Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Mar 1970

Vol. 245 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47: Social Welfare.

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £7,542,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, 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.

—(Minister for Social Welfare.)

Mr. P. Barry

Last night, I was coming to the point that the lack of concern for those among us who have been deprived or who no longer can contribute to our general welfare is shown in our treatment of these people. We owe them as much as we can do for them if only for the rather selfish motive that, some day, we may find ourselves in the same position. It is essential that we strive to the utmost to lighten the burden of widows, orphans and old age pensioners who are deprived of their health and strength and who can no longer fend for themselves.

We learn that there are 112,000 non-contributory old age pensioners in our community. A medical card should automatically be issued to them. I understand this was promised some time ago. It appears that there will be no trouble about issuing a medical card to a non-contributory old age pensioner, on application. The snag is that they have to go through the whole machinery of having to apply for it and of submitting to a means test. There should be some liaison in this matter between the Departments of Social Welfare and Health so that this card will automatically be issued.

Teachtaí Dála and public representatives are often accused of getting fat on the misery of others by making representations on behalf of people and pretending they are getting some benefit for them for the sake of getting their support later on in elections. I suppose there is a slight element of truth in that but it is not the whole truth. I do not think any Teachta Dála or public representative would have the gall to say to any person, in effect: "You could not get this but for my intervention".

Very often, people do not know whom to approach when they have a problem. The man they vote for is the only man they can go to and say, in effect: "I did something for you and now I shall be glad if you would do something for me". It is rare that a public representative will try to pretend that it was through his intervention that some favour was received for a person. In point of fact, it should not be necessary for people to have to approach public representatives to find out their entitlements. There should be sufficient social workers in our community for this purpose, particularly in built-up areas in cities. In rural districts, there is more intercommunication between households and one can approach the teacher, the curate, the neighbours or whoever is around. In vast anonymous housing estates put up by corporations, people live their own lives and it sometimes happens that they do not know their neighbours living next door.

I am aware that there has been a move for the provision of social workers but there are not enough of them yet to enable them to become intimately acquainted with the problems of the people in the area in which they serve. Although this matter is more pertinent to the Estimate for the Department of Local Government, a case in point is evictions from corporation houses which could be avoided if there were social workers in the employment of the Department of Local Government. I have always felt it is appalling that, if an man does not pay the rent, his wife and children are thrown out on the street for his sins.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. P. Barry

I know. All of these miseries in big corporation estates could be avoided if there were social workers. Furthermore, when people leave small one-roomed flats and move into local authority houses the social worker should be there to call on the wife and to explain to her whatever she should know about the payment of the rent, and so on, and to instruct her in the various problems she may be confronted with.

The amount of money necessary to subsidise the workshop for the blind is frightening. I cannot understand it. I am sure the voluntary bodies looking after this are doing their best but the fact that the subsidy amounts to £700 a year for the 60 people employed there makes one wonder, as Deputy Browne said last night, if this job is producing what the public want, or if a hard look should not be taken at it to see if it could be organised in another way, or if the people working there could be trained to do some other work.

Mr. Tully

I see the Minister, like myself, has in his hand a little red book, a respectable red book.

Mr. Boland

I have not.

Mr. Tully

The Minister had it a minute ago but I will not quarrel on a point of time. This little book should be in the possession of every insured person. I do not know how it can be got out to them but everybody who claims to be in any way associated with the social welfare services or who is interested at all in the rights of the people in this respect should have this little book in his or her possession. It is issued every year, it is called "SW4", and this year it happens to be red. It is an excellent document and it has improved in successive years, additional information being included in it. If it were distributed more widely the people Deputy P. Barry suggested should be appointed to tell people their rights would hardly be necessary because this gives a fairly good amount of detail on these matters.

Let me say something which may not be popular. It seems that knocking social welfare officials is a popular pastime in this country and in this House. I must say, however, that except on a few rare occasions I have met with nothing but courtesy from social welfare officials, particularly those at head office level. They seem to be prepared to go out of their way in an effort to see that applicants get what they are entitled to.

Unfortunately, however, from time to time, because of peculiar regulations, they are precluded from giving benefits to which people are entitled. Sometimes it may be that because of the way in which a regulation is read there are delays in the inclusion of people for participation in benefits to which they are entitled. A lot of ground is often covered, particularly in the case of those who have been employed in Britain, because of transfer of stamps or the exchange of information about stamps. Because of this we sometimes find unfortunate people left in a pretty bad position due to delays in getting benefits to which they are entitled and which are paid ultimately.

Perhaps the Minister would endeavour to get a little more co-operation in this matter from the British authorities. I am told they are reasonably co-operative but it appears to me and to many people that delays are much too great. The Minister might look for more co-operation from the British.

There are a couple of points I wish to put to the Minister and perhaps he might comment on them. First of all, I have on numerous occasions expressed the view here that I cannot see any good reason why a man or woman who has been drawing benefit and who after a period on unemployment assistance, if he or she has fewer than 156 stamps, is disqualified from benefit and why such a person should be left destitute, particularly if he or she seeks disability benefits. Why can we not have disability assistance, involving a lesser amount, which could be paid to people who do not qualify for disability benefits? Many people have to apply for home assistance and have to suffer the delays that occur while awaiting payment. Will the Minister have a look at this before he brings in the Budget proposals this year?

Mr. Boland

I do not bring in Budget proposals.

Mr. Tully

I suppose the Minister does not. Civil servants make them up for him.

Mr. Boland

No, the Minister for Finance makes them up.

Mr. Tully

If the Minister does not understand what I mean I am afraid I would be ruled out of order if I tried to teach him his business.

Mr. Boland

I do not bring in Budget proposals.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is supposed to make proposals as regards social welfare. If he does not, it is no wonder that our social welfare services are at their present level.

Mr. Boland

I do not do it here. I do not bring Budget proposals before the House.

Mr. Tully

The Minister brings them before the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Boland

I certainly do.

Mr. Tully

Would the Minister be courteous enough to listen to what I am saying? Will be bring this proposal before the Minister for Finance? The Minister might agree it would be a proper thing to do. For a start, he might make a tour through his Department so that the courtesy of some of the officials there might rub off on him. Another point I should like to mention is that when somebody is excluded from drawing disability or unemployment benefit and finds he is not being deprived correctly, the appeal procedure takes too long. If the idea is to try to force people who may be swinging the lead to go back to work it is a success. However, there may be a sick man who has been certified as being ill by a doctor but who is declared "not unfit" by Departmental officials. This man may be honestly unfit for work but it takes a terribly long time to investigate it. This usually results in a sick man having to resume work and I have seen one or two cases where an unfit man died because he had to resume work. It was said that a man was sick but was not suffering from what the doctor said. In fact the person was suffering from an advanced case of lung cancer.

