Social Welfare Bill, 1970: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Bruton

There are two matters which, as I said, require fundamental thinking almost on a philosophical level in regard to social welfare. These are, firstly, the question of the principle of selectivity in the allocation of social welfare services—this applies also to health services—and, secondly, the principle of choosing between our present flat-rate system of contributions and benefits and the pay-related system which applies in the EEC countries and with which we are likely to be asked to conform if we enter EEC. It is by no means certain that in every respect a pay-related system is necessarily better than our system. This is something that we should not accept blindly simply because we are entering EEC. We should examine the whole question and determine for ourselves whether it is better to have a pay-related or a flat-rate system.

The Government have not indicated publicly that they have done any fundamental thinking on this. They seem to accept the idea of a pay-related system simply because it is the case in the EEC and we want to conform with that. I have not got a closed mind on that. It may well prove that a pay-related system is better but we need a bit more discussion on the implications of it, the implications of the preservation of existing differentials in regard to the distribution of income which might occur under a pay-related system and the idea of a flat-rate which brings everybody to the same level. We should examine both systems.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of the three waiting days in respect of which people are not paid at the moment in regard to disability and unemployment benefit. When a person becomes unemployed or is unable to work through illness he is not paid in respect of the first three days he is out of work. The reasoning behind this is to prevent people staying out of work for very short periods for possibly frivolous motives. The thinking is that people who stay out of work for more than three days are obviously seriously ill or their unemployment is of a sufficiently permanent nature to warrant their being paid. There is a case for retrospective payment in respect of those three days. In other words, if a person is out of work for more than 12 days he should be paid not only for the last nine of those 12 days, as he is at the moment, but also in respect of all the days he is out of work, that is, for the full 12 days. The former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Boland, agreed with this point when he said at column 710 of Volume 245 of the Dáil Debates:

I can see a case for retrospective payments for the first three days of illness in the case of more prolonged illnesses.

I should like to know if the present Minister for Social Welfare holds this view also. If he does is it proposed to introduce legislation to implement this point of view in relation to the waiting days?

There is another point which should be considered and that is the question of relating social welfare increases to the cost of living index. Very often the increases which are introduced in this House are lauded as real improvements in the standard of living of the people on whom they are conferred. In many cases they are but to some extent this is mitigated by the fact that the cost of living has risen so substantially that many of the benefits are eroded. There should be an automatic increase, at possibly yearly intervals, in all social welfare benefits corresponding to the increase in the cost of living over that period. The cost of living could decrease over this period and this would mean that the benefits could conceivably be decreased. If this were to happen on an automatic basis the Minister if he introduced an increase over and above this automatic increase based on the cost of living, would be seen to give a real increase in the standard of living of those people.

We should clearly distinguish between increases which merely compensate for increases in the cost of living and increases which involve a real improvement in the standard of living. If we had benefits tied to the cost of living there would be a proof against benefits being used as electoral carrots for getting votes, in other words that the criteria for deciding whether an increase takes place could possibly be the political position of the Government and not the welfare needs of the people.

There has been a rather regrettable element in the approach of the Government to the whole social welfare system. There has been a tendency on the part of Government speakers in this and other debates repeatedly to refer back to what the Opposition parties were alleged to have done or not to have done when they were in Government. This sort of historical bone-raking makes no contribution whatever to the improvement of the position of the social welfare classes. A classic example of this attack is revealed in something which the former Minister for Social Welfare said at column 701 of Volume 245 of the Official Report on the Estimate for Social Welfare:

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.

In other words, largely because the Opposition parties when in office 13 years ago had not increased the benefits, they had not come up to standard since. Something which happened 13 years ago surely is not the main reason why unemployment assistance is lower than other assistance. The Minister had 13 years since the Opposition parties were in office to do something about bringing unemployment assistance up to standard. Yet, last March he was able to say that it was largely because the Opposition parties who were in Government prior to 1957 had not increased unemployment assistance, this benefit was behind the other benefits. This surely is a rather false attitude on the part of the Government? They had 13 years to do something about the level of unemployment assistance, so they cannot blame their failure to do anything about it on what happened 13 or 14 years ago when the Opposition parties were in Government.

