Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Jul 1970

Vol. 248 No. 10

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

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

Last Thursday I welcomed the social security innovations contained in this Bill. I particularly welcomed the new provisions for deserted wives and those relating to invalids' pensions. I also welcomed the lowering of the age limit from 70 to 65 years for contributory retirement pensions. I described these as laudable innovations and very welcome. I have no doubt that considerable support for these praiseworthy efforts on the part of the Minister will be found in the remaining contributions to this debate.

There are, however, a number of issues in relation to the Minister's statement that I consider to be of urgent public importance and which need to be given a public airing in connection with this Bill. One of the difficulties the House faces in regard to this Bill is that while, admittedly, the Bill has a number of marginal innovations of a very welcome nature it is a good example, nevertheless, of the failure of the House in the past decade particularly to get down to a continuing review of the circumstances in which want, need or poverty arise in our society. One cannot be satisfied because one adjusts social security benefits periodically or annually that automatically one has discharged one's obligations and eliminated the need continually to review and update the whole structure of our social services and ensure that they achieve the kind of priority in the field of public expenditure which as yet they certainly have not attained here.

I feel very strongly that there is a rather disturbing and, in many respects, alarming failure on the part of the public at large and particularly on the part of those in charge of legislation, to accord to our social security system its due priority and due level of expenditure within our budgetary system. It can be quite vehemently argued by the Minister, and can be accepted by many sectors of the community, that we are spending according to the Abstract of Estimates for the Public Services in 1970-71, over £66 million gross a year on social welfare. When one looks back to 1965-66, only five years ago, and finds that we were spending then about £39 million the jump between then and now with the additional cost of benefits is very laudable but the fact remains that at this point in time the level of benefits and of payments for what are classified in this typical political jargon as "the recipients of social welfare benefits" are abnormally low and in a Christian society cannot be accepted as being adequate.

I am quite sure that to the staff of the Department and to the Minister this must appear to be repetition ad nauseam, but it is necessary to stress that when the new rates of benefit come into operation, the widow with children will obtain £4 10s per week for herself, 18s for the first child, 18s for the second child, 13s for the third child and each subsequent qualified child. In effect, a widow with three children and with a contributory widow's pension will have the handsome sum of £6 19s per week on which to live. I do not think it is unfair or exaggerating to say that the figure of £6 19s per week or 19s 10d per day for a widow and three children merely allows them to live at subsistence level. I would prefer to call it the level of starvation and poverty.

There are people, particularly those with no close relatives near to where they live, who, due to family circumstances, children at school, must stay at home and are unable to earn an additional income apart from depending on voluntary charitable organisations. As far as I am concerned, the State has a prime obligation in this matter and the voluntary efforts and contributions of other organisations must necessarily come second. We talk very volubly and rhetorically about this wonderful Irish concept of caring for the family, but in terms of hard cash it amounts to £6 19s per week for a widow with three children.

I welcome the increase of 17s 6d per week in the old age contributory pension, bringing it up to a total of £8 10s per week for a married couple at 70 years of age. Nevertheless, at the end of one's normal working life to have that income from social insurance contributions cannot be held out to be unduly generous or likely to lead to an elderly permissive society developing in this State. We in this House should not be carried away with the idea, as unfortunately the Government party seem to be, that we are being generous. The Minister comes before the House full of glory on Budget day and announces an increase of 15s or 17s 6d per week and Deputies are beside themselves with joy and cannot wait to carry the information back to their constituents. It is only when one meets these insured persons that one appreciates the sparseness of the benefit that is granted.

I would remind the Minister of the need to adjust the existing social welfare limit of £1,200. This matter has been raised repeatedly in this House. The insurability limit of £1,200 affects the middle income group in relation to health services and in relation to redundancy payments. This limit also has an effect in relation to the eligibility for grants under the higher education scheme and in relation to eligibility for advances or remissions of fees for trainee teachers. I trust the Minister, when he is replying, will give some hope of raising this limit. I do not propose to delay him unduly this afternoon.

As an insured person I wish to query the substantial increase in the voluntary contribution rate as from 5th October next. Admittedly, the voluntary contributor will now be given cover for the death grant and for the retirement pension, which is very valuable. However, I am one of the 1,500 people in this country currently paying 10s 10d per week into voluntary insurance and perhaps the Minister would give some explanation for this increase and the reasoning behind it. Currently the ordinary employee rate is 12s 6d and the voluntary contributory rate is 10s 10d. The proposed rate for the employee is 15s 2d and for the voluntary contributor 16s 3d per week. This is a matter of very profound regret and a matter for Ministerial comment. Notwithstanding the alleged efforts of the Department to advise all those who exceed the limit of £1,200 that they may become voluntary contributors the number who have so become since 1964 seems to be abnormally low.