This is the sort of thing that should not be allowed to happen. This is a question of people trying to be really honest, taking their job seriously and deciding that a person in not unfit for work. A second doctor might decide differently and an applicant for disability benefit should be given the chance to go to another doctor.

In the case of unemployment benefit, the appeal court, as it might be called, cannot visit areas and this means putting on the long finger applications which should be dealt with reasonably quickly.

Another matter which I would like the Minister to consider is the question of the man who has been working for many years and who, during that time, has had weekly deductions made for insurance but who, when he becomes entitled to some benefit, either sickness benefit or unemployment, finds that his employer has not stamped his card. This practice has become very common. Many employers either fail to stamp cards or else they only put on portion of the required number of stamps. The latter is a particularly mean trick. I knew one man who knew so little that he put on only 24 stamps each year whereas if he had had enough intelligence to put on 26 he could possibly have got away with it. Of course, the result of that was that when the employee became ill he found he was not entitled to benefit. I know the right is there to sue an employer who is guilty of such practice but it is very little use to a man who is working and receiving only a bare subsistence wage to know that if he becomes ill he will not get benefit because the Department of Social Welfare will tell him that his card is not in order and that even if he succeeds in having the card put in order, a penalty of six weeks will be imposed which will deprive him from drawing any benefit during that period. By that time the man will probably be back at work.

The same arrangement should be made as applies in cases of occupational injuries. If a man is injured and finds that his card has not been stamped I see no reason why he should not be given benefit and let the State recover from the employer any loss that has been incurred. Another aspect of this matter is that for some extraordinary reason large firms have been known to fail in their duty to stamp insurance cards for a period of years. I can understand the odd man who employs one or two people getting away with that but I cannot understand how a firm employing 40, 50 or 100 men could succeed in getting by unnoticed. I would suggest to the Minister that not alone should there be a charge brought against those people for failing to stamp the cards but they should also be charged with fraud if they deducted the money for the stamps from the employee while failing to stamp his card.

Mr. P. Belton

The Minister is the person who should deal with this.

Mr. Tully

Yes, but for some reason a number of people seem to have been getting away with this practice. It is particularly noticeable when a firm goes bankrupt. There was a question asked here a week ago about who had the first claim on the estate as far as workmen's compensation was concerned. If a firm goes bankrupt there is not a hope in the world of collecting arrears of stamps or of recovering the loss of insurance benefit to workers. While some of us are a little critical about the activities of some of the inspectors employed by the Department, the Minister might usefully employ a few more of these men to insure against this practice. They should investigate, in particular, cases where firms who have been stamping cards for a number of years suddenly stop doing so while, at the same time, continuing in business. I know of a number of firms who did this and by so doing a great deal of hardship was caused to unfortunate men and women because they were unable to obtain the benefits to which they were entitled.

Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister is the disallowance of unemployment benefit to a man who has a small holding, not in the underdeveloped areas, let me hasten to add. Such a man may be stamping a card but when he is laid off it is adjudged by somebody in the Minister's Department that he has an income of more than 10s per day from his holding and, consequently, cannot receive any benefit. I had the experience a couple of years ago of knowing a man who had a wife and nine children and who would not have been working for hire if he could have lived off his holding. When that man was laid off he was assumed to have had more than 10s a day with the result that he was disqualified from drawing unemployment benefit although while he was working he had to stamp his cards. This is most unfair. Eventually, however, the peculiar position arose that the man was adjudged to be entitled to benefit. Incidentally, the Minister might take a little time off to explain to some of the experts, who from time to time are heard on the radio talking about social welfare matters, the difference between what they call the "dole" and unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit is benefit paid as a result of cards having been stamped.

Mr. Boland

Surely the Deputy does not expect me to explain anything to anybody on television. They do not wish to learn.

Mr. Tully

I do not know what is the Minister's association with the people on television.

Mr. Boland

I understand them anyway.

Mr. Tully

At any rate, they do not know the difference between the dole and unemployment benefit.

Mr. Boland

That is nothing unusual for those on television.

Mr. Tully

Perhaps the Minister has more time to watch television than I have.

Mr. Boland

No, thank God, I have not.

Mr. Tully

It is very annoying to somebody who has been stamping cards all his life and who finds it necessary at some stage to draw unemployment benefit to be described as drawing the dole. I do not consider that there is anything wrong if a man finds himself in such poor circumstances that it is necessary for him to draw unemployment assistance but the experts, at least, should learn the difference between unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance or the dole, as it is called. Perhaps the Minister might consider the question of those with smallholdings who are disqualified from drawing unemployment benefit in view of the case which I have mentioned concerning the man who had a wife and nine children to support.

Reference has been made here to the workshop for the blind. The reason why there is such a loss is very clear. The people employed there are being paid a wage which their representatives asked for. They are being paid a living wage but if support for the workshop is not sufficient, naturally there is a loss. Incidentally, while all of us have been complaining about what would be the results of the ESB clerks strike, I have discovered that the people who run the workshop for the blind have been billed by the ESB for a huge amount with the instruction to pay it forthwith or their current will be cut off. Apparently if one is blind, nobody gives a damn because it seems rather extraordinary that while we talk so much about helping the blind, a threat was made by a semi-State body to cut off their electric current.

Perhaps the Minister may say that he cannot listen to comments on pending legislation but the Parliamentary Secretary has recently been talking about retirement pensions at 65. If it is in order, the Minister might explain what exactly is meant by this.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would anticipate the debate on the Bill when it comes before the House.

Mr. Tully

I was hoping that the Minister might be able to release a little information which, apparently, the Parliamentary Secretary has got because otherwise he would not be talking about it. I am not suspicious because it was mentioned in Galway and not in Dublin. If it had something to offer for workers in general I imagine it would be mentioned here or in some of the bigger centres of employment.

Mr. Boland

My predecessor mentioned it.

Mr. Tully

Mentioning something and forgetting about it until it becomes politic to mention it again is not of very much use. I should like to know whether this is just something that has been dangled about without any details being given, or is there, in fact, a proposal? If there is a proposal we should be told about it.

Mr. Geoghegan

In due time.

Mr. Tully

The Parliamentary Secretary did not go into detail or, if he did, the people who were listening to him and reporting him did not seem to get the point he was making because they did not publish it. I am very interested in it and I would be glad to hear if there is any further information about it.