In relation to the payment of family allowances, I should like to endorse wholeheartedly the attitude adopted by Deputy O'Donovan when he spoke here earlier. In the field of family allowances we will have to harmonise our payments with those in the EEC if we enter that Community. Germany prior to entering the EEC had no system of family allowances but because she entered the Community where family allowances were paid in the other five countries she found it necessary to introduce a system of family allowances also. This is a good example that a country as big as Germany had to harmonise her social welfare system in respect of family allowances with that of other EEC partners. We will also have to harmonise our social welfare allowances with those of the EEC countries.

In this context this will involve a very substantial increase in the level of family allowances at present being paid. I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy O'Donovan that there is need for a dramatic increase in children's allowances. Large families have been neglected and there has been an emphasis, as the Deputy said, on helping people only when they are out of work and not helping the lowly-paid with large families.

If equal pay for equal work is introduced here the breadwinner of a family who is normally the father, will be earning the same as a single woman doing the same work. There will be need to compensate for this by increasing children's allowances. There is a strong case for increasing children's allowances much more substantially and for computing the allowances on a weekly rather than a monthly basis so that comparisons can easily be made with other social welfare benefits.

In relation to death grants, the Minister said that this scheme will make a grant of £25 payable on the death of an insured person or the husband, wife widow or widower of an insured person, £15 on the death of an insured person's qualified child aged between five and 18 years, and £5 on the death of a younger qualified child. I cannot understand why there should be this differentiation between children under five and children over five. I should have thought it more logical to pay the same for all children. The sense of loss and the expense involved would be just as great in the case of a child under five as in the case of a child over five. I should like some further information on this from the Minister. Why is some system similar to this not extended to those who are not insured, small farmers and so on? Why should not they have the death grant made available to them? Why is it confined to those who are insured? Again, could the Minister not make this retroactive? Why should it not apply in the case of deaths occurring before the end of March, 1971? Why is it not possible from the point of view of contribution conditions to make the scheme retroactive?

The invalidity pension will be payable to insured persons who are, or become, permanently incapable of work and whose insurance satisfies the contribution conditions. These conditions are that not fewer than 156 contributions have been paid and not less than 48 contributions have been paid or credited in the most recent contribution year. This seems a somewhat unnecessarily stringent requirement. Those with less than 156 contributions will not get all they should get. There is a strong case for reducing this to 100 contributions. Those who have been working for less than three years should qualify for many of these benefits. The benefits should not be confined to those who have worked for over three years.

There is this new invalidity pension for those who are insured. What similar service is there for those who are not insured, those in the assistance classes? There is a disabled person's maintenance allowance but it is administered by the Department of Health. There may be people who might not qualify for a disabled person's maintenance allowance who would, if they were insured, qualify for disability benefit. Because they are not insured they qualify for nothing and they have to fall back on home assistance.

The report on the care of the aged was published recently. Income maintenance comes within the ambit of the Minister for Social Welfare. There are some recommendations in the report which have not so far been implemented and I should like to have the Minister's viewpoint on them. There is a rather telling sentence here:

That these payments do not in many cases so provide is evident from the fact that old age pensions, for example, are being supplemented by home assistance in a considerable number of cases—some 3,500 at present— although home assistance should be a short-term payment to tide a person over a temporary need rather than a way of life.

This is a very harsh judgment on our social assistance and social insurance schemes. The report continues:

The committee recognises, therefore, that in addition to the payments under the joint scheme of pensions, benefit and assistance, supplements should be paid to meet the exceptional difficulties experienced by certain poor aged persons in providing the basic needs of housing, heating, lighting and cooking.

