payable to a person in hospital is paid as it falls due.

Finally, I decided to ease the position of persons over 65 years of age who had to attend a local office twice or more each week in pursuance of their claims to unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. All such persons, with the exception of certain casual workers, are now required to attend at the local office only once a week, and that attendance is on the pay day.

I think I have now covered the main matters arising on the Estimate for my Department. I will, of course, endeavour to give Deputies any further information they may request in the course of the discussion.

Mr. Ryan

This Estimate reflects to a considerable extent the run down in our economy, which in turn has increased the number of unemployed persons in the State in a short 12-month period by 10,000 persons per week. This is a shocking reflection on the economic policies of the Government. This Estimate shows, therefore, the inflated extent of the Government's shortcomings in economic policy, and we regret that notwithstanding the total size of the Estimate, it is grossly inadequate to provide the relief which ought to be given to the people who, as a direct result of the Government's failure in economic policy, are suffering. It is unfortunate, too, that the Estimate, as it is, is unable to provide some 200,000 of our people with an adequate diet and sufficient clothing to preserve them in a reasonable state of health. That, unfortunately, is the situation.

The Department of Social Welfare is a Department of State which might reasonably be expected to have at least one skilled and trained sociologist on its staff. Strange to relate, the Department with its thousands of officers has not got one sociologist, not even one person with the training and skill necessary to advise the Minister as to whether or not the existing schemes of social welfare meet the needs of the people whom the whole code of social welfare is intended to benefit.

We in Fine Gael have complained for a number of years now that the approach of the Department, and of successive Fianna Fáil Ministers in particular, has been that of accountants or book-keepers, persons not concerned with policy, and not concerned with whether or not the money doled out by them is sufficient to meet the needs of the persons entitled to benefit. What has happened here is that we have added a little here and a little there to a welfare structure which began in the days of the good Queen Victoria when poverty and destitution were rampant in this land and the poor law rate was struck on what were described as property-owners for the purpose of avoiding the worst extremes of poverty and destitution.

We have, thanks be to God, come a little way along the line. Our economy has improved and we have fewer people to feed, fewer mouths to fill. There is for a larger number of people a reasonable living standard, but this is like a front which conceals behind and keeps away from the public view and public conscience human misery which can be as painful and as tragic to the individuals who are suffering as misery may be for people collectively.

We must express on this occasion our appreciation of the very worthwhile and valid investigation conducted by the Ignation Sodality in Limerick when they carried out a social survey of the unmet needs of 64 elderly people living alone in the city of Limerick. The report in question underlines my complaints, and the complaint of Fine Gael, that the Department of Social Welfare is not properly informed. It underlines our often repeated appeal to the Minister to appoint to his Department a number of trained, skilled, experienced sociologists. We are glad to say that the number of graduates in the social sciences passing through our universities has been increasing in recent times. Several local and health authorities have engaged some of these graduates, but, in the main, this pool of skill is not being tapped and several of these graduates are forced, by non-availability of employment here, to seek their living elsewhere; other societies and jurisdictions are benefiting by their skill.

The Ignation Sodality in Limerick, who are people who have no political gain to make out of the exposure of the unmet needs of people living on their own, made disclosures which ought to have shocked our society. In the main, what they disclosed has passed unnoticed. What this investigation disclosed in the relatively small city of Limerick is something which it is fair to say can be repeated in every urban centre in this country. If it exists on the scale spoken of in Limerick how bad must it be in the city of Dublin?

Time and again from these Fine Gael benches, we have complained that there were many unmet needs of social welfare recipients. We complained that the whole structure and administration of our welfare services could not cope with these needs, that the system the Minister tried to work prevented him from taking cognisance of these needs, even if he were aware of them. The report to which I refer pointed out that one in every ten old age pensioners living on their own in Limerick ate square meals less often than weekly—imagine one out of every ten old age pensioners in Limerick did not even have a square meal a week—38 per cent of the old age pensioners living on their own in the city of Limerick have a square meal twice a week only; only 50 per cent of the old age pensioners have a square meal once a week.

In Dublin and elsewhere throughout the country, the authorities in charge of geriatric hospitals have daily evidence of the fact that old people come under their care in institutions grossly undernourished. Many of them, because of undernourishment and poverty, are literally run-down human beings. After a week or two of adequate nourishment in these institutions, many of them become transformed, appear to be years younger physically and mentally, and it is not uncommon, particularly in Dublin geriatric hospitals, for such people to be restored to health and able to leave. But, time and again, such people, on release, returning to their appalling surroundings—with the inadequate provision made for them by the State —again deteriorate and have to return for a kind of transfusion of life, for a restoration to health, a restoration which is necessitated only by the grossly inadequate provision made for them in their own homes.