I believe it is possible to reduce the retiral age to 65 years without legislation. Would the Minister say if it is proposed to reduce the retiral age of people drawing old age pensions to 65 in the case of men and 60 in the case of women? It would cost very little to do this. Most people retire when they draw the old age pension. Everyone does not, but most people do. It is adjudged that a person who reaches 65 years is old and, if that is so, it might be possible to give the old age pension instead of unemployment or disability benefit.

The number on the unemployment register is very high. Do not tell me it was 80,000 or 90,000 in 1956 because I will have to repeat that in the early thirties, after Fianna Fáil had taken over for a few years, it was 132,000. That does not get us anywhere. I should like to know if the Minister has any concrete plans to deal with the problem of chronic unemployment. I notice that some Ministers are going abroad and asking skilled people to come home and telling them there is plenty of work for them. Perhaps that is so, but is there any hope of training those who are already here? I think the Minister will agree that there is no point in bringing other people home to work here if, in fact, we have a number of people who are becoming unemployable. If they do not get a job for a period of years they become unemployable. The sad fact is that when an industry closes down now usually the older people cannot find employment again and this is something which will have to be dealt with.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of redundancy would be a matter for another Minister, the Minister for Labour.

Mr. Tully

I suppose it would. I suppose the question of unemployment would be a matter for the Minister for Labour but the question of the labour exchange and the number of people signing on at the exchange is a matter for this Minister. For that reason I think a reference to this problem might not be completely out of order. However, I bow to your ruling.

There is something else which I wonder if the Minister would consider in conjunction with the Minister for Labour and a number of other Ministers, and it is very difficult to understand. People employed on public works are laid off at a certain stage of the year not because the job is finished but because it is said that there is no further money available in that financial year. These people have to sign on for unemployment benefit. Would the Minister not agree that in the case of a married man with a family, who is getting, perhaps, £7 or £8 in unemployment benefit, it would be much better for him and for the State if more money could be found to give him, perhaps, less than double that, but for which he would be prepared to work a full week? I know it is considered proper that there should be watertight compartments in State Departments but I honestly feel —and I have mentioned this on a number of occasions—that something has got to be done to deal with this problem.

There is also the question of the unemployed single person. We have been in the habit of treating an unmarried person as not having any dependants, but all of us know all the people throughout the State who are, to their credit looking after a mother who has not yet reached 70 years of age and, therefore, does not qualify for a pension, or a father who may have to stop working for one reason or another and may be drawing a small amount of disability benefit or may not be drawing benefit at all, or an invalid brother or sister. We have these people all over the country and they are all treated as single persons without dependants.

It is bad enough to treat them that way for income tax purposes but, for unemployment or sickness benefit purposes, surely it is nothing less than ridiculous that a man or woman in that category who has been working for £14 or £15 a week and keeping a home for a dependant relative should find that he or she is down to slightly over £3 a week on becoming unemployed or ill. It has been stated recently that unemployment benefit will have to be jacked up considerably but we should not have to wait until some group of experts have a look at this problem. Everybody who knows anything about social welfare must be aware that that is so.

Because of the fact that there are so many other Estimates which have to be cleared today I will not detain the House any longer on this Estimate. There are quite a number of matters I should like to mention but I will conclude by saying that there are very many people who are working for their living and who have come to the conclusion that they are not getting value for the amount of money which they have to pay for an insurance stamp. It was all right some years ago when their share of the stamp was less than 2s. The employed person is now paying 12s 10d and the employer is paying 15s 5d. That is 28s 3d per week out of his wages. Surely that means that he is entitled to something better than he is getting at the moment.

Those of us whose job it is to negotiate wages for workers find it extremely difficult to persuade workers that an increase of £1 a week is of any use to them if the State takes 7s in income tax, social welfare has increased by 1s 9d from the first week in January, and the local authority take another 2s or 3s. What the unfortunate man gets out of his £1 is hardly worth bringing home. He will not get much for it anyway.

Dr. O'Donovan

I will not detain the House long on this Estimate but there is a subject which is relevant to this Estimate in which I have been interested for many years. All my experience since I first became a Deputy justifies my approach to it and my opinion on it. Before I come to it I want to make a few general remarks. The attention of the House has been drawn by a number of speakers to the fact that in that Maoist State of Western Germany unemployment benefits are double what they are in this country. They are about two-thirds of a man's wages, whereas in this country they are about one-third roughly. As I say, that occurs in that Maoist State of Western Germany.

I do not understand why the Minister made such a song and dance about the £700 a year each that the people who work in the blind workshop are costing the State. What about the £3,000 odd that the men working in the Cork dockyard are costing the State this year—£3,000 each this year in subsidy for shipping? What about that? Why was not that highlighted by the Government? Tell us about that. I could give many other examples. I do not understand why the Minister highlighted this figure of£700. It is high, but I cannot understand why it should be highlighted in the Minister's statement.

I agree with Deputy Tully that the age limit for old age pensions should be reduced. Some years ago I learned something that I did not know. We learn many things by experience. A young doctor, a friend of mine who was an intern in St. Vincent's Hospital, told me specifically that working men were brought into St. Vincent's Hospital worn out at the age of 55 years. We all know what "worn out" means. It means that they are unfit for subsequent work. Therefore, I do not think that fixing the age for old age pensions at 65 is unduly generous. I agree with Deputy Tully that most people would retire at that age.

The principal subject I want to talk about in detail is children's allowances. This Government have no interest whatever in family allowances. They were only increased last year because a general election was looming up. For years these allowances remained static. In our children's allowance system there is one stupid rule regarding the allowance for the first child. I do not know who the sociological idiot was, whether it was the Minister or a civil servant, who was responsible for putting in the first child at 10s a month. This costs £1.8 million a year, nearly £2 million.

An Ceann Comhairle

A change would require legislation and therefore we cannot proceed on those lines.

Dr. O'Donovan

Surely I can comment on the existing system?

An Ceann Comhairle

Criticism of legislation is out of order on the Estimates.

Dr. O'Donovan

I think it is fair comment that I should call it sociological idiocy.

An Ceann Comhairle

It may be fair comment but it does not arise on the Estimate.

Dr. O'Donovan

Of course, it does. That is what is in the Estimate.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is out of order on the Estimate.

Dr. O'Donovan

All right. I shall talk about the facts. The facts are that for the first child there is 10s a month, for the second child 25s a month, and for subsequent children, since the election, there is £2 a month. These amounts are all expressed per month in order to make them look some size and they were originally paid at the beginning of a month, when there were a number of by-elections looming up in 1952, in order to buy the votes.

