When I was concluding on the Social Welfare Bill, I was paying tribute to a staff that is very often made a scapegoat by many people who want, for ulterior motives, to cast aspersions on the social welfare system. I have taken this as my first opportunity in opposition to pay a tribute to a loyal and hard-working staff, to a staff which is frequently wrongfooted, and in the meanest possible manner, public servants who have not the opportunity to come back, who are doing an excellent job in one of the largest Departments of State, which has a huge volume of work. The percentage of administration costs in relation to the overall disbursement of the Department is very favourable indeed, and if we were to move towards the point of instant social welfare, as I frequently used to call what people were demanding, we would have to do one of two things or both, that would be, to turn a blind eye to many abuses, not to look for qualifications but to hand out money ad lib; or, alternatively, to double the amount of staff which is there at present. Thousands of cases have to be processed daily.
If some of these critics had access to the Department to see the sparse information that is often supplied with claims or applications, they would appreciate the difficulty involved in getting quick decisions which we would all dearly love to have. In saying that, I would hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would continue, as I have been trying to do, to expedite decisions in all cases. There are cases where there are unavoidable delays, but there are others where there are perhaps occasionally avoidable delays, and these should be eliminated. They have now installed a computer, which I took the decision to purchase in my time, and I hope this will lead to better and more expeditious handling of the growing volume of work in the Department.
As I said, it is ironical that it falls to a man who opposed entry into the EEC to administer the largesse which is made available by the EEC for social welfare in this country. I am glad it is one of the fruits of EEC membership that has become available to us. Winding up on the Social Welfare Bill last year I pointed out, and it is on the record, that apart from the money made available to us in savings on the agricultural subsidies, the EEC would be a necessary incentive to impel us towards harmonising our services with those of EEC member states, which means we must ultimately bring them into line with those countries. It is not that there is harmony between the services of existing members. They are all very different, but all of them are better than ours. This we admit.
We are a small country with a small population and a relatively small number of persons contributing, and we are inclined to milk very heavily the resources available to us in order to redistribute the national income to the best of our ability. I do not think anybody could accuse us of not doing that. The evolution of social welfare is one of the most commendable features of the whole of the Government's activities over the past number of years. All the talk about a comprehensive scheme, restructuring, bringing in a new code, is the greatest nonsense. Social welfare is something which evolves, something which improves from year to year. New services have come in; new schemes have been adopted, and, no matter what the public conscience or the Minister's social conscience dictates, he must be limited by the availability of resources. The many beautiful things we would like to do tomorrow very often must wait until the day after.
The Minister will now have to move towards social insurance for the population as a whole. This will bring everybody within the social insurance scheme, and we shall thus get the necessary contributions from the people who are in a position to pay them. As in the case of the income tax code the more people who contribute the easier it will be on all. By casting the net wider, the amount of the weekly subscription to social insurance should become less rather than more. This is the direction in which I was hoping to move rapidly and in which we ware moving in the past.
One has only to look back to see the number of schemes that have been implemented since the last war. It was actually 1947 before any improvement's were made, contributory pensions for widows and so on, ultimately bringing in every person who should be covered by the social welfare code. I would like to see self-employed people being able to share in some of the social welfare benefits which are now available only to insured persons, such as under the occupational injuries legislation which gives tremendous coverage to employed persons and will apply to self-employed persons when they are brought within the contributory system. This will be a more comprehensive contribution system when it is extended to self-employed persons and to all other persons, as it is in the UK.
These are the steps one would like to see taken. Our ambition was to reach a stage when we could not be adversely compared particularly with the six North Eastern counties or with Great Britain, and we can no longer be compared adversely with what they are doing there. Indeed, some of our social welfare schemes were brought in before they brought in some of their schemes. Granted, the greater resources available to them has enabled them to be more generous than we have been, but for a small country we have been moving as rapidly as the people expected us to move, always having regard to those who were responsible for providing the resources out of which any Government boasts of its generosity in doing things which the public conscience these days progressively wishes them to do.
I do not think it is necessary to dwell any further on this piece of legislation. As I said at the start, it was my great pleasure year after year during my time in Social Welfare to announce improved benefits and extend the scope of the scheme each year. I hope that progress will continue, especially with regard to the most deserving sections—the aged, the infirm and those who are unable to assist themselves.
The Coalition grouping came together hurriedly before the general election and they were inclined to make many promises to attract extra votes. In their over-enthusiasm they made promises they were unable to carry out and this was inevitable. If they follow the course we had charted, which any Minister for Social Welfare must follow in the years ahead, we will have as good a social welfare code as any other country. I hope that the economy will be able to develop in the same progressive manner as formerly otherwise it will not be possible to provide any worthwhile benefits for the needy. It is a tribute to the soundness of the economy that the Coalition Government, a few weeks after taking office, were able to do certain things. I wish the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary success in this interesting, successful, and sometimes unduly criticised work.