The Minister will recall the several pleas from the Fine Gael benches for a new approach in the matter of social welfare—that he confine his outlook and activities not merely to monetary benefits but to the many services which could provide for old people more comfort and nourishment than could ever be given by mere money payments. Many of the old folk in this land—even had they the money— would not be able to care for themselves properly. Many of them have, through years of destitution and loneliness, become incapable of managing their own affairs. This underlines the necessity of having a proper domiciliary welfare service which will ensure that all old people living on their own will receive frequent visits from sympathetic people to assist them in their physical and mental requirements.

It is also extremely important that the Minister should give support, in a tangible form. to the growing number of meals-on-wheels organisations. I am aware that a number of health authorities are giving, out of their own limited funds, grants to some of these organisations, but this means that the level of contributions made by our society to these organisations will be controlled by the extent to which local politicians believe they can impose on the ratepayers. That, notwithstanding what people think about local politicians, is a very strong brake on the amount of assistance which local authorities would like to give to these less fortunate people. Therefore, it behoves the State, whose resources are certainly much greater than those of any local authority, to make direct and significant contributions in the form of subsidies for meals-on-wheels organisations and other domiciliary welfare societies.

It was interesting to read in this wonderful report from Limerick of the desires expressed by the old folk for assistance. What they expressed desire to get were: help with household shopping, with cooking, the fetching of fuel and with laundry. These are very simple things but things about which any home revolves. These are the simple, minute matters of a human being's life which make the difference between happiness and misery. There are very many things which are not a great hardship to people in their twenties and thirties, which can impose appalling misery on people in their sixties, seventies and eighties — these simple things like household shopping, cooking, carrying fuel and laundry can impose almost impossible burdens on the elderly people in our midst.

This again underlines what we are forever saying — that mere monetary payments will not fulfil all the requirements of old folk. I am quite certain that if it would be beyond the power of the State to provide these services, it would certainly be beyond the resources of old age pensioners to pay for those services out of any pension which the State can afford to give them. But it is not beyond the resources of the State, and should not be beyond the imagination of the State —and that is a commodity which appears to be extremely scarce — to devise and encourage schemes which would provide ample help for old folk, particularly those living on their own, with household shopping, cooking, fetching of fuel and laundry. In addition, you could possibly put the bathing of elderly people, many of whom are unable to do that personal task for themselves.

The Society expressed it in this way:

It was found there is a great need in the city for practical help for old people living alone in a whole range of personal and household tasks.

The Minister will concede that the whole approach of his Department renders impossible at present the practical help which the old people of Limerick and elsewhere require so urgently. I do not think the kind of services people are looking for here are proper to a health authority as such. One can see that there is, perhaps, a need for closer association between the Departments of Health and Social Welfare in looking after elderly people, but if economic factors are to be the only yardstick by which we determine what should be done, we in Fine Gael do not think that is the proper yardstick to have in mind when considering what we should do for human beings. It is, however, the Fianna Fáil yardstick and because the present Government consider that to be of extreme and exclusive importance, I ask the Minister to bear in mind that no matter by what multiple we increase the old age pension in our lifetime, it would probably be cheaper to do so than to maintain old people, those living alone, particularly, in institutions. If the old age pension were to be trebled in order to provide for old people living alone, it would still be cheaper to do that than to be providing for them in institutions.

There is a great deal to be said in certain cases for institutional care. In many cases, there is no alternative to institutional care, but institutional care is not the kind of assistance or treatment which many old people want. What many of them want, to preserve themselves physically, mentally, morally, is an opportunity to maintain their independence and dignity. That is not always possible in an institutional atmosphere. It is not uncommon to find in geriatric hospitals a large number of old people who fail to submit to the routine and the communal spirit or communal atmosphere simply because these people were at one time self-sufficient individuals who liked their privacy and wished to have it respected; and it is a cruelty on such persons to oblige them, by an inadequate social welfare scheme, to remain in institutions. We therefore hope the Minister, who, I think, has a sympathetic heart, will also have an imaginative mind and will endeavour to see to it that social welfare in this country will take on a new dimension, a dimension of giving practical help to the less well-off sections of the community, to provide them with the daily services and the personal attentions which are more important to many of them than mere increases in their weekly monetary subscriptions.

I hope the Minister will not be tempted to question the validity of the Ignatain Sodality report. We have seen during the years Fianna Fáil Ministers query the validity of statements of people who questioned the inadequacy of our social welfare structure, and I hope we shall accept that the survey in Limerick was carried out in good faith, that it was conducted in a scientific fashion and that it was superintended by people who had the skill and the experience necessary to conduct social surveys of this kind. Apart from one comparatively amateur survey in Dublin, this is the first detailed survey in depth of the needs of old age pensioners in this country. It is very sad that that is so. We know a number of surveys have been done from time to time by the study faculties of our universities, but this is the first one which indicated to our society the real problems of our old people. We hope it will be accepted in good faith and that the Minister and his advisers will use it as a basis to conduct similar surveys in other centres. If we were to do that, it would ensure that in the not too distant future we shall bring about a fundamental alteration in our approach to social welfare which we must have if this country is to provide in our time a proper living for all sections of the community.