Mr. P.J. Burke

When the Opposition were there they gave 10d a year.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy need not worry. In the last 30 years we have had a miserable system. In the booklet that was distributed recently to every Deputy The Common Market and the Common Man, it is stated that our rates for children's allowances are half what they are in England and that in England they are half what they are in France and Italy. Before the war, even at the end of the famous economic dispute with Britain, our incomes per head of the population were much higher than in France and infinitely higher than they were in Italy. These facts about the rates being half here what they are in Britain and half in Britain what they are in France and Italy are expressed in currency. Possibly the money buys more in France and Italy than it would here.

The obvious method of dealing with this matter is simply to transfer the money. Where is the real poverty? Since I became a Deputy I have found it in Crumlin and in the place the Minister pretends he knows all about, Mount Pleasant Buildings. It is in the big families, not among the people with one child. An old lady will keep a cat and an old man will keep a dog, and yet people who get married are paid to have one child. I regard this as one of the lowest things that has happened in this country, to pay people to have one child.

Mr. Sherwin

Surely the Deputy is not comparing an animal with a child?

Dr. O'Donovan

Would the young Deputy shut up? Is he even married? Would the Deputy not be a blundering idiot and behave himself?

Mr. Boland

That was part of the operation of bringing in the turnover tax.

Dr. O'Donovan

Part of the operation of bringing in the turnover tax, to pay people who get married and have one child. Big brother is looking after you. There he is.

Mr. Boland

Big brother was relieving the impact of the turnover tax.

Dr. O'Donovan

The same money could look after the big families properly. By big families I mean those with more than four children, and the increase in this Estimate would be negligible. I have made the point I want to make, but I must say that if the newcomer to the House goes in for that kind of interruption he will not make much of an impression here.

Dr. Thornley

I intend to speak for only about five minutes as the ground has been thoroughly covered. Broadly speaking we are all agreed we have not done enough to fulfil our alleged intentions under the 1916 Proclamation, the democratic programme and the social aims in the Constitution. It can be argued we have done as much as is possible within the confines of the present financial system. This is an argument which I for one would not accept, and it has been adequately demonstrated on this side of the House that the argument is false.

I should like to make one or two suggestions to the Minister within the confines of the present system. I think it is correct to say we do not live in a community with shattering, widespread poverty and misery, but we do live in a community with very considerable pockets of misery which go undiscovered. I think Deputy Barry made this point very well last night. There are particularly the aged, people who live on fixed incomes and suffer from increases in the cost of living, people who live on flat rate pensions. These people often eke out a miserable, lonely existence in their last years and unless they are rescued by the work of voluntary bodies they get no relief at all. Good as the work of those voluntary bodies is, I agree with Deputy Barry it should not be left to them to carry the onus of seeking out the misery of these unfortunate and lonely, aged and underprivileged people. We should be thinking of these pockets, these minority sections of the community who suffer in this way, particularly in discussing social welfare here.

The Department of Social Welfare, in common with the Department of Health, should look seriously into the growing incidence of nervous, psychiatric disorders, with the consequent misery they cause. As an urban Deputy in Dublin I find this problem to be a shatteringly growing one. It is a very novel one and one which neither our health nor social welfare services are geared traditionally to deal with. They are not equipped with the people or the know-how. The Department of Health are not as yet equipped with the psychiatric and epidemiological knowledge to deal with this. I know something is being done about it and I am very glad it is being done by the Medico-Social Research Board. Here I am more concerned with the consequences of this growing illness upon the wives who are left to struggle on and raise children when their husbands are suffering from nervous and psychiatric disorders.

I want to give a specific instance of a case which came my way not long ago in Ballymun of a woman with two children living in a flat there whose husband went down with just such a psychiatric disorder. This woman's total income was home assistance of £5 10s a week. She had two children; her rent was, under the famous B-scale differential rents, £2 0s 10d. Therefore, she had to raise two children on £3 9s 2d a week. Obviously something is wrong there and this sort of thing should be looked into very seriously. It is, as I say, a growing, serious problem is that the husband, overworked, worried, burdened with debt and very often in an uncongenial and frustrating environment, simply opts out and leaves the wife to sustain the family on assistance.

The point has been made over and over again—perhaps it would require legislation and therefore it is not in order here—that in this country, rather unusually, I think, in modern Western European countries, all our social welfare services are still based on what used to be known as the plimsoll line concept of early British Beveridge-style Fabianism, by which flat rate pensions are paid, flat rate social welfare allowances are paid and these have to be raised by Governmental action from time to time. Budgetary steps have to be taken which make the raising of old age pensions, for example, a political football to be kicked backwards and forwards in this House. This is unfortunate and unnecessary, and it has frequently been suggested that instead of making all these things the subject of periodic review, bickering, assessment and political point-making, such pensions might be tied to the cost of living, the consumer price index or something like that. This is a suggestion which the House should consider seriously.

The third point I wish to make is in reference to a matter on which other Deputies have spoken and I shall not, therefore, delay the House for very long on this subject. However, I must stress that in common with the growth in psychiatric disorders and with the domestic problems they cause, we are faced with the shattering problem in the growth of the problem of deserted wives. Last November when I addressed a question to the Minister and asked him if he was in a position to state the number of deserted wives in Dublin city and county he replied: "I have not got this information. I can, however, inform the Deputy that, according to the Dublin Health Authority, home assistance at a recent date was being paid to 191 women whose husbands were stated to have deserted them." Everybody knows that this figure of 191 bears absolutely no relation to the situation that exists and I suggest to the Minister that if he has not got the information he should take steps to find it out.

The final point I wish to make is in regard to children's allowances, to which Deputy O'Donovan referred. My suggestion may not be in order because it might require legislation so I shall not labour the point. I came across a typical case recently of a widower who made considerable sacrifices to put his children through secondary school up to the intermediate education level. This man's youngest child will be 16 years on the 1st April. She will sit for her intermediate certificate in June and afterwards leave school to get a job. The man asked me if it would be possible to have the children's allowance paid after she reached the age of 16 years while she was still not in gainful employment. Of course, the answer was that this was not possible. In view of the very laudable attempts being made by the Department of Education to encourage parents to keep their children in secondary education for as long as possible it might be no harm if the Department of Social Welfare would look again at the question of children's allowances and the possibility of continuing payment up to the point where the child became employed.