Admittedly there was an increase in 1969 as against 1968, but one must look at the position in the context of a reply from the Minister's secretary to the Transport Union in November, 1969. The figures given in that reply were that for 1964, 1,295 people had become voluntary contributors; in 1965, 2,297; in 1966, 602; in 1967, 918; in 1968, 1,087; and in 1969, 1,546. The majority of these were non-manual workers who had ceased to become compulsorily insured because their remuneration exceeded the insurable limit. This figure is abnormally low in terms of people taking up the options open to them. If the Minister is not going to raise the limit then in view of the very large number who, going on the basis of current wage increases, will exceed the limit, a special effort should be made by the Department through television, radio and Press publicity to inform the people of the considerable benefits available to them in regard to widows and orphans, death benefits, retirement benefits and so on. The Minister should give special consideration to this aspect.

Another point which should be borne in mind is the change in the demographic structure of our society which can be anticipated over the next 20 years. Sufficient attention is not paid to this factor in terms of tentative social security forecasting by the Department. I am aware of the concern of departmental staffs and their interest in such matters, but nevertheless I do not think the House has been given a great deal of information about this work. Special consideration should be given by the Government to, and special information made available to the House on the effect of population changes and structures in the country as a whole. For example, as we are aware, it is estimated that there will be 327,000 persons aged 65 and over in the country in 1971 but by 1981 the figure, it is estimated, will be 363,000, an increase of 36,000. That is only a decade away.

Any changes in our social security system now must take these substantial changes into account. It is also estimated that there will be about 122,000 persons aged 75 and over next year, while in 1981 there will be 135,000: again, a substantial upward change. There will be an extra 10,000 people aged 80 years and over in 1981. With the advances made in medical science, in regard to the span of life and so forth, we are facing a somewhat unique position here relative to other demographic changes throughout Europe. Therefore, I would urge the Minister to let us know whether or not work in this direction is being carried out. Neither I nor the vast majority of Deputies are competent to consider the full implications of these changes, but it is our public duty to be involved at least in the considerations affecting these changes. As has been repeatedly pointed out by medical staffs, psychiatric personnel, and many of those associated with the population census, as well as organisations such as the ESRI, the percentage of total population aged from 20 to 64 is only 48.6 in this country whereas in England and Wales it is only 57, so that there is a very considerable difference in the proportion of total population in the working age group in these two countries alone. As far as the implications of these factors on our social security system are concerned, I have seen no real evidence on the part of the Government of their concern or of projections of policy for the future.

Another point which I should like to raise—one which has not received any great appreciation in this country, but which is very fashionable in England—is the need positively to discriminate in favour of those who are poor, those who are likely to remain poor within the present system of society, those who are handicapped, deprived, those who are homeless, or those who can broadly be classified as the social casualties of our society. Not only should there be what one might call a general universalism within our system of social security but the Department should make a special effort to discriminate positively in favour of the 5 per cent to 10 per cent of our community who are within those categories. It is not just a question of choosing between what one might call the means test system and the universal system, but of positive general discrimination, of providing a basic structure of social security and having additional selective services for various groups and in that context opening up this discrimination principle within our social security system. It is very necessary that these categories of people should be given special priority within these areas. There are unique aspects of this which have been highlighted very considerably, particularly in England, but not so much here; but with a growing urbanisation here we would inevitably want to be very careful or we would have what one might call deprived ghetto areas within many of our urban communities.

Already, there are manifestations of this in some of our urban areas; in areas where there are mentally ill persons, where there are people whom we classify as the "down and outs" in society, people with severe behavioural disturbances and those who tend to drift. One finds that such groups tend to congregate in haphazard housing in particular areas of the urban community or tend to find cheap lodgings in certain parts of an urban environment. There is need for the Minister to ensure that there does not develop in Ireland this kind of social burden where we would have unique forms of social gatherings with consequent problems. This, of course, has not been unknown in British urban centres and I would urge the Minister to pay particular attention to that aspect of our social security services and particularly to local services associated with the Department.

It is necessary in dealing with this Bill that we disabuse ourselves of the fashionable myth, which is fostered most sedulously by those with comfortable and middle-class backgrounds, that rising affluence in this country automatically solves the problem of poverty, that we all ascend the escalator together and that nobody remains in the broadly classified category of the "poverty group". It is important to point out that the substantial demand for social services will not diminish in this country—nor in any other country in Europe—but rather it will be extended and administered in a more effective and humane manner by the State. This is one of the lessons we learned in the 1960s in relation to our social security system.