We are all aware that some old age pensioners have benefited by the facilities for free travel on public transport. It is a pity, however, that this improvement has been qualified by a number of unnecessary restrictions. We in Fine Gael have asked the Minister to amend the regulations so as to obviate the necessity for old people to carry around their pension books in unsafe places. There is an exhortation on pension books to people to keep them in safe places. I do not think a handbag or a pocket, possibly with a hole at the bottom of it, is the safest of places to be carrying around pension books; and to oblige elderly people to have their pension books always with them is not a prudent way to operate a free travel scheme. In other parts of the world, we know that travel vouchers are issued to facilitate the operation of similar schemes for old age pensioners. We urge the Minister to provide travel passes or vouchers, whatever one may call them, as a substitute for pension books. Otherwise, a large number of these books will be mislaid while being carried about outside their homes by elderly people for the purpose of getting free transport.

Last week I asked the Minister a question about the difficulties which have arisen for spouses of contributory old age pensioners in obtaining free travel facilities by reason of their names not appearing on contributory old age pension books issued in respect of a pensioner and his old age pensioner spouse. The Minister's reply was:

Since the beginning of October, the free travel facilities have been extended to include spouses aged 70 and over of old age (contributory) pensioners for whom increases of pension are payable. To enable those so qualified to avail themselves of the extension, separate pension books are issued to husband and wife on application to my Department.

Does that not exhibit a lack of appreciation of the simple fact that most of our people, irrespective of their age group, have a disinclination to write and that the elderly, people of 70 and over, are particularly disinclined to sit down to write formal applications to a mighty department of State?

I urge the Minister not to make it a condition precedent to getting a voucher for a spouse to apply to the Department. The Minister's Department already know the number of contributory old age pensioners who have spouses. All that is necessary is when next communicating with such pensioners to send out a travel voucher for the spouse. Earlier, I emphasised that we should prefer to see the travel voucher issued to all pensioners. We should prefer to see a travel voucher for the book-holder as well as for the spouse. If the Minister is still disinclined to give separate passes to all pensioners, we ask him at least to send them out without delay and without requiring applicants to write in for them. It is a simple request and I hope the Minister will receive it well and implement it.

Last year, when the Minister was replying to my contribution to this debate, he queried the emphasis which we in Fine Gael were putting on social obligations which would lie on this country in the event of our becoming a member of EEC. Whether or not, in the light of what has happened in the past few days, one should regard this as imminent is hardly appropriate to this debate and, therefore, I do not propose to develop it except to say that the Minister and the Government ought to be aware that an increasing emphasis is being put by the six members of EEC on the need to harmonise upwards all social welfare schemes.

We do not make light of the difficulty of harmonising the welfare schemes in Europe or anywhere else. We readily agree that there is an immense variation in welfare schemes between the existing members of EEC. The members of EEC are themselves keenly aware of this. That is why they now have their permanent Social Commission which is endeavouring to iron out these very difficulties. We are sticking our heads in the sand in pretending that, by ignoring the necessity for such nations to harmonise their schemes, we avoid the need to do anything ourselves. We have far more need to harmonise upwards than any of the six members of EEC. We are far behind in our social welfare code. We are particularly far behind in relation to family allowances.

This country has a tradition of family life without parallel in Europe yet we have the worst family allowances. We hope for a substantial improvement in family allowances whenever the Government again come to consider the redistribution of the nation's income. It may well be that the economy is not developing as fast as we would wish but this does not require that redistribution of the national income be delayed. One of the greatest fallacies of our time—repeated again and again by Fianna Fáil Ministers—is that social welfare improvements cannot take place without an increase in the wealth of the nation. That would be valid if nobody in the community were at any higher level than that of mere subsistence.

We know there are many inequalities in our midst. There are many people extremely wealthy. There are some whose wealth is growing and whose wealth is untapped by the society upon which they are growing. We do not consider it unfair to ask such people to make a contribution in tax commensurate with the wealth they are receiving from the community. Only by a fairer redistribution of our national income can we achieve justice.

Mr. Cluskey

Hear, hear.

Mr. Ryan

Only by rejecting the basically false theory that we cannot have improvement in social welfare without increase in national wealth can we set about carrying out improvements here and now. If we are forever to wait the day when we shall have so much wealth that nobody will feel a shortage if there is a redistribution we shall never achieve social justice in our time. There is a need for drastic changes in our whole social structure. There is a need for fundamental rethinking on what our social services should be. We shall not get that fundamental rethinking so long as a Minister for Social Welfare allows himself to be slapped down by the Department of Finance every time he goes with his hand out. What we need as a Minister for Social Welfare is an Oliver Twist who will always come looking for more and who will refuse to accept just one bowl of porridge for the people who have been assigned to his care.

There is plenty available in this country for redistribution, as things are. If we, tomorrow, were to become a member of EEC, it is certain that we should have to make drastic improvements in our social services because we should not be allowed into an economic community if we failed to look after the less fortunate in our midst. If our economy failed to support the less fortunate we should be, from a financial point of view, in a position of unfair advantage as against our trade competitors and it is certain that we just should not be permitted to do that.