Everybody knows that the £25 allowance for fees is not really adequate to compensate ordinary workingclass people for the sacrifices they make in keeping children at school. Therefore, if we want to encourage people to continue their children in secondary education to the greatest degree possible it is appropriate that not merely the Department of Education should be involved in this but the Department of Social Welfare should also think of the financial loss to those parents who keep their children at school. In view of the case I mentioned perhaps the Minister might make a suggestion to the Minister for Finance regarding extension of reliefs of this kind to people who keep their children in school beyond the age of 16 years. The number of such families who make these sacrifices is increasing all the time.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. P. Belton

Is there no other speaker from Fianna Fáil except the Minister?

Mr. Geoghegan

The Deputy did not speak himself.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

I shall commence by replying to the last contribution made by Deputy Belton. As the Deputy knows, a certain amount of business has to be dealt with before the Easter recess. It has been customary for the Dáil to adjourn its activities for the Easter period—in fact, it has been customary not to have any political activity during the Easter recess but, for some reason best known to themselves, Fine Gael have decided to engage in quite an amount of political activity in this period. I can assure Deputy Belton, now that we have taken the decision to double the amount of political activity engaged in by Fine Gael during the Easter period, that they will get more than they bargained for and will have the same result in the two by-elections as they had in Dublin south west.

There is this necessity to get a certain amount of business done in this House before the Easter recess but both of the Opposition parties decided to try to frustrate this. For the last month they deliberately made a concerted effort to keep the Estimate on one Department going——

Mr. Tully

Only for the fact that Deputy P. J. Lenihan died the Minister would still be talking on Local Government.

Mr. Dowling

Deputy Belton could not get a seconder——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

Nobody would second what Deputy Belton said and you could not blame them. However, with regard to Local Government, as Deputy Tully mentioned, it is quite true that I had only commenced to reply to the many misrepresentations made by the Opposition——

Mr. Tully

What is the Minister complaining about?

Mr. Boland

——but because they were not prepared to stay here and listen, I decided that maybe I had done and said enough——

Dr. O'Donovan

Some day the Minister will not be able to stop.

Mr. Boland

——and the rest of the Opposition contributions were almost as bad as that made by Deputy FitzGerald.

Mr. P. Belton

When we were speaking on the Estimate for Local Government the Minister was annoyed that Fine Gael and Labour had so many speakers. The Minister wanted more Fianna Fáil speakers and now he will not use them. The Minister wants everything his own way.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

I shall deal with that point——

Dr. O'Donovan

I think the Minister should have a House.

Mr. Boland

I think so, too.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Boland

As I have already mentioned, the two Opposition parties, by dint of the gigantic efforts made by the two Whips, succeeded in occupying the time of the House for one whole month on the Estimate for one Department. The official records will show that the majority of Deputies in pursuance of that objective started their remarks by saying, "At this stage there is nothing new to say" but they continued to say the old things at considerable length. As I pointed out in replying to the debate on the Estimate for Local Government, it was necessary for the Fianna Fáil Whips in order that the business would be done, to restrict their Deputies who had something new to say from contributing to this debate. The debate will show that the only constructive suggestions were made from this side of the House——

Mr. P. Belton

The Party or the people?

Dr. O'Donovan

This is all irrelevant.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

As a matter of courtesy, I am dealing with the contribution made to the debate by Deputy Belton. As a result of the partial success of this joint operation by the Fine Gael and Labour Whips we are now in the position in which Fianna Fáil have had to completely restrict their own Deputies and prevent them from contributing to this debate.

Mr. R. Burke

Did the Minister restrict them from coming in to hear it as well?

Mr. P. Belton

There are very few here.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

I now have to explain to Deputy Belton that it is because of a deliberate decision that we are not co-operating on this occasion with the Fine Gael and Labour Whips in keeping this debate going and Deputy Burke and Deputy Cluskey have failed, although they did their best to get in as many speakers as they could, to keep the debate going just as Fine Gael could not keep their Private Members Motion on this subject going after the opening speech; Deputy Belton came in here and proposed the motion.

Mr. P. Belton

What has that got to do with this?

Mr. Boland

I was vague about the motion when I read it but I had an even vaguer idea of what it meant after Deputy Belton had finished. Deputy Belton came in and moved it.

Mr. P. Belton

What has that got to do with this?

Mr. Boland

He scared all his own Deputies out of the House. He could not even get someone to come in and second it. It is some years now since I have had to reply to a debate on the Department of Social Welfare. I think 1965 was the last time I had to reply to a debate on the Estimate for the Department and I really think I could give the same reply today as I gave in 1965 because the contributions from the Opposition followed the very same pattern. In a way I am glad to see there has been no change on the part of the Opposition parties to social welfare; as, in 1965 and the years before that, there is no limit to their generosity. The sky is the limit with regard to social welfare as far as the Opposition parties are concerned. That was always the position in my experience. However, the attitude is entirely different when it comes to the point of providing the money; the attitude is completely different at Budget time. Then the complaint is about the crushing burden of taxation on the taxpayer. But these two things, the Budget and the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare are, despite what Deputy Dr. O'Donovan may think, very closely linked; one is dependent on the other. The Budget is to a large extent the taking of the necessary steps——

Dr. O'Donovan

Nonsense.

Mr. Boland

——to supply the money.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is only about one-tenth of the Budget.

Mr. Boland

I know Deputy O'Donovan can solve the problem by getting the banks to write up their books.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Fianna Fáil Government gave them 7½ per cent for it.

Mr. Boland

Deputy O'Donovan would be able to solve the problem of social welfare without any taxation. Let me admit at once that, as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, we cannot build houses without money and we cannot pay social welfare benefits without money. Let me admit also that we can find no place in which to get the money except from the pockets of the people.

Dr. O'Donovan

Or the bankers. They wrote up the books.

Mr. Boland

We make arrangements every year at Budget time to take from the pockets of the people part of the money they have received over the year.

Dr. O'Donovan

More than ever before.

Mr. Boland

We take it from them and we will take more this year.

Dr. O'Donovan

You will.

Mr. Boland

We take it for the purpose of giving it to the people who are affected by any of the various contingencies covered by our social welfare schemes. The thing about it is we tell the people this and they accept it, but the Opposition prefer to adopt Deputy O'Donovan's approach: the money does not matter and there is no connection, in fact, between the Budget and the provision of social welfare benefits. I must admit that, although it is unreal, I welcome this generosity on the part of the Opposition parties. On the last occasion, in 1965, when I was dealing with the Estimate for the Department every Opposition Deputy who spoke advocated substantial expansions and innovations. That was the approach, as I remember it. It is still the approach and I have no doubt that, when the Budget comes, the approach to the Budget by the Opposition will also be the same as it always was.