I should like to have the Minister's view in regard to the supplements. Is it proposed to accept the recommendation or will it be shelved? In paragraph 43 of the report——

Part III of the Bill relates to assistance. This is the supplement on the old age pension which is paid to an incapacitated old age or widowed pensioner aged 70 or over who requires full-time care and attention given by a prescribed female relative and who would otherwise be living alone. There is a case here to extend this where, for example, an old person goes to live with her married daughter who has maybe a very large family and who is working in insurable employment. When she goes to live with the family this necessitates, in many cases, that the wife will leave her employment to look after the old age pensioner. At the present time, unless the two of them are living alone, with nobody else in the house, as far as I can see they do not qualify for the increase in the old age pension. Where it can be demonstrated that the prescribed female relative had to leave employment in order to look after the old age pensioner, I submit that the increase should be given even if the two of them are not living alone in the house. This should be extended. It is a good idea. It takes account of the practicalities of looking after an old person but it is unduly restrictive as at present envisaged. I should like to hear the Minister's view on this.

With regard to the assistance scheme for deserted wives, I would refer to one point at which the conditions for a widow's pension are not adhered to, namely, where the allowance will not be paid if the deserted wife is under 50 years and has no qualified children. I do not see why it was necessary to depart from the conditions for widow's pension in this case. The economic positions of a widow under 50 and of a deserted wife under 50, without any qualified children, are exactly the same, so why discriminate against the deserted wife? If one bears in mind the fact that she is under the age of 50 years and has no qualifying children, it is possible that at some stage she did have qualified children but that these children grew up to an age at which they became unqualified; but her whole employment opportunities might have been disrupted because she had to look after the child while it was a qualified child and when it reached the age at which it was no longer qualified she had spent too much time at home, away from work, that she would be unable to acquire any useful and gainful employment. I feel that there is no justification at all in this case for not paying the benefits to a deserted wife just the same as if she were a widow. I cannot see the reason for this discrimination at all.

There is another rather ambiguous thing here in relation to the regulations which will be drawn up in regard to defining a deserted wife. I should like to quote a sentence from the Minister's speech:

I do not think that there can be desertion in the sense we are seeking to deal with, if the husband is contributing in any way towards the maintenance of the family.

Literally that means that if he was giving one shilling a week the Minister would not envisage giving benefit. I know the Minister did not mean it in the absolutely literal sense but this sentence reveals a rather incorrect attitude. It is possible that the husband could be contributing in some minimal way and there would still be a case for giving this benefit.

Mr. J. Brennan

She could be living with him and getting nothing.

Mr. Bruton

I do not quite follow that but I do not think it answers my point. Let us say the husband has deserted the wife and he was contributing a minimal amount taking the sentence in the Minister's brief literally he would not consider giving any payment.

Mr. J. Brennan

We would take that into the means test.

Mr. Bruton

That is not contained in the sentence I quoted but I am glad to get that assurance.

I quote again from the Minister's speech:

The rates of unemployment assistance for persons in urban and rural areas are being increased by 10s 6d a week for the recipient making the maximum rate £3 12s for a single person and £6 8s for a married couple living in an urban area. Outside urban areas the corresponding rates will be £3 6s for a single person and £6 for a married couple.

I cannot see the reason for discriminating in favour of urban areas in this context. I should like the Minister to explain why this differentiation was originally introduced. People who are unemployed in rural areas in many cases will have more expenses than people who are unemployed in city areas. It is fairly well known that the cost of necessaries in supermarkets is often somewhat less than the cost of necessaries in small grocery establishments down the country on which people in rural areas would have to rely. In regard to the purchase of necessaries it is likely that the cost of living for an unemployed person in a rural area would be greater than the cost of living for an unemployed person in the city who can rely on supermarkets. In regard to transport also, the unemployed person in a country area is more likely to have to involve himself in heavy transport costs than the person in the city where everything is within a mile or so walking distance and transport costs might not be necessary. I cannot see why unemployed people in a rural area should get less than unemployed people in a city area. Housing, admittedly, is likely to be more expensive in an urban area but I should like to know if this differentiation has been analysed recently in the light of modern conditions and if the Minister is still satisfied that it is necessary to discriminate in this way against people who are living in rural areas and are unemployed.

The Minister in regard to children's allowances says:

The rate for the first and second qualified child will remain unchanged. As announced in the Budget statement, adjustments of the tax free allowances under the income tax code in respect of the third and subsequent child in families will offset the increases in the rates of children's allowances for families which are liable for income tax.