The publication The Poor and The Poorest by Abel Smith and Townsend highlights what happened in Britain in relation to their social security system. While England has the best social security system and the finest national health service in the world, nevertheless the authors found that only a short decade ago 18 per cent of the households and 14.5 per cent of persons in the study were living below a defined “national assistance” level of living. Although in Britain in the past ten years that 18 per cent has been reduced by 8 per cent, there are still many thousands of families at subsistence and lower income levels. Special attention should be given by the Minister to this aspect.

There is a considerable danger if we confine our analysis to particular entitlements of insurability. What is really at stake is the need to develop another concept of social security, a concept in which the needs of a particular family, rather than an insured individual, would be taken into account. There is urgent need for reorientation of our attitudes in that regard. We have a system based on individual social insurance with benefits directly related to individual contribution records. As a result this excludes a range of people who, perhaps, due to chronic illness or disablement, must opt out of insurance and there have been instances where whole families have literally grown into poverty. The Minister should give attention to developing a new concept of family insurance and social security.

I would ask the Minister to consider carefully the effects of the new pension provisions he is introducing and to examine the general effects of the social security system on the parallel development of occupational pensions in this country. Far too little attention has been given by the Department of Social Welfare to the impact of growth of occupational pensions, parallel with this system of social security. I am not opposed to occupational pensions as such. I have no objection to people being involved in private insurance schemes or in occupational pension schemes. However, I regard them as additional to what is provided by the State and it would be wrong for people to delude themselves that private schemes should be the real answer to adequate State benefits. Private schemes must be supplemental to State pensions and not an alternative.

I would point out to the House that there is much propaganda about occupational pension schemes in this country. In many respects the weakest are at a very considerable disadvantage even when coverage is through a company's private scheme instead of directly with an insurance company. Bad risks in an occupational pension scheme may find it difficult to obtain employment because employers are increasingly imposing more stringent health tests on new employees and as employees are compelled to join the firm's pension scheme those who are weak and in need of better pension provisions may have no opportunity of joining occupational pension schemes. These schemes stand very much in the way of the mobility of labour both in this country and abroad. The Minister should examine the effect they have on the mobility of labour here. The State social security system has the overriding benefit of being automatically transferable. It is important to point out this benefit for the information of the public.

Both the Minister and his Department are unduly apologetic, self-defensive and quiet about the tremendous benefit of our State national insurance system, a system which costs a mere 5 per cent of contributions to administer. About 25 per cent of the premium of private insurance goes in administration costs, commissions, profit to the insurance company, profits to the shareholders and the remainder is provided in terms of benefits. About two-thirds of the occupational pensionsthe only figure I have is the figure for the British scheme—die with the pensioners but the State scheme in operation here is of a continuing nature for the vast majority of the people. This is one of the major disadvantages of the occupational pensions scheme. I know I will not be very popular with some of the major pension trust companies for stressing these points. The level of benefits of many of these schemes is not very high; it may be £2, £3 or £4 a week. Indeed one would be doing very well with a scheme paying £4 a week. I do not wish to see these schemes reduced or campaigned against by any government or any political party but I do think their value and effectiveness should be kept in proper perspective.

I would suggest that the Minister examine the Crossman Plan, which was a combination of a State pension scheme and the occupational pension in Britain, and even though it is not going to be implemented by the new Government there it is a plan we might follow. I believe the newly elected Government in Britain have taken a retrograde step by not implementing this plan. I suggest we look at this plan not out of any slavish following of British systems but it must be pointed out that they have one of the finest social security systems in Europe with the possible exception of the parallel development in Scandinavian countries.

The time has come when the staff in the Department of Social Welfare should take a long, hard look at our current system, not only the level of benefits but also the present system of, for example, children's allowances, which in my opinion is urgently needed. We do not know how effective children's allowances are. We do not have the slightest idea to what extent they contribute towards family budgets. There is a great need for social research into family life. I should like to refer the Minister to the statement by the director of the Economic and Social Research Institute made before the Statistical Social Research Society in January, 1969, when he talked about future social research in Ireland. He quoted from a colleague of his, Dr. Hannan, and this quotation is published at page 66 of the Journal of the Statistical and Social Enquiry Society of Ireland:

We have very limited knowledge of the structure and functions of the Irish family or of variations in it. Arensberg's study is 30 years out of date. Humphries' 1950 study is very limited methodologically and is also out of date. Kane and Gallagher will provide some such information but only for traditional farm areas. Even projections such as Walsh's as to actual or likely changes in fertility patterns or in occupational or educational patterns suffer from this lack of knowledge about Irish families. Some of the major economic and social problems in Irish farming stem from the inability of the family to cope with property transfers from father to son.... Similar types of family malfunctioning and generational conflict occur in urban areas, especially among the poor. A project dealing with family structure, even though not directly concerned with providing answers to practical questions, would provide very valuable information on many social problems from farm inheritance problems to poverty cycles, educational problems, alcoholism, and delinquency. As regards demography generally, it would provide the kind of background information that appears necessary for any predictions.