Mr. P. Belton

Will the increase given be in accordance with the increase in the cost of living?

Mr. Boland

I will agree with practically everything Opposition Deputies said and all the dissension is being artificially created by Deputies like Deputy Belton. Nobody, certainly no one on this side of the House at any rate, could or would disagree with any of the suggested improvements put forward. These are all desirable. It can be taken, therefore, that we are all unanimous in regard to the objectives. The trouble is the Government have to consider these desirable things in the context of the national income and in the context of the problem of getting possession of an increasing proportion of the national income, which means, of course, of the earnings of the people. This is a problem because the taxation code is not, unfortunately, so skilfully designed as always to produce in revenue the same proportion of a changing national income. The Government have, therefore, to devise methods of either getting the same proportion of the national income or, if possible, an increasing proportion of it for all these social and other purposes.

That is the fundamental difference in approach between the Government and the Opposition. I certainly cannot argue, do not intend to argue and do not feel like arguing against any of the suggestions for improvements that were made and I do not think anyone can complain in regard to this matter of getting hold of the money from the pockets of the people for social improvements of any lack of ingenuity or assiduity on the part of the Minister for Finance at Budget time or on my part, indeed, in relation to social insurance contributions. We impose quite heavy taxation in this regard and Deputies opposite are never slow to tell us that we are doing so. I think we succeed quite skilfully in getting hold of quite a considerable proportion of the national income for these purposes. As I said, there is never any complaint about our ingenuity in doing this at Budget time. The recent by-election was, in fact, fought by the Opposition on lurid forecasts of the new methods they told the people would be adopted by the Government to get more of their money in the next Budget. So great was their success in Dublin south-west, basing the campaign on forecasts of the coming Budget, that they insisted on breaking with tradition and having by-elections conducted throughout Holy Week and Easter Week in order that they could fight these also on the basis of these lurid forecasts of what would be in the coming Budget rather than on the factual results of the financial proposals introduced by the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Clinton

We do not need a Budget to give us the news, having seen this morning's paper.

Mr. Boland

After we had waited for almost nine months to fill a vacancy and then insisted on filling it they complained we were rushing things in order to have the by-election before the Budget. They then break with tradition and decide to have an election campaign in Holy Week, in order that they can fight these two by-elections on the basis of imagination rather than on fact.

Mr. P. Belton

We moved the writ after one month. The Fianna Fáil Party did not wait a week. We moved in five weeks.

Mr. Boland

We decided if the Opposition wanted it that way they could have it on the double.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could we get back to the Estimate?

Mr. Boland

If the Opposition want it tough they will get it tough; if they want it rough they will get it rough. If they want by-election campaigns in Holy Week they can have them on the double.

Mr. P. Belton

What has this to do with the Estimate? The Minister should be ruled out of order. This has nothing to do with the Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is coming to the Estimate.

Mr. P. Belton

It is about time the Minister came to the Estimate.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

I want to admit that I could not, because I am an honest man, discuss social welfare except in the context of the Budget. When I come to the Budget I have to contrast the attitude of the Opposition Deputies who insist in dealing with these things in watertight compartments. I must point out that the attitude at Budget time is different. That is shown by the fact that they are already complaining about what they hope will be in the Budget. Their success in Dublin South West was so great that they insist on having the other by-elections also before the Budget. I want to make the Opposition a present of the information that so far as the Budget is concerned I, as Minister for Social Welfare, will be a pressure-force operating on the Minister for Finance trying to get him to take for the purposes of my Department as much as is feasible of the increased income that the people in general will have. The Opposition can make what they like of that. I will tell the people at chapel gates in Longford-Westmeath and Kildare that I will try to make sure that the Minister for Finance will make arrangements to extract more money from their pockets so that I can distribute it to the different classes of people dependent on the schemes administered by my Department.

I see no point in trying to extract from the people more than can be effectively taken. By this I mean we must take what can be taken to an extent which will not result in its being negatived by inflation. It is a very delicate operation to take the maximum amount feasible in that way. I find it frustrating to see advances in social welfare payments being swallowed up by inflation which is partly induced by the level of taxation levied at Budget time. The idea is to try to strike a balance. The Minister for Social Welfare, who is actually faced with this problem, finds that the cost of improvements is a problem that cannot be ignored. Deputy Dr. Browne and others can brush aside the problems of finance. The Government cannot do this. It is not possible to do everything which is desirable at any particular time. Contrary to what Deputies opposite have claimed, production and the per capita income in the country are limiting factors. I would prefer if this were not so. As Minister for Social Welfare, I cannot fool myself by pretending this is not so. Deputies in Opposition can pretend such things, but the Minister for Social Welfare cannot pretend.

Deputy Ryan said that the only thing wrong with this Estimate was that it was too small. I agree with that. I would like the Estimate to be considerably larger. Deputy Ryan made the point that there was a readiness on behalf of the people to accept more taxation by the State for this purpose. I hope the Deputy will say that when the Budget comes in. It is something of a fallacy that people are prepared to accept increases in taxation for this purpose. I agree that people in general do not complain very much about extra taxation imposed for this purpose, but they do not agree to give more money for this purpose because extra taxation levied in order to finance social improvements always forms a component of the next wage claim. The extra taxation is usually taken back on the double or on the treble. Often, the result of this is that the value of what is given is reduced. We have the frustrating experience of finding that the buoyancy on which we should be able to depend for social welfare improvements is, in fact, foreclosed on in advance by other sectors of the community. Every country in the world finds that it is not feasible to take an excessive amount of the people's earnings in taxation. People are not prepared to suffer any slight reduction in their own standard of living in order to improve the standard of living of the social welfare beneficiaries.

Facts do not seem to concern the Opposition Deputies. Deputy Ryan says we are not even maintaining the standard of living of social welfare recipients. I do not know how the Deputy can say that. The facts are demonstrably to the contrary. I must quote figures to show how wrong is this statement of Deputy Ryan. I propose to show the improvement which has been effected in the various social welfare schemes since 1957 during the term of office of the Fianna Fáil Government.

The cost of living figure at mid-May 1957 was 110.5. The latest figure available is for mid-November 1969, 175.1, an increase of 58.4 per cent. During that time there have been increases in every one of the social welfare schemes which have far outpaced the increase in the cost of living. The non-contributory old age pension was 24s in 1957; it is now 75s, an increase of 51s and a percentage increase of 212.5 as against an increase in the cost of living of 58.4 per cent. Deputy Ryan had the nerve to say that we had not even maintained the standard of social welfare assistance.