Now that the Minister has raised this question of allowances under the income tax code, it appears to me that taking them as part of the whole system of family allowances they are to some extent regressive in that the more tax one is paying the more allowance one gets. In other words, the more one is earning the more allowance one gets. This is a regressive form of children's allowance through taxes and I should like to have at least considered and analysed whether it is meritorious that the people who are earning large amounts of money and have children get much larger allowances in absolute terms than people who are earning very little and paying consequently not as much tax.

Mr. Desmond

I should like to pay a tribute to the staff of the Department of Social Welfare who are in a Department which in the context of public administration and particularly the administration of our social security system are in a very vulnerable and open position generally. I make that comment because I share the concern which Deputy Tully expressed about some of the undue carping and the snide, unfair and unjust criticism which is made from time to time by public representatives and more particularly by those who seem to set themselves up as the conscience of citizens in relation to their transactions with the Department. I in no way condone any sloppiness, undue delays or bureaucratic trappings which on occasion, and I would stress on very rare occasions, may surround some individual cases which arise within the Department. I share the concern expressed by Deputy Tully.

I suppose it is not propitious for Deputies to be critical of our communications media on a purely political reaction basis, but I must comment on some of the alleged expert interventionist action style comments made by one of the correspondents of a Dublin evening newspaper. I do not know whether he is a member of the NUJ. I must confess that I found some of the comments were of such a nature that they put the public officials in the Department who were in communication with them in the dock. They are not in a position to reply, or respond to what I regard as extremely personal and extremely unfair comments on individual problems which arise. I want to put that on record because this is my view. The Minister might contact the correspondent and try to get fairness and impartiality in dealing with complaints.

A citizen may lose his insurance number or his employer may be negligent in that regard. A citizen may fail to convey sufficient information to the Department or an officer of the Department may—and this does happen— lose a file. These things happen and I do not think any citizen should be unduly servile or humble in his approach to the Department looking for his rights. These are rights which any citizen has in relation to our social security system.

There is an urgent need for a greater measure of public education, public awareness and public involvement in the administration of our system of social security. I want to stress this. While one may be critical, and rightly so, of some alleged expert intervention between citizens and the Department, in some respects the Department can be blamed for that kind of development. There is an appalling lack of initiative on the part of the Government. This is primarily a ministerial responsibility rather than the responsibility of the administrative staff.

Successive Ministers have failed, grossly and abysmally and disgracefully, to inform the public on a repetitive, day to day, coherent basis, using the communication media, as to what their precise entitlements were and as to the immense complexities as they must appear to many citizens in relation to their entitlements. They should also explain to citizens why, in given circumstances, they are not entitled to benefits. If this were done, a great deal of the burden of the work, the quite unnecessary messenger boy burden of work, which falls on public representatives would be removed. We would give a better return to the taxpayers for the salaries we receive if we dealt with the legislative and regulatory aspects rather than driving ourselves, our constituents and the officers of the Department around the bend trying to resolve individual problems on an ad nauseam and perpetual basis. That is not to say that a Member of this House does not perform a valuable and essential function by dealing with questions which are brought to his notice by his constituents.

All our communications media should be used to inform the public. Even an elementary thing like a decent poster issued by the Department outlining entitlements to benefits and the way to look for those benefits would be helpful. The forms which citizens have to complete in order to qualify should be simplified. If this were done the public would have a higher regard for our Department of Social Welfare or, as I prefer to call it, the Department of social security. Much more remains to be achieved before we can claim that we have a humane and effective system of social security in operation in the State.

Having made those comments, may I now pass on to some of the aspects which the Minister dealt with introducing the Bill. I strongly welcome many of the innovations proposed by the Minister and proposed in the Budget. This is a matter I have raised before. There are a number of serious anomalies with which the Minister has, as yet, failed to come to grips. I do not know what kind of rabbit-like fixation, one might say, the Government and the Department seem to have developed in relation to the current social insurance limit of £1,200. With the rocketing of wage increases in a relative sense compared with five or ten years ago and compared with the date when the social insurance limit was fixed this figure is out-dated. Was it discussed seriously within the Department? Admittedly, there was a political unheaval and I am sure the former Minister had a lot on his mind besides the elementary matter of the social insurance limit of £1,200.