There is an urgent need for the Minister to commission the ESRI and social scientists to examine what benefit we are really getting from the £70 million a year we spend on so-called social welfare benefits because I am not convinced that, on social grounds, on cost benefit analysis grounds, on grounds of an effective contribution to raising the dignity and the morale of our people, we are getting the kind of contribution which the cash, the staff, the Government, and the Opposition parties are capable of making in this regard.

I am pleased generally with the trend of the debate and with the many helpful contributions which have been made, particularly in relation to some of the new schemes where the suggestions made can be quite helpful in drawing up regulations. Many of the Deputies who welcomed the improvements provided for in the Bill, complained that we had not gone far enough. This is the usual trend in the debate on the Social Welfare Bill every year.

This Bill adds £8,526,000 in a full year to our social welfare costs in order to meet payment of the various benefits. This is a modest but very commendable increase in a small country like ours. Without taking statistics and making comparisons with different countries, I always like to apply one particular yardstick which I have mentioned here on similar occasions. In the last ten years we have increased our expenditure from £20 million to £118 million in a full year. This rate of progress over the last decade in itself speaks more eloquently for the progress made in social welfare in this country than any other statistic which can be quoted in this House by way of comparison or otherwise while discussing this Bill or in speaking in any other debate on social welfare.

With regard to comparison, I would like to warn Deputies who frequently quote from various publications showing the expenditure under the heading of social welfare or social services— which term is sometimes used although not exactly accurate—for various countries, that they should pay more attention to a breakdown of what is included in the statements from those other countries in relation to our country before they make comparisons. Deputies should consider the many items which other countries show as a percentage of their social welfare. These comparisons would not show our country in a disadvantageous position, as might first appear. Many continental countries include army and police pensions, civil service pensions, war compensation, health and education grants, as part of their social welfare code. Some countries even include pensions paid by private firms as part of their social welfare schemes. If we were to include all these things in a table of comparisons the percentages would look different. We are not ashamed of the breakdown as we know it. We are not ashamed to have comparisons made with different countries. Our ambition is to move up social welfare in relation to the improvement in the general standard of living as resources permit in an expanding economy. We must ensure that the economy is capable of paying continually increased benefits. The redistribution of wealth in a country which has an expanding economy must essentially result in a better scale of social welfare benefits. This is something we have done persistently, particularly throughout the last decade. The increases have not been based merely on percentage increases in the cost of living. On a glance at the rates in relation to the increases in the cost of living each year, one will find that we have been very much ahead of what would be justified merely by the increases in the cost of living. The tendency is to bring the rates up to something which is in line with a decent standard of living.

It is very simple to say that the benefits are inadequate. As I have said before, nobody will ever see an Opposition Member in this House getting up and telling the Government that they have done enough for social welfare recipients and that they should ease off the benefits. Opposition Members will always say that the increases are good but that they do not go far enough and will ask how old age pensioners are expected to live on the amounts granted. These comments will always be made. We are improving all the time. We are improving the rates and expanding the social welfare code. We are bringing more people under the social welfare umbrella. We are reaching out to the sections which most deserve our attention.

This year, like every other year, many Deputies have advocated a more comprehensive scheme. I have pointed out that as we expand the schemes and improve the rates we keep in mind the general structure of what a good social welfare pattern is. If we appear to be expanding in a piecemeal fashion, what we have in mind is the blueprint of a comprehensive social welfare scheme. We are expanding in a manner which will fit into the pattern as part of a more general scheme. The Bill includes some of the items mentioned in the Third Programme for Economic Expansion. It incorporates a few very important items. Please God, we will encompass all these items mentioned in the Third Programme for Economic Expansion as time goes on and will formulate a well-co-ordinated scheme. Deputy Dr. O'Donovan and Deputy FitzGerald said that we were doing a lot of ad hoc things which are not properly co-ordinated. Any addition to the scheme which includes bringing in new sections of our people will fit eventually into a co-ordinated, comprehensive scheme.

It would take an enormous amount of money to do all the things we would like to do. The social conscience of this country in recent times—whether it is a matter of putting social welfare up for auction for political purposes or a genuine social conscience, which I would prefer to see—is more alive. Our people wish to see the weaker sections of the community properly cared for. The same generosity towards paying the bill and providing the tax which is essential to meet these increased benefits is not so evident. I suppose that is human nature. We all desire many things but we are not too happy about paying for them. This year's Budget provided £8,526,000 for the welfare classes. Everyone said this was good but when it came to paying 2½ per cent on the turnover tax everyone said that it was ridiculous and a wrong thing to do. This is the old story. We cannot do all these things without providing the necessary money for them.