In addition, there are now allowances for children; there is free electricity and free travel. Some Opposition Deputies mentioned unemployment assistance on this occasion although when in office this was a service that might never have existed because it was never increased by them. Largely, because of that it is still the lowest of all our social welfare services. Unemployment assistance for the single person in the urban area has gone up in that period from 18s in 1957 to 61s 6d, an increase of 43s 6d and a percentage increase of 241.7. In a rural area the increase has been from 12s to 55s 6d, again an increase of 43s 6d and a percentage increase of 362.5 per cent. For a recipient with an adult dependant, generally speaking, that is with a wife, the increase has been from 28s in an urban area to 117s 6d, an increase of 89s 6d or 319.6 per cent. In a rural area the increase is from 20s to 109s 6d, again an increase of 89s 6d or 447.5 per cent. For a married man with a wife and four children the increase is from 38s in an urban area to 157s 6d or from 28s in a rural area to 149s 6d, a percentage increase in the urban area of 314.5 and in the rural area of 433.9.

The non-contributory widow's pension has increased from 22s 6d to 73s 6d, an increase of 51s or 226.7 per cent. In the case of a non-contributory widow with four children the increase is from 36s to 113s 6d, an increase of 77s 6d or 215.3 per cent. This occurred in a period when the cost of living figure increased by 58.4 per cent so that social assistance payments in general have outpaced the cost of living since 1957 by something approaching four to one.

Mr. P. Belton

And the repayments on a house have gone up from £1 to £7, seven times as much.

Mr. Boland

We dealt with local government matters, not comprehensively, I agree——

Dr. O'Donovan

And the price of bread is three times what it was in 1957.

Mr. Boland

——but I dealt with them on the Estimate for Local Government. I agree I did not deal with everything but I dealt with a great many of these matters including the matter the Deputy is now trying to raise when it is irrelevant.

Dr. O'Donovan

Give the whole picture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to reply in his own form.

Mr. Boland

I intend to give the whole picture. I have dealt only with social assistance payments and, to complete the picture, I want to go on to social insurance payments. Again, in the case of unemployment and disability benefits, for a cost of living increase of 58.4 per cent in the case of a single man the increase is from 30s to 75s, or 150 per cent. In the case of a married man the increase is from 45s to 137s 6d or 205.5 per cent. In the case of a married man with four children the increase is from 61s to 189s 6d, or 210.7 per cent.

Dr. O'Donovan

Tell us how much the contributions went up. Give the percentage. Tell the whole truth.

Mr. Boland

Yes, but not all at once. I shall tell the Deputy and that is the difference between this Government and the Opposition: not only did we pass the legislation giving these increases but we arranged for them to be financed also. In regard to social insurance we arranged for them to be financed in three different ways, by contributions from the employer, from the employee and the taxpayer, all exacted compulsorily by the State. In regard to contributory widow's pensions—I suppose I need not go back over it all so that Deputies will not lose the trend—these have increased from 30s to 75s, or 150 per cent and in the case of a widow with four children from 46s to 129s 6d, 181.5 per cent. Contributory old age pensions were introduced for the first time in 1961 and so far as the Opposition are concerned they might never have existed. These pensions have also more than kept pace with the cost of living, so that social insurance benefits during the time of this Government have outpaced the cost of living by about three to one on average.

Mr. Dowling

Could the Minister say what was the percentage increase on the 10d per week?

Dr. O'Donovan

Could he tell us the increases in contributions?

Mr. Boland

To say that there was 10d a week given by the Coalition Government is to give them too much credit because they did not give 10d a week. They gave a single increase of 2s 6d over a three-year period but only to some of the social services.

Mr. Tully

Would the Minister give the percentage increase between 1932 and 1947?

Mr. Boland

There was never an occasion when all the social welfare schemes were dealt with in the same year except by Fianna Fáil and we deal with them practically every year. The Opposition, because of their superficial approach to the whole matter, know that non-contributory old-age pensions have an emotional connotation in the public mind and they gave 2s 6d in two single years, one in each of their three-year periods, to that service but they ignored most of the other social welfare schemes practically entirely and gave nothing, for instance, for unemployment assistance which is still suffering because of their neglect and schemes such as the children's allowances scheme might never have existed so far as they were concerned. These were never dealt with by any Government except Fianna Fáil.

The other point made by Deputy Ryan was that the percentage of State expenditure devoted to social welfare was falling. This apparently, is an indictment of the Government put forward as an indication that the Government are neglecting social welfare. The percentage of the State expenditure is falling but the percentage of the national income devoted to social welfare is increasing. There are more social insurance services now and I see nothing wrong with that. Talking about the percentage of State expenditure devoted to State expenditure is meaningless.

Dr. O'Donovan

Tell us about increases in contributions.

Mr. Boland

All the money spent on social welfare schemes administered by my Department is collected compulsorily by the Government.

Dr. O'Donovan

We should have a House to listen to the Minister. They will want some ammunition for the by-election.

Mr. Boland

They do not need it.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Boland

As I have been pointing out to the Deputies, the significant figure in regard to the effort being made by the community for social welfare is the gross expenditure on social welfare as a percentage of national income—not as a percentage of State expenditure, which is absolutely meaningless. Deputies opposite do not quote this relevant figure. The fact of the matter is that the gross expenditure on social welfare as a percentage of national income in 1956-57 was 6.4 per cent; in 1969-70, the current year, it is estimated to be approximately 8.4 per cent. That in itself is a significant improvement. However, when we take this in conjunction with the fact that the national income itself has increased so much and that the number of people, for instance, in receipt of unemployment benefit is so much less than it was under the Opposition, then we can see that this is an even greater improvement than would appear because, of course, the percentage of national income spent on social welfare in 1956-57 was inflated by the highest ever figure of unemployment here, combined with the lowest national income.

Dr. O'Donovan

What about 1953, after Mr. MacEntee's famous Budget?

Mr. Boland

Nothing would suit me better than to go back to that but I think it would only be co-operating with Opposition Deputies to delay the proceedings of the House and I do not intend to do that. However, the percentage of the national income spent on social welfare in 1956-57 was inflated by these two facts—that highest ever number of unemployed and an exceptionally low national income because of the collapse of the economy. Therefore, with higher outgoings than normal and a lower national income than normal, naturally the percentage on social welfare was abnormally high at 6.4 per cent.

Dr. O'Donovan

The bankers did not write up any £25 million for us. You got £5 million the day you came back into office.