Unless the Minister comes to grips with this problem and increases dramatically the social insurance limit there is a distinct possibility that the whole infrastructure of the social security system will go out of plumb. I would strongly urge the Minister to devote himself exclusively to this problem between now and the autumn when the Dáil will be resuming. He should concentrate on bringing in amended regulations and applying them as speedily as possible. I must confess to the Minister and to the House that I am in contact with many trade unionists and I am aware of the inevitable complaints about the blocking off of social insurance benefits when the limit is reached.

Admittedly, people can opt for the voluntary health insurance scheme. I opted for it when my salary went over £1,200. Unless the Minister gets down to bringing in amending legislation we will find ourselves in dire straits when the 1971 Bill comes before the House. That is on the assumption that this House still exists in 1971 in its present political form.

I, therefore, welcome the many innovations in the scheme itself. The outstanding innovation, in terms of humanity and of Christian recognition that Christian marriages can become very unchristian depending on the people concerned, is that relating to deserted wives. I commend the Minister's very courageous effort to have the regulations under this new scheme defined. I fear one can only recommend to the Minister some social research on this matter: I doubt very much if Members have sufficient expertise and competence and public experience to be able to give the Minister very much advice in respect of the definition regulations in respect of deserted wives. There is need for some urgent social research either within his Department or by the Economic and Social Research Institute on a short-term contract basis. Undoubtedly, the Minister could receive far more elaborate and I think more objective criteria in that way than he seems to be groping towards in relation to his statement to this House.

I find myself rather at a loss whether to agree or disagree with the Minister in regard to his statement that there is a point at which the conditions for a widow's pension are not adhered to and that is where the allowance will not be paid if the deserted wife is under the age of 50 and has no qualified children. I do not know how one reaches that arbitary age limit. The Minister goes on to say that the minimum age limit of 50 has been imposed to meet the situation and that it has been decided that it should also cover elderly deserted wives without dependent children, whose children have grown up and who, because of age and other factors, find it difficult to get employment. Even in draft form —this may sound highly unusual— I think the Minister might circulate to Members of the House the regulations he proposes. He said these had not yet been finalised and that he has a fairly open mind at this stage as to what the definition of desertion should be for the purposes of the scheme. It might be useful if the Minister sent us the Department's internal views on an open basis and obtained the views of the House on the regulations, not necessarily in debate. We could forward our views to the Minister and I think this would be a useful social exchange of views in regard to an intricate aspect of our social security system which could improve considerably the position in regard to regulations.

Again, I find very considerable difficulty in giving any assistance to the Minister particularly in respect of what he calls permanent desertion. I virtually defy anybody, apart from an arbitrary assessment by a social welfare officer or local inquiry agent, to define the concept of permanence in relation to desertion. This is an area in which the Minister could find himself in all sorts of difficulties at local and national level. That is all I propose to say on this matter except that I accept the statement of the Minister that it is an extremely difficult and very delicate question and one in which, as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, we shall give the Minister whatever little assistance or knowledge or awareness we may have in regard to particular questions by way of instances or case studies which all Deputies of the House have had. I think that at least in the mid 1970s we shall get away from the utter humiliation of people approaching Members of the House in confidence about deserted wives and families and Members being obliged, again in confidence, to approach local home assistance officers and obtain an allowance for a deserted wife. This is accompanied by all the emotional stress imposed on a deserted wife. It is to the credit of the nation that at least we have evolved this system but it is also to our eternal discredit that it has taken the best part of 60 years even to recognise the need for the introduction of a scheme for deserted wives.