I would like to deal with all the points raised by Deputies. Many of the points overlapped. I will run over some of them. Many good points and some inaccurate points were made. The question of means test came up for criticism this year. Deputy FitzGerald at the end of what I considered to be a very reasonable speech, mentioned that we should positively discriminate between the destitute and those not so destitute. For a number of years past this was the message being put across to Ministers for Social Welfare in relation to old age pensions. When my predecessor, at one stage, decided to discriminate and to give an extra 5s a week to those who had nothing, he faced a barrage of questions in the House as to why, for example, a man who had a house and garden or a man who had an income of £10 per year did not qualify when all the Minister was doing was setting out to do something which we are pressurised to do so often, that is, to discriminate, as Deputy Barry Desmond says, between those who are destitute and those who are not.

If there is to be proper distribution of the national wealth to the people who are most in need, we, like the British, who, these days, are complaining of the same things, find it difficult to get through to the people who are most in need that we must always face some such difficulties. To a great extent, the British meet this problem by way of supplementary benefit. Of course, as Deputy Desmond has suggested, our supplementary benefits can be classified mainly as those paid by way of home assistance. Of course, home assistance has not a very favourable connotation in this country. Nevertheless, it is one method by which immediate action can be taken by people who have intimate knowledge of stress in a particular area. For that reason I would hope at some time to have the general scheme of social welfare administered centrally. I would like always to retain that part of it which, through intimate knowledge, can make immediate payment in case of sudden distress.

Very often, local authorities are in a position to know of cases in which families suddenly find themselves in distress as a result of some calamity whether it be sickness, accident or otherwise and the best means of dealing with an emergency case of that kind is home assistance. I have mentioned in the House before that it was part of what we had under consideration in the general examination of the whole social welfare scheme, which is now being undertaken in the Department and which, I hope, will produce the necessary means for improvement each year.

Most Deputies referred to the £1,200 limit which, I agree, has been in operation for a long time now. I can assure the House that as soon as possible a substantial increase will be made in this and will be cleared at Government level. This does not require legislation because we can do it by statutory regulation. We are considering now what the future limit should be.

The question of selectivity in relation to children's allowance was once again raised in the House. I spoke on this some years ago and perhaps with greater enthusiasm than I might speak today because when we examined the question we found selectivity not so easy to introduce if we were to avoid having a means test and, as everybody knows, a means test is not very popular in this country. However, the nearest we could get to paying children's allowance on a selective basis was to have the allowances made subject to income tax where income tax is payable. The increases last year and this year are subject to income tax assessment and, in that way, we will recoup a certain amount from those who pay income tax.

There are many people in this country receiving children's allowances who do not pay income tax and it is not very easy to introduce selectivity that would apply generally to all sections of the community. However, we have a few ideas up our sleeve which may improve the situation. The idea that some people seem to have in relation to the payment of children's allowance is that if we did not pay them to the better-off families who do not need them we could afford to give substantially increased benefits to those who are most in need. While not everybody may agree with that idea, most people do.

Many matters of local interest were raised such as that raised by Deputy Murphy in relation to the Cork boundaries. This is a matter that I am considering as a result of a Parliamentary Question. Deputy Ryan made a good deal of play on the question of payment of pensions abroad. The simple answer is that we do pay contributory pensions to those living abroad but we cannot pay non-contributory pensions in other countries. The length of time for which a person may be absent from this country and still receive his old age non-contributory pension is 13 weeks and any balance can be reclaimed on his return. These pensions are based on a means test. They are a direct charge on the Exchequer. Therefore, it is necessary to have a means test. It is impossible to know what a person's circumstances are if he is living outside the country. Therefore, we cannot permit non-contributory benefits to be paid abroad. The same applies to the case made by a Deputy here the other day for a person drawing unemployment benefit. The Deputy suggested that such a person should be permitted to go on holi-contributor days and still continue to receive benefit. To qualify for such benefit, a person must be available in this country. Therefore, this is something which we could not consider.

There are cases where people go into the Six Counties but by special arrangement the pensions are usually paid until the persons qualify for benefit there. I should like to say that in so far as most of our contributory benefits are concerned, we have had a fairly happy relationship with the United Kingdom in the matter of drawing up reciprocal arrangements. We have reciprocity in regard to practically all our contributory schemes at the present time. I would like to pay tribute to the officials from both sides who negotiated these arrangements in a climate that was fairly amicable.