A few years ago—even up to five years ago—it would have been true to say that the social obligations of EEC were not paramount in the considerations of the members of the community. Things have been changing drastically in the past five years. Every year, the Budgets of the various countries show clearly an endeavour to harmonise the social welfare code and this will have to be done here if we are ever to be capable of membership of that Community. Even if we never joined the Community—and that may well be—we must still within our own house carry out a redistribution in order to banish from our land once and for all the poverty, the loneliness and the destitution which are still all too common. Some people do not believe just how bad it is and when you consider that in this city 2½ million free dinners a year have to be given you get some idea of the gigantic pool of untouched, unrelieved poverty, of actual destitution which exists. The fact that so much exists and has to be relieved by free dinners from the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers' Society and other charitable organisations, should shock us into realisation that something drastic must be done.

We in Fine Gael want once again to appeal to the Minister to get away from the present flat-rate social welfare contribution system. A system which is related to what the lowest earner in the community can afford to pay will not give an adequate welfare benefit to anybody who is above the lowest level. We urge the Minister, within the coming year, to make a special effort to bring in a wage related social welfare structure. We would also urge him to bring in an adequate scheme of retirement pensions. The contributory pension which we have for old age pensions at 70 is not sufficient. We still have an appalling and illogical gap between 65 and 70. This gap will have to be closed and closed in our time. It is extraordinary how reluctant the Minister for Social Welfare appears to be in bringing about reforms which the vast majority of people urgently require. Any scheme which has been related to contributions from people who are earning has been able to sell itself when the people contributing to it appreciated that they were going to benefit by the contribution which they had made. There is a growing anxiety about this five-year lean period between 65 and 70 that we will have to close and close rapidly. The best way of doing it is probably through a scheme of wage-related retirement pensions. We would again urge the Minister to consider this.

We will have to get away from the conception that social welfare should be like an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff to provide first aid when a person falls over. We want a social welfare scheme which will stop people going to the edge of the cliff, which will stop them falling over, stop them from hurting themselves when they fall. Any society which fails to do that is miserable and is certainly undeserving of calling itself progressive or advanced. There are very many techniques in our society which make it possible to prevent people from going to the edge of the cliff and hurting themselves when they fall over, without causing pain. As I said earlier, any worthwhile scheme which will avoid the hardship of retirement for old age will sell itself if it is honestly constructed and properly worked.

I want to refer to one aspect of free travel which I omitted to mention earlier when dealing with the matter. We have in our midst a large number of Irish people who were, in the past, obliged by circumstances, through lack of employment opportunities, or the like, to seek their living in Great Britain. Many of these people, thank God, have come back in the autumn of their days to live again in the land that gave them birth. Many of these people, even when they were working in foreign lands, always fought this country's corner and were as loyal members of our Irish society as the rest of us who were lucky enough—I suppose one can associate luck with the blessings of God—to be left at home. That is the only reason why very many of us have remained at home and it was simply bad luck that drove many of our emigrants abroad and not any personal desire for fortune or for the green hills far away. It is entirely wrong that we should withhold from such people who have returned here and now hold British pensions the benefit, if such you can call it, of free travel and free electricity.

It will not create any impossible administrative difficulties for the Minister to provide that all the old age pensioners, irrespective of the State from which they receive their pensions, will have these free travel facilities. I do not know whether—the Minister may be able to answer this—Irish pensioners living in Britain are entitled to travel free on the various transport systems which operate there and have schemes of free travel for elderly people. Indeed, until recently it is possible that many Irish emigrants abroad did not receive pensions at all, but irrespective of any scheme of exchange between here and Britain I would urge the Minister to do the decent thing by these British pensioners, most of whom are Irish, and provide that they would receive these facilities. It would impose a negligible burden on the Exchequer to provide these facilities. The land that gave them birth owes them that much in the autumn of their days. Many of these have incomes from British pensions which admittedly are much higher than what they would receive from their own State but that is something by which this country is benefiting. We have the benefit of their income. Very few, if any, of these people make any demands on us by way of home assistance or the like because of the size of their pensions, but it would be a right and proper gesture if the Minister saw fit to provide these people with that small benefit which is enjoyed by their fellow Irish men and women who are receiving pensions from this State.

Finally, I am glad, as the Minister reminded us, that within the past year we have at long last provided that our old folk who go to live with their families abroad can in future continue to enjoy their pensions. I should like to thank the Minister for accepting our plea to him in this regard. We thought it a shocking state of affairs that we were preventing many of our old folk from joining their children abroad——

Mr. Dillon

They cannot join them at home without losing 5/- a week.