Mr. Boland

Inflated as it was, this figure was 6.4 per cent. Now, it is 8.4 per cent of a much larger national income: £456.4 million national income in 1956-57: it is now £1,101 million and 8.4 per cent of that is what is being spent on social welfare in the present year.

Dr. O'Donovan

Not on this Estimate.

Mr. Boland

Deputy O'Donovan keeps saying, in effect: "Tell us about the contributions". The contributions have gone up: so has taxation gone up. That is how we get the money to make these substantial improvements—and the people understand this. Some time, when other Deputies would be in order, I should like them to explain what they see wrong in this principle of social insurance. What exactly is the argument that the expenditure on social welfare should all be from the Central Exchequer, that is, the taxpayer? All the money comes from the one source, from the people. It is all exacted compulsorily by the State; some by general taxation, some by contributions by employers and employees. To a certain extent this is merely a question of mechanics, of devising ways and means of transferring money from the pockets of the people who initially acquire it to the State for social welfare purposes. There is also in it the principle of establishing schemes under which a right to benefit will be acquired on an insurance or contributory basis. I should like those Opposition Deputies who insist on disregarding anything except Exchequer expenditure on social welfare to tell us their objection to this principle of social insurance.

It seems to me to be eminently just and highly desirable to have a contributory scheme which can be administered without a means test on the basis of a right acquired through the payment of contributions. I think it is very appropriate that employers should be required to contribute to such a scheme. It is entirely justifiable to raise amounts specifically from employers, as such, rather than that the whole amount should, as Deputy O'Donovan and other Deputies advocate——

Dr. O'Donovan

Would the Minister give us the figures? He gave us the other figures.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Tully will give the Deputy the figures. They are a fact. The contributions have increased substantially in proportion to the increase in benefit rates. The figures are there. We pay for anything we give. That is how we continue. That is why we are here now for 13 years and why any Government with which the Deputy was associated never lasted more than three years. It is because we raise the money to finance any services we bring in. We raise part of it by way of contributions from employers and employees and part of it by way of general taxation. The proportion of social insurance paid out of general taxation or, as Deputies would try to say, out of the Central Exchequer, trying to hide the fact that it comes from the taxpayer, is much higher here than in many other countries Deputies opposite can mention.

I think it is appropriate to finance these schemes in this way. It is obvious that those Deputies who insist that it is only the percentage of State expenditure that is the criterion, are, in fact, claiming that these schemes should be financed by general taxation only. Social insurance is really a form of selective taxation and all expenditure on social welfare services is, in fact, expenditure by the State from money collected from the community as a whole. The real criterion of the concern shown by a Government for social welfare is the percentage of the national income which the Government acquire and utilise for this purpose. As I have shown, this percentage has been increasing.

Dr. O'Donovan

Make the workers pay for the workers. Is that not it?

Mr. Boland

There is nobody else to pay.

Dr. O'Donovan

And let the wealthy farmers off. Is that not right?

Mr. Boland

If the Deputy wants some other form of taxation on farmers, let him, in conjunction with his coalition colleagues, put down a motion to that effect. Let him introduce some Private Member's Bill to extract more taxation out of the farmers' pockets and I am quite sure this will help to cement the new coalition. He will get full co-operation from the other partner in the coalition.

Dr. O'Donovan

Can the Minister not deal with the matter itself and not mind the politics?

Mr. Boland

I would deal with everything if the Deputy could restrain himself. Deputy O'Donovan is now the only Labour Deputy in the House and he has informed us here that the other Labour Deputies are at a meeting. If I were Deputy O'Donovan I would go to that meeting because otherwise he might find himself an Independent Deputy.

Dr. O'Donovan

I will release the Fianna Fáil Deputies by going to the meeting.

Mr. Boland

Otherwise the Deputy may find himself an Independent Deputy after lunch.

Mr. Dowling

Do not be late for the inquest.

Mr. Boland

Now that Deputy O'Donovan has gone I do not think there is any more I need to say. I intended to deal at some length with Deputy Noel Browne's contribution but I dealt sufficiently with his contributions in 1965, 1964 and 1963 and his contribution this year is the same. I do not think I need to bother.

There were a number of other points made and I should normally deal with them but Deputies opposite do not seem to want them dealt with. I can only say that any constructive suggestions made by the Opposition will be considered. Once again I wish to reassure the Opposition Deputies that I agree with all the improvements they have advocated and that they will find that, as the years pass by and as they, or some of them, continue to sit on those benches, these improvements will be made gradually by Fianna Fáil. They will be made gradually because Fianna Fáil will refrain from trying to go faster than the state of the economy will justify.

We will continue to strike as close a balance as we can between the level of the economy and the earnings of the community at every Budget time; my colleague, the Minister for Finance, will continue to try to extract the maximum possible amount which it is feasible to extract from the earnings of the community, and he will hand it over to me to distribute in the form of social welfare benefits and to my other colleagues in the Government for better health services, improved education facilities and so on. Over the years Deputies opposite will in that way see implemented the majority of the things they have advocated.

I agree it is time to depart from the system of flat rate benefits and it has been announced, of course, that the Government intend to introduce a scheme of pay related benefits and, for the benefit of the lately departed Deputy O'Donovan, I can say also pay related contributions. There is no difficulty in charting the road ahead but the difference between the approach of the Government and of the Opposition is that we have to find the money for these things as well as thinking of what should be done. In our experience, and we have had 30 years of it in Government, we have not found any other way of getting money for these things except from the earnings of the community.

Mr. P. Belton

Cut your salaries by 15 per cent.

Mr. Boland

We have to take steps to ensure that social welfare benefits are given in accordance with the capacity of the earning community to pay. That is why all social welfare improvements have been made by Fianna Fáil and why there is not in the Statute Book a single piece of legislation to improve social welfare benefits from any other Party.

Mr. Bruton

Could the Minister say——

Mr. Boland

The Deputy made some good points but I did not try to deal with them because Deputies opposite did not seem to want me to. I have finished now.

Mr. Bruton

Will the Minister make any change in the period of three waiting days for unemployment and disability benefits?

Mr. Boland

It is not a very high priority. Let me put it this way: for some time ahead I can see other ways in which I would be inclined to utilise the money the Minister for Finance can provide me with, but I can see a case for retrospective payments for the first three days of illness in the case of more prolonged illnesses. It just has not reached the top of our priorities so far. It may eventually. It is one of the things that will be done.

Mr. Bruton

What about family allowances for deserted wives?

Mr. Boland

That has already been announced but the legislation has not been brought in.

Vote put and agreed to.