Some Deputies asked about the delay that might follow the change in children's allowances where the age is extended from 16 to 18 years, in connection with disability and unemployment benefit. I hope the House is aware that this does not refer to the general scheme of children's allowances. Questions were asked as to whether the change-over would be automatic or whether application must be made. Where payments are already in existence, it will be anticipated but there could be cases we would not know about where it would be essential for the person to apply. In any event, we hope those amendments will be fully publicised to enable people to take the appropriate action to get the benefits in time.

There is always a demand to have the home care scheme for old people extended, to extend the net with regard to the type of relations who will qualify for caring for old people. As the House knows, we have extended the scheme a few times but there is possibly room for some further extension which will not require legislation. I am looking at this at the present time.

The most general grievance expressed regarding our social welfare schemes concerned comparison with Common Market countries. It was said that when we enter Europe we will be obliged under the Treaty of Rome to harmonise our payments. Those who made the exhortations with regard to having our payments brought up to the level of those obtaining in the Six EEC countries did not examine the existing situation. No real progress has been made with regard to harmonising welfare payments in those countries. My Department have been keeping in touch with this matter. They have been examining it objectively. We find that very little harmonisation has taken place and there has been very little urging done by those already in Brussels to have this harmonisation carried out. We have nothing to fear on that score. We have little leeway to make up to bring our schemes into line with those in the Common Market countries. This is not one of the things we have to worry about on entering the EEC.

We are always anxious to bring our social welfare schemes into line not only with those in the Common Market countries but into line with those of our neighbours in relation to whom we are frequently made the subject of adverse comment. When comparisons are made with England and with the Common Market countries people exaggerate and they forget that insurance applies to virtually everybody in Northern Ireland for instance. If we were to extend our insurance scheme, as one day we hope to, to embrace all sections of the community, we could make much greater payments.

Will the Minister extend it to £1,800?

The Deputy was not here when the Minister spoke about that.

The non-employed in the north, as they are described in their social welfare guide, must pay their contribution to national insurance. The self-employed as well as the employed pay their contributions. In relation to the restricted number who contribute here this means that a vast sum of money is brought in in Northern Ireland. If this were in operation here it would enable us to do very great things and would very much modify some of the adverse criticism.

With regard to unemployment benefit, a man, wife and two children in this part of the country under this Bill will get a total of £9 9s. In Northern Ireland the benefit amounts to £10 6s. There is not any great difference here. From the point of view of the contributory old age pension, a man and wife here under this Bill will get 8s a week more than their counterparts in Northern Ireland. There is no harm to remind people of those things. Those are very important sections of our social welfare scheme.

One has to wait five years longer here. It is 70 years here and 65 years in Northern Ireland.

We should not be shy about talking about our social welfare rates because we have nothing to be ashamed of. If we can make the same strides in the next ten years as we did in the past 10 years we will have passed them out. I do not see that it will present any great difficulty. Deputy Tully made reference to the £1,200 limit. I have already covered that. We are already looking into the extension of the upper limit. It does not require legislation. We will be able to bring it in by way of statutory order.

How soon will the Minister have considered this? His predecessor said it required legislation.

He said he thought it might require legislation.

He had not time to look at it. He was a very busy man.

I must in justification to him say that he brought it to the Government.

Had they not time to consider it?

It is a question of deciding on a figure.

When will they consider it?

The Deputy will not get any more information.

We will have to wait another 12 months.

You will not.

I hope not.

Some Deputies said that the stamps contribution did not show the proper proportion payable by the Exchequer. I would like to say to those people who were doing sums on the amounts payable that in regard to the social insurance fund the Exchequer come to their rescue to the extent of one-third approximately. It has been running to much more than this.

Is the Minister talking about the assistance fund or the payment fund?

I am talking about the social insurance fund to which contributions are paid. The Exchequer paid to the extent of one-third. When I was Minister for Social Welfare previously we came up to as far as 35 per cent at one stage. The amount payable by the Exchequer redresses any imbalance in the fund. You will not find the State paying less than one-third.

What about the new figure?

The new figure is based on the assumption that the Exchequer will contribute one-third to the fund.

That is a different thing.

That is what happens.

The Minister is getting very cute.

I am stating what is correct in this regard. The Exchequer comes to the rescue to the extent of at least one-third; if it did not the employer and employee would have to meet another one-third.

But they will not this time.

If there is any disparity it will do more than redress the imbalance.

The Minister admits there is a disparity.

That is perfectly correct. With regard to complaints about voluntary contributors having to pay the extra 5s 4d, or whatever it is, we must remember that these people are now insured for additional benefits. That is the simple explanation for the increase in the stamp for the voluntary contributors. When comparing the rates of benefit with those in Northern Ireland, the Deputy was quick to remind me that these are paid at an earlier age in Northern Ireland but he did not remind me of the fact that they do not get free travel, free radio and television and free electricity. Free travel runs at something around £650,000 a year. That is quite a substantial bill.