Mr. Ryan

That is true. Many of them, if they did go abroad, found themselves in the situation that they became utterly dependent on their children there for a home. Because of pride and the wish to maintain their independence at the end of their days, many of them remained at home, although they would have been much happier and their children would have been much happier to have them with them. We have at last done away with that harsh and unjustifiable rule. There are many other rules which are equally without justification. We would plead with the Minister that, as he has broken the ice in regard to that particular one-time frozen problem, would he see to it that a general thaw would occur and that we might at long last melt away some of the restrictions in his Department which are causing immeasurable human misery and are wholly unnecessary to preserve the revenues of this State? If we cannot afford to look after the least in our midst, we are not worthy to be called a nation at all.

Mr. Cluskey

I think it would be fair comment to say of the Minister's introductory speech that it was, to put it mildly, disappointing. That the two and a half pages of the Minister's speech represent his thoughts and those of the Government on the problems facing those who come under his care and jurisdiction can only prove to be a tremendous disappointment. I am sure a feeling of utter despair will descend on many of these people when they realise that this would appear to represent the thoughts and intentions of the Fianna Fáil Government in regard to these questions. We know from recent reports from Limerick and Kildare of the really frightening and appalling conditions in which our old people—people either solely or partly dependent on the old age pension—are living. We know many of them are barely existing on the borderline of starvation.

In this country we pride ourselves— God knows, we shout it often enough —on being a Christian country. If we are to be judged by the way we treat our old and infirm, we are not deserving of the name "Christian". Most people here have read stories of Indian tribes in North America who sent their old out into the wilderness to die. We are less civilised because we keep them in our midst and watch them die of starvation. This is not a subject on which one should try to score political points. Knowing the situation that exists, it is far too serious and too horrifying to take advantage of it just for the sake of scoring cheap political points. But I would implore the Minister to get the Cabinet to realise that these people must have some financial assistance from the rest of the community. That can only be provided by the Government which represents the community.

Apart from our old people, there are many areas where one could be justifiably dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the level of benefits and social welfare services. A serious situation faces a number of our people in regard to children's allowances. Apart from our old people, one of the greatest areas of poverty exists in an ordinary family, where the father earns an average wage and there are a number of young children. The Minister will agree that our level of children's allowance payments is totally inadequate. It is not hard to imagine the hardship imposed on a young man and woman with five or six school-going children to try to provide even the bare necessaries. The gap that exists between our level of children's allowances and that of other countries is not decreasing; it is increasing. As has been mentioned, with our aspirations to enter the EEC these services will require an upward adjustment. But the situation that faces us now is that, instead of catching up with more progressive societies in this respect, the gap seems to be widening. I am sure the Minister is aware that next April it is intended to increase children's allowances in Northern Ireland. When that is done, in many cases children's allowances there will be two and a half times greater than they are here. This is something which the Minister could very well examine.

Social welfare, as far as the Government are concerned, is very definitely the poor relation. We get the odd half-crown or 5/-, but surely it has penetrated the Cabinet that their whole conception of what social welfare should be is completely wrong? Surely they realise that a new approach is necessary? We have managed to get across to other Parties at least some of the changes we think necessary and desirable. Deputy Ryan suggested that these payments, both benefit and contributions, should be changed, that they should be related to the salary or wage and that they should go up accordingly. If there is no relationship between what a person will qualify for if he becomes unemployed or ill, in a very short space of time, tremendous difficulties can arise in a household, and even if the man is unemployed or ill for only a short period, it will take him a very long time to get out of the financial mess in which he can find himself because of the way our social benefits are paid.

It is a well known and accepted fact that people tend to live up to their income, regardless of what it may be. A person who becomes unemployed, even for a relatively short period, can have very heavy commitments in respect of repayments on a house, hire purchase on furniture, television and many other things, weekly payments to which he has committed himself in anticipation of continued employment. Then he finds, if he is unfortunate enough to become unemployed, that what he will receive has no relationship whatsoever to what he normally received when he was employed.

Deputy Ryan mentioned the fact that what we needed was a realisation by the Government that it was not necessary for us to increase our productivity of our national income in order to relieve some of the great hardship that existed. He said we needed to realise that, in effect, what social welfare was all about was a proper distribution of the national income, that people who had the benefit of the necessaries and the luxuries of life should be made to realise that they had a duty and an obligation to those who were less fortunate than themselves, and that the Government had a very definite duty to see that there was more equitable distribution of the national income.

When one thinks of the wealth that exists in certain sections and among certain people in the community, and then looks at the other end of the scale and sees the really deplorable poverty and misery that exist and realises that very little is being done by the Government to try to ensure a somewhat better balance, one wonders how they can justify their inactivity in this field. There is no doubt in the world that both can be found side by side.