I should like to point out to the Minister—I support Deputy Bruton in this regard—that not only should he raise the limit of £1,200 at present operating but he should also bear in mind that he has now, by increasing the contribution rates effective from 5th October, 1970, built in a further imbalance into our social security system. I am quite well aware that Deputies have repeatedly demanded the introduction of a wage-related, graduated system of social security contributions and wage-related benefits in the normal western European pattern. I find that one is, perhaps, beating one's head against a very cold and inflexible wall. Deputy Boland rarely smiled but when he did it was quite helpful and he did smile and assured us occasionally that this matter was the subject of immediate, thorough and very definite consideration by the Department, apart from implications relating to the health sector and the inter-twining of the £1,200 limit and the wage related system and that, by and large, he hoped to have progress to report before bringing the 1970 Bill to the Dáil.

Here we are again now with a situation in which an employee from 5th October will be paying 15s 2d per week, a substantial increase for any employee from 12s 6d, the rate at present operating. That employee will be paying on a flat rate basis and it is no joke. It is no consolation to an Irish industrial worker, as I pointed out in the EEC debate, that I should go out to Dún Laoghaire and speak to an average wage earner in my constituency earning between £18 and £22 a week and say to him: "For you it will be 15s 2d a week." It will mean a deduction of that amount of money from many of them who are earning as little as £15 a week. This is a substantial social insurance deduction. Somebody earning £1,195 per week also pays 15s 2d. There is a big difference between those in the lowest income group and those just under the £1,200 limit.

Therefore, if this Dáil were to do nothing else during its lifetime than to revise the social insurance limit with all its implications for local government and for the health services, and to introduce a wage-related system of contributions, together with the other innovation of the deserted wives' allowance, it would be doing something of major importance.

I raise this point because the contributions required for a stamp valued at 30s 6d, as it will be from next October, without being wage-related, present quite a temptation to employers and workers to avoid the payment of that substantial sum, the current amount being 25s 1d a week as against 30s 6d. It is highly undesirable and not in the public interest that the Deputies should have to raise perpetually in this House a growing number of questions relating to the failure of employers or of employees to ensure that insurance cards are fully stamped.

Only last Saturday morning in the constituency I represent, Dún Laoghaire, I met a construction worker who when he applied to the Department for benefit received the reply that the last insurance card received in that office was in 1954 and was, therefore, not entitled to payment or to credits. I have come across quite a few such instances. I am aware of the statutory powers of the Department in that regard and of the legal entitlement of an employee whose insurance card is not properly stamped. Particular vigilance should be exercised in this regard by industrial workers, especially those in casual employment, those in the construction industry, in hotels and the catering industry, in casual transport employment, in the distributive trades or employed in personal service industries. The Department should, by way of public advertisement or television statement and so on, warn employees to ensure their insurance cards are properly stamped. Equally, the Department should be quite ruthless in dealing with employers or employees who, in collusion with an employer—this can equally happen—fail to fulfil their statutory obligations in relation to social insurance.

They were not purchased at all.

Mr. Desmond

I do not know what is the precise number of insured persons in the State—about 750,000, I would say—but even if there is only 0.5 per cent—and I am sure it is even less than that—falsification and failure to stamp cards, this is a matter which should be given urgent attention by the Minister. One can hazard a guess that there are about 96,000 people employed in the construction industry, and it is not an unfair assessment that there are several thousand construction workers, whether they are on the "lump" or employers themselves, who are not preoccupied with social insurance contribution. They are certainly not acting in the public interest. Instead of having perpetual wrangles in the House with the Minister in relation to this matter and instead of having particular files opened up when Deputies bring individual cases before his Department a more effective preventative system should be brought into operation. In that regard legislation should be substantially improved, and I was aware of Deputy Boland's intimation to this House that he intended to introduce more stringent regulations and that, if he had any opportunity to do so, he would implement them.

I welcome the innovation introduced by the Minister in relation to contributory old age pensions for those aged 65 and upwards, but it covers only about one-third of the people enjoying old age pensions. I can understand the reason why the Minister has confined the scheme to those of the contributory group, that it would cost a substantial sum to extend it to the non-contributory group. One must consider the implications involved here and the fact that from 5th October next people will have to pay 3s 6d for an insurance stamp. I should like to see an analysis of the 120,000 non-contributory pensioners in terms of their occupations and the regions in which they live.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 16 Jul 1970

Social Welfare Bill, 1970: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Jul 1970