How many pensioners are involved?

Do they not have supplementary benefits?

Free travel is being availed of more and more. There are 46,000 in receipt of free light. That shows we are getting through to a very substantial number. I am very happy about that.

The relief benefits were mentioned by Deputy Tully and others. We have got clearance from the Government for this scheme. I should like to point out —first of all, I want to thank those who paid tribute to the officials of the Department—that we are the butt of a good deal of unnecessary criticism mainly because we reach out into practically every home in the country. A newspaper columnist finds criticism of the Department of Social Welfare suitable material because he will get a very wide readership. We are working with a considerably reduced staff, though we had some new staff appointed recently. We are dealing with thousands and thousands of people daily. Just as Homer nodded, so we make occasional mistakes. I am not apologising for the occasional even unpardonable mistake. I wish the newspapers would write about all those in regard to whom we make no mistakes, but that would not be very interesting probably. The officials of my Department have one instruction so far as I am concerned: that is to help the people to get the benefits to which they are entitled. If an occasional mistake is made it is not just a one-sided affair because we sometimes find ourselves dealing with a very clever clientele, small in number admittedly, who can make things difficult for others. I do not have to elaborate on that. The disability benefit scheme is definitely abused. If we were to ensure that there were no abuses, or if we cut down abuses to the minimum, the exercise would cost us a great deal of money; we would be accused of doing quite unnecessary things and officials would be blamed for trespassing on the private lives of people. Make no mistake about it, we know perfectly well we are being codded up to the two eyes.

That is a most unfair statement because the Minister is making a charge against doctors who issue certificates. One cannot get disability benefit unless one has a certificate.

I did not mention a doctor at all. With regard to deserted wives, I mentioned some of the factors which will be taken into account in drawing up the regulations. I may have given the impression—it is on the record—that payment of maintenance would in itself be proof of desertion. That is not so. The regulations will be drawn up as soon as the Bill becomes law. As Deputies advocated, I should like to be as lenient as possible. There will be difficulty in some cases. Most speakers admitted this. Deputy Dr. Browne said I would have a big problem in ascertaining what constitutes a deserted wife. We will have to rely on information from the Garda, the NSPCC, the clergy and so forth. We will have some co-operation with authorities abroad. We hope the genuine cases will not be too difficult of proof. I should not like anyone to think we will administer the scheme in such a way as to make it almost impossible for people to qualify. We will have to do some screening, but I think the regulations will be sufficiently flexible to enable a proper assessment to be made. Investigations will take place in the same way as they do in the case of widows' pensions. The same yardstick will be applied as in the case of widows but the lower age limit will be 50 except where there are children.

What is the reason for this?

The young deserted wife without children is not in the same position from the point of view of hardship as would be the deserted wife with young dependants. There are other reasons. We do not want to make it easy for people to breach the disciplines of marriage; if they were not contributing to the support of their wives they might be quite happy to think that somebody else was. I believe this age limit is reasonable.

How does the Minister differentiate between the economic position of a widow under 50 with no qualified children and a deserted wife under 50 with no qualified children. Is not the economic position exactly the same?

Not quite. I mentioned one of the points; the Deputy may not have been listening. I am sure he is aware that there are people who might not have a very conscientious outlook on the maintenance of their wives when they take up work abroad. If they felt there was somebody at home to look after their wife and family they might not be too worried about making their own contribution. We must not encourage that even in the smallest way. That does not apply to widows.

Could that argument not be used against the whole scheme?

We must take it for granted that there are many genuine cases. That is why the scheme was introduced. Some good suggestions were made during the debate and they will be taken into account in the drafting of regulations. Any changes in the social welfare code as a result of this Bill will appear in the new booklet. I have here the booklet for 1970 which gives details of the various schemes. It contains an abridged account, in simple terms, of the benefits available. It also draws attention to the more extended account and to leaflets which are available on the various schemes.

It is a most useful publication.

I should like to see the secretary of every Fianna Fáil Cumann having these books and the same applies to the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party.

I am their best customer. They are excellent.

They are a very good idea. If these books were studied, some columnists in the evening papers might find themselves out of a job. One of the most common reasons for delay is incomplete information.

Would the Minister consider including in SW4 a small portion in heavy type to this effect: "Please ensure that your Social Welfare Number is on all communications to the Department"? That would obviate a lot of delay.

The right number.

I quite agree. One of the things I admire about people I meet throughout the country is that they can quote their insurance number which sometimes runs into eight figures: I could not do that.

Very often, they are dependent on it for their dinner.