I think all Parties will advocate that social benefits be raised, and I wonder why the necessary steps are not taken by the Government to ensure that they are raised. I do not really believe the Minister is unconcerned or callous as regards some of the disclosures that have been made recently about old people, but I do believe he is unable to get his view accepted by his colleagues in the Cabinet. Therefore, I would join with the previous speaker in urging the Minister to be a little more forceful with his colleagues and try to have them realise that it is not the wish of the vast majority of the Irish people that our old, disabled and infirm should continue to be treated in the way in which we have treated them since the foundation of this State.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

First of all, I want to express my appreciation of the constructive approach to the debate by the speakers from the two opposite Parties and to say that, while the temptation is always there to cash in, so to speak, on this rather emotional subject, I do not think they overplayed it to any great extent, except that the last speaker used all the adjectives and superlatives he could command to condemn poverty. That it persists in relation to some sections I do not admit. I want to say at once—but I do not want to be put on the defensive—that I believe I am as sympathetic to those people as anybody could be and hope in my time to do everything I can for them. I do not accept that this extreme poverty and dire hardship exist which would seem to be revealed by the report or survey carried out to a rather limited extent in Limerick.

I want to deal with some of the points raised before dealing in a general way with the social welfare code and the intentions we may have in regard to the future and the redistribution of national income in respect of the weaker sections. First, this Limerick survey was carried out last autumn. I should not like to attribute anything to the people concerned except the highest motives of altruism, but at the same time we cannot accept it as being a study in depth as Deputy Ryan suggested. Carried out last autumn, the report only came out recently and I had to seek a copy of it. I obtained one which I have here. We must remember that the Budget has intervened and we have done much for the people concerned since then. According to the 1965 Statistical Bulletin, there were 4.163 people over the age of 65 in Limerick, and 528 of these lived alone. This Ignatian Sodality interviewed 64 of these. I have not got the names; perhaps they have good reason for not disclosing the names. I do not think any social workers or societies dealing with social work—and there are a few very good ones in Limerick—are aware of their names so far as any investigation or probing I have been able to carry out revealed.

Perhaps the purpose of carrying out a survey of this type was to provoke discussion on a subject with which everybody is sympathetic. If it does that, it will do a lot of good because the amount of benefit any Minister can give in the last analysis to the weaker sections is measured by the extent of public sympathy and the people's willingness to contribute for the benefit of those sections. There is an awakening of the public conscience in recent years which makes it easier to come to their aid and to impose the necessary taxes or get the money where necessary to make better and wider provision for these sections of our people.

The report of the Limerick survey did more than set out the number of people who did not enjoy many square meals, as they have put it. It also highlighted many other problems which I doubt if the Department, with all the sociologists they may be able to employ, could remedy. I agree with Deputy Ryan that no monetary payment we can make to these people could possibly replace the kind word and the affection of relatives and friends and people near to them and to whom they should be held in endearment in their old age. I think that as social welfare has crept in, there is a tendency—I touched on this last year also — for people to think that the Department will look after these needy people and there may be a falling off in the amount of attention which old people could get, did get and should get from friends and relatives and their immediate families in some cases. No payment can make up for this.

Recently a report was published in some of the British papers, and also in some sections of the Irish press, regarding a survey carried out by a professional team in England. The big feature of the report was the loneliness among the older people. This is something which money payments can help but not completely eradicate or obviate. This is what we had in mind when we permitted free travel. Some people said: "Why not give them money instead?" We felt free travel would enable them to get around and not be so much confined to the house. If we had some restrictions, it was because we selected the best and easiest times for them to get about, to avoid the rush hours and generally to find the most suitable periods for them. We had no desire to curtail the amount of enjoyment they might get from free travel facilities. which I would hope they would use to the utmost. We have left pretty wide scope for them to do that.

Before going back to deal with the Limerick report, I want to refer to free travel and the comments made on the question of the book being used rather than vouchers. I answered a question about this the other day. The matter was given serious consideration in my Department, in consultation with people from the Department of Transport and Power and Finance. It was decided to have the book used rather than vouchers. For one reason, this enabled us to get the scheme going immediately rather than wait to have a couple of hundred thousand passes prepared. It is also a safe means and less likely to be used irregularly or abused. There are not many better places for the pensioner's book than in his own pocket. There is the likelihood that the book may get more use but we are producing a new book at the beginning of next January which will have printed on the outside cover what is now the inset sticker in the book. We shall also provide a transparent plastic cover enabling the book to be shown without being opened and I do not think this will submit the holder to any humiliation. It will also enable the book to be kept safely, and altogether I think it is a good enough arrangement.

These facilities were given on a nation-wide basis, even though this was our first effort. I do not think any other Government have gone that far; their schemes are mostly on a municipal basis and confined to cities or within particular boundaries. We gave it on a nation-wide basis to those in receipt of pensions from the Department of Social Welfare. I have great sympathy with those making the case for British pensioners. This is only one of a number of things that are being considered at the moment, the extension of facilities to other old age pensioners. We have more pensioners than British old age pensioners living in this country, quite a number, but again the American social welfare pensioners are considerably better paid than either British or Irish pensioners. Yet, they are old people who in many cases have returned to live here and a case could be made for them also.

There is also the question of the many old people who live along the Border, whose movements necessitate crossing in and out. The likelihood of having some reciprocity with regard to the use of transport cross-Border is something I am anxious to have considered. The scheme, everybody agrees, is a very good scheme and is aimed at providing one of the most essential amenities in the life of old people, namely, ability to travel. There will be anomalies, inevitably, and we will be able to deal with them as time goes on, and I would hope that in time it will be possible to tidy up the loose ends, wherever they exist.

The Limerick survey highlighted one particular matter which was not fully appreciated by the Opposition here when we adopted some ameliorative measures. It highlighted the fact that there are many old age pensioners who are in a worse position than others. For that reason, some time ago my predecessor introduced the "nil-means" section. He thought he was doing a very genuine thing when he introduced the new nil-means section in our means assessment in order to get through to the worst off section of that community of the old aged. He made an award to those who were held to have no means. For the first time, the position of persons living alone and who have no means was highlighted. There are many such persons. The innovation met with a good deal of criticism but members of the Opposition, on second thoughts, should appreciated the establishment of that nil-means section. Even though anomalies will occur in marginal cases, it was a definite move in the right direction but which, however, was not fully appreciated. That controversial 5/- has now been extended to about 18,000 pensioners. It was a very commendable effort. If this report did anything worthwhile, it highlighted the fact that some sections are considerably worse off than others.

The same fact was acknowledged when we gave the relief in the case of ESB payments for persons living alone. By this means, we encouraged recipients to use more light and heat in order to give themselves a better standard. We considered that that was much better than giving monetary increases because of the encouragement it gave to recipients to give themselves that amount of comfort of which they might deprive themselves, even if they had the necessary money. Human nature being what it is, the behaviour of people varies, especially in old age. This is where the human contact is so important and where Deputy Ryan's sociology might be very useful if applied at local level, if people who are not trained to take care of themselves could be encouraged to do so by social workers.

I should like to pay tribute to the social workers in various areas, including Limerick, who do so much for old persons, disabled persons and blind persons which it would not be possible for my Department to do without the adequate contacts at local level which only local committees can have.

I had a visit recently from some French people who were over here for the purpose of establishing on an international basis an organisation for the care of the aged. They visited many people here and promised to send me the constitution of their organisation. I mention this because it goes to show that in spite of all that the countries —I think there are 18 countries— participating in this organisation may be able to do more generously than we have been able to do, there still arises the need for social organisations and societies which can do so much good on the spot where it would not be possible for us to get through. I hope that the evidence of a re-awakening of the public conscience and the obvious increasing sympathy for the weaker sections will make it easier for the Minister for Social Welfare in the future to adjust payments more in line with what would be necessary to provide a modest standard for these people.

It has been said that we are merely keeping step with increasing costs. I should point out in regard to the last increase given to these people that, on a statistical examination of the increased cost of living, 2/- would have been the appropriate amount to cover the increased cost and to keep in step but we decided to abandon that principle, if it ever existed, and gave them 5/-. I would hope that in so far as social welfare payments are concerned, we will get more and more away from the conception of having the payment related to movements in the cost of living or, indeed, to improvements in economic standards. People have come to realise that there is a minimum which should apply in these cases and we will gladly face that obligation in our contributions towards that improvement.

I should like to support any scheme that would tend towards keeping old persons out of public institutions, except when it is their own free will to go there or when geriatric nursing is necessary which in some cases could not be given at home. The rising cost of maintaining old persons, disabled persons and destitute persons in institutions is a very good arguments in favour of increasing benefits to enable them to remain at home and in the many aspects of the social welfare code which I have under consideration in my Department at the present time, this is dominating our thinking to a great extent, and there are many things we will have to face as soon as schemes can be formulated and accepted and given Government approval. Right now I am engaged in my Department in having a code compiled, not what one would term a new social welfare code, because I think all the things we are doing are absolutely essential and would form the basis of any social welfare code we are ever likely to operate. There are places where expansion is necessary. There are places where improvement can be effected and, of course, at all times the code is open to improvement of rates, either in benefit or assistance.

When the Social Welfare Bill was before the House last year I said that in so far as it was possible for me to study the social welfare codes of the various countries of the EEC, I was agreeably surprised to find that we were not too much behind, particularly in the range of our social welfare, and in many cases on the rates side. I was happy to note that the harmonisation about which Deputies have already spoken would not be so difficult. While "harmonisation" is the word used in the Rome Treaty, there is a very long way to go before anything like harmonisation can be got. Indeed, not much progress has been made, but there is a deliberate attempt to move towards that, and to have social welfare based on the actual requirements of the weaker sections, rather than attaching to the shifting economic situation in each country.

I would hope that we will not be the last in moving towards that. Irrespective of whether we enter the Common Market, it is inevitable that we must move at some time towards reducing the age at which old age pensions are paid. That is a big undertaking and a costly one, but we can, and will, I hope in the not far distant future, take steps in that direction. That is one of the many things we have under consideration. I do not think there is any aspects of the whole social welfare code vis-à-vis any of the countries of the EEC that we have not examined in relation to our own. We have practically every aspect under consideration in so far as it is possible to set out guidelines for future social welfare in this country. I would not hope to publish that as a new deal in social welfare. I would like rather to retain it as a means of expanding and furthering and improving social welfare as time goes on, taking the most needful section at first.