They do not always put it on their correspondence to the Department and that can mean immense trouble for us.

The Bill marks another important extension of the social welfare code. I will not say we have said the last word on social welfare. I think it is only another milestone along a road we have travelled rapidly and on which I hope we will gather further speed. Not alone has this Bill improved the rates right across the board but it has extended the scheme to bring more people under the umbrella. There may be a few dithering on the outer edge whom I hope we will bring in. Many Deputies have criticised the fact that we have not brought everybody under the pensions at 65 schemes, but it is a beginning. Once we have made a start, we shall be under pressure to reduce the age for the other people.

It has been said that the death grant is not all that good at £25 but it is only £5 less than what it is in Northern Ireland. Deputy Tully said the late Deputy William Norton incorporated this in a Bill in 1952. I do not think he was serious about it or he would have implemented it.

He did not get a chance. Fianna Fáil took it over and immediately threw it out.

Nothing is ever thrown out; it was only put in abeyance. The Coalition Government returned in 1954 for another three years but they did nothing about it. The death grant is not intended to pay for the funeral; it is a contribution towards it. I do not know how one could assess the cost of a funeral. This is a contribution and a start.

Retired pensions, provision for deserted wives and any other additions to the scheme are the beginning of a very important trend. For us, the £8,526,000, which all this adds to our bill over the year, is a relatively big amount. I am glad to note that the social conscience of this country has improved to the extent that we do not now baulk at meeting a very essential demand. I trust there will be the same social conscience in the years ahead and the same readiness to make the necessary distribution of expanding wealth to bring our weaker sections to a point at which we should all like to see them where they will enjoy a standard of living near to that enjoyed at present by the majority of our people.

What about the payment of benefit in respect of those whose cards have not been stamped by their employers? I mention this in the context of occupational injuries benefit.

The ones that give me the greatest worry are bankruptcy cases where you have nobody to go after. In the other cases, there is always somebody to go after.

Somebody is hungry in the meantime.

We are anxious to do something about it. We do not want to reach a stage where the onus is taken off the employer to meet his obligations. This would not happen if the employee would ensure that his card is stamped and ask to see it from time to time.

That would cause upsets about which the Department of Social Welfare would not be very happy. There is no reason why the Department should not do this. They can recover from the employer, which the unfortunate insured person is not in a position to do. My next point concerns persons who, though having 156 stamps, run out of benefit in a period of 12 months because the illness continues. As it stands they go on to local assistance, home assistance. Would the Minister consider introducing that, even for next year?

Anything my predecessor promised, I will honour.

He did not promise to do it. He promised that he would consider it. If the Minister looks into it I think he will realise it is well worth doing.

I do not want to make another speech on that aspect of it. It is one of the things that give us more headaches than others. I also admit that somewhere in between there can be a loser. I would like to remedy that.

Will the Minister look into it?

May I ask the Minister three questions? In relation to the selectivity in the family allowances, could the Minister not pay extra family allowances to those whose families are certified as not taxable for income tax and have a negative income tax in this way? Why is the death grant for children over five years 200 per cent greater than it is for children under five years? What is the Minister's view about retrospective payment for longer illnesses in respect of the three waiting days?

We decided to retain the three waiting days. What was the first question?

In relation to selectivity in family allowances?

That would not solve our problem in relation to the agricultural community who are not taxable anyway.

That is done too because of the fact that those who are paying income tax have it taken off them anyway.

They are the only people we take it off. The Deputy was suggesting we should get it from the people who are certified as not paying income tax.

That is done. It is taken off those who are paying income tax. It is not taken off those who are not paying income tax.

What about the discrimination between children under and over five years in relation to death grants? Why is it 200 per cent greater for children over five years?

I suppose it is based on the reality of the costs involved.

I would not have thought there would be much difference.

There is a very great difference.

Question put and agreed to.

Could we take the next Stage now?

No, I think arrangements are being made to take it tomorrow. A number of amendments are being considered. I did not know we would be asked to take it now.

You could not amend this Bill.

We could, very easily.

It is perfect. Why not take the next Stage now?

I am sorry.

It is arranged?

On a point of clarification, these amendments have just been submitted. I knew nothing about them and I was quite prepared to give the Minister the next Stage of the Bill. In view of the difficulties which have been outlined, perhaps it would be better to leave it until after the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. It can be taken then.

I understood that it had been agreed that the Finance Bill would be taken now.

Will the House adjourn now?

I understood that the Finance Bill would be taken now and that the other Bill would be taken tomorrow. We did not know that it would be dealt with in such a hurry.

If the Whips have decided, that is all right with me. Is there any other business for the rest of the day?

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd July, 1970.

10.30 in the morning.

After the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.

Top
Share