Social assistance, that side of welfare which is not supported by insurance, is a heavy drain and any increase in that direction requires a great deal of money. I should like to see more and more on the contribution side and to have further examined the possibility of extending both compulsory and/or voluntary insurance to bring in more people who might wish to participate in the benefits available on the social insurance side on a contributory basis.

We must always have regard for those who contribute towards their security as opposed to those who must be entirely supported out of the Exchequer on the assistance side. We must necessarily have a reasonable gap, a differential, that will induce people to endeavour to have as many contributions as possible to their credit in order to make provision for the rainy day, for old age, sickness, unemployment, redundancy and so forth. The emphasis must be in that direction as much as possible. By doing that, we are automatically placing ourselves in a position to have fewer on the assistance side, and thereby able to improve their position.

A number of social assistance schemes are being operated throughout the country by the different local authorities. There are home assistance, free boots, assistance schemes for children's footwear, disability payments, assistance towards people who are not on any insurance records. We must at some stage bring these under the one umbrella. There are pros and cons, I am prepared to admit. Investigation at local level can sometimes get more intimately to the core of a problem, but I do not think that would be an insurmountable barrier against having them administered on a national basis, because we could still use the investigation services and perhaps supplement the services of the local authorities.

These are some of the thoughts I have on the future of social welfare generally and I think that, on examinations, many will be found to be sound, and tending towards a general improvement of the whole service. I would like to assure Deputies that a good heart alone and all the imagination in the world which Deputy Ryan exhorted me to produce will not solve these problems. There must be an immediate recognition that they must be paid for. A good heart on the part of the public who have to pay is also a very essential ingredient in the success of a general improvement in any of these schemes to assist the weaker sections.

Deputy Cluskey suggested that children's allowances should be considerably increased. I am sure this is one very useful payment with tremendous benefits in many homes, but it is also one of the few things paid out without any means test, and it is very often paid to homes where they could very easily live without it. On the noncontributory old age pension side, I have always stood out against people who suggested no means test. There might come a day when we could have no means test, but I cannot see it, because rather than extend payments on a no means test basis for non-contributory old age and widows' pensions, I should prefer that the extra money, the extra millions, which would be required for that would go to give better payments to those who qualify now under the means test.

I am not sure that children's allowances should have been administered on the same basis. That is something worth thinking about. There are families who find them of tremendous benefit but there are others who have little regard for them, and if I were sure it would not cost too much to have a means test, I should like to use the money I would save to give considerable improvements to those who would be entitled to it on a modest means test. But that is something upon which I have not taken a decision. I do not want to be misquoted. It is something to which I am giving a great deal of thought.

All aspects of the social welfare code have come under consideration in recent times, possibly of necessity because of our impending accession to the EEC, whether that be imminent or otherwise.

Mr. Ryan

Otherwise, I think.

Mr. J. Brennan

Whether imminent or otherwise, it is ultimately inevitable. In any event, it is imperative that we should make ourselves, as far as possible, better equipped to harmonise with the other nations who are already enjoying membership of the Community.

I should like those who have spoken about the Limerick report, a report which I think is unduly damaging, to remember that that investigation was carried out in September, 1966, and before the benefits conferred by the last Budget in relation to electricity and free travel.

Mr. Ryan

I do not think the report mentioned bus fares or electricity.

Mr. J. Brennan

That is the point I am making. These benefits were not there when the survey was carried out.

Mr. Ryan

The survey did not complain about these things.

Mr. J. Brennan

No. Neither did it suggest these ameliorations of conditions. We were three jumps ahead of the people who made that survey. But these are benefits which the report would suggest were essential because it did mention things other than money as being important and we believe that anything that enables these people to enjoy life better is of more importance than money.

Deputy Cluskey complained about the shortness of my introductory statement. He must have forgotten that this is at least the third speech I have made on social welfare in a short time. We had the Bill; we had the Supplementary Estimate. On these, I covered the whole field as far as I could. My speech tonight may have been short, but multum in parvo; it covers everything. If there are any points raised by Deputies which I have not covered, we will have a look at the Official Report and take them into consideration.

I do not think the rather strong condemnation of Deputy Cluskey was justified. He talked about poverty stalking some sections of our community. The approach of the other speakers was constructive. This is not a matter on which Deputies should try to ride home, as it were, on the emotions of the weaker sections among us. We should combine in making the public conscience realise that much more can be and must be done in the years ahead. As one Deputy said the other day, there are sections, under social insurance and social assistance, who can wait, but the old people cannot wait too long because time marches on. The more we do for them before they pass on, the better I will be pleased. I assure the House I will lose no opportunity of improving their lot on every possible occasion.

I thank the House for its very considerate approach to the Estimate.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.55 p. m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 25th October, 1967.