Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1974

Vol. 273 No. 7

Second Stage. Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1974:

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is intended to give effect to those major improvements in social welfare which were provided for in the budget in line with the Government's commitment to social reform.

The various sections of this Bill make provision for increases in rates of assistance and benefits and for significant new schemes designed to broaden the scope and effectiveness of our system of social protection. These advances represent another stage in the implementation of the Government's undertaking—made in the Statement of Intent—to bring "immediate assistance to those in need and lay the foundations of long-term policy that will root out the causes of low income ...". They also continue the work begun in last year's budget and Social Welfare Act in giving effect to the commitment "to deal with the plight of the aged, deprived children, the widowed, orphaned and deserted" and other groups in need.

The proposals contained in this Bill, which I commend to the House for its approval, form part of a coherent programme of reform of the social welfare system. Their implementation will have the effect of bringing practical assistance to certain categories of persons in need and, thus, of plugging gaps in our existing social welfare coverage. The Government are working systematically towards their declared goal of introducing a truly comprehensive system of social security covering all members of the community.

This task is a long-term one, involving as it does review and reform of a vast and complex system which will be changed in the year ahead with the expenditure of almost £300 million and which provides coverage of one kind or another for the great bulk of the population. I see the provisions of this Bill as a most significant and positive contribution to the evolution of our welfare system, strengthening the foundations upon which the Government can build the necessary structures for the future.

The Bill will implement the extensions and improvements of the social insurance and social assistance schemes for which financial provision was made in the budget. It includes a number of items which are consequential on these budgetary proposals and also some miscellaneous provisions to improve existing schemes. A number of the provisions in the Bill are necessarily technical and will no doubt be found to be somewhat obscure; with a view to clarifying those provisions an explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill and I hope that it will have achieved the desired result of helping Deputies in their examination of the Bill.

As Deputies are aware, the budget proposals included a number of provisions to improve the scheme of non-contributory old age and blind pensions — substantial increases in rates of payment, further easing of the means test, the further reduction of the qualifying age for pension from 69 to 68 years and, an important innovation, the payment of allowances for adult dependants. Where a married couple are both of pensionable age, each can qualify for old age pension as their means are shared equally between them. A pensioner whose wife is not old enough to qualify in her own right for pension does not, however, receive any allowance for her in his pension at present. Consequently the anomalous position frequently arises where a man approaching pensionable age could be in receipt of, say, £9.25 by way of unemployment assistance for himself and his dependent wife at present rates and, on attaining pensionable age, could drop to £6.15 a week on qualifying for old age pension. To put an end to this unsatisfactory feature of the old age pensions scheme, an increase in old age pension will be provided under the Bill in respect of dependent spouses who are not themselves entitled to pension, as in the case of old age (contributory) pension and retirement pension. The maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory old age pension is being increased from £6.15 to £7.30 for persons under age 80 and from £6.65 to £7.80 for those aged 80 and over. The maximum weekly rate of increase for an adult dependant—the new provision to which I have just referred—will be £3.65. Thus the overall weekly payment for a non-contributory pensioner with a dependent spouse will, at the maximum rates, be increased from £6.15 to £10.95 a week, or, if the pensioner is 80 or more, from £6.65 to £11.50 a week. Increases of pension for qualified children of pensioners are being raised to £1.95 a week for each of the first two children and to £1.50 a week for each additional child, while the payment for a prescribed relative looking after an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £3.50 to £4.15.

The further easing of the means test by disregarding the first £5 of assessed weekly means instead of the first £4 as at present will again improve the position of all existing pensioners who have less than the maximum pension and will enable many persons who are at present debarred on grounds of means to qualify for pension. For example, a single person whose weekly means exceed £10.50 but do not exceed £11.50 who cannot get a pension at present will be able to qualify for a reduced rate of pension under the new conditions. In addition, the reduction in qualifying age from 69 to 68 will bring over 10,000 new pensioners into the scheme. Blind persons who are not affected by the reduction in pensionable age will benefit from the new rates of pension, the easing of the means test and the new allowance for adult dependants.

The total number of persons affected by the improvements in the old age and blind pensions schemes will be 144,500 made up of 115,000 existing pensioners, 11,500 new pensioners, 13,500 adult dependants and 4,500 children.

Non-contributory widows' pensions are also being improved; the maximum weekly personal rate of pension will be increased from £6.15 to £7.30 and the weekly increases for qualified children are being raised to £2.40. Taken in conjunction with the existing amounts of a widow's earnings which may be disregarded in assessing her means, the ignoring of the first £5 of weekly income will further improve the position of a widow who supplements her income by working. Thus a widow with no other means who has two children could earn up to £8 a week without affecting her right to the new maximum pension of £12.10 for a widow with two children. A widow with four children will be able to earn up to £11 a week without affecting her entitlement to the new maximum pension of £16.90 appropriate in her case.

The new weekly rates and the easing of the means test in the case of widows' non-contributory pensions will apply also to the allowances for deserted wives and unmarried mothers.

It is estimated that not less than 15,000 widows will benefit from the improvements in the scheme, of whom about 250 will be new pensioners, while 7,000 children will be affected. In addition some 2,500 deserted wives with 2,900 children and 1,900 unmarried mothers with 2,400 children will also benefit from these improvements.

Orphans' non-contributory pensions are also being increased under the Bill—the increase being 75p, which will bring the maximum weekly rate for an orphan up to £4.75. About 185 orphans will benefit from the increase.

A word now on improvements in unemployment assistance. The maximum weekly rates for persons in urban and rural areas are being increased by £1 in the personal rate, with a further 70p where there is an adult dependant. This will raise the maximum rate for a single person to £6.35 in an urban area and to £6.05 elsewhere: the rate for a married couple will go up to £10.95 in an urban area and to £10.55 elsewhere. The rates for children go up to £1.95 for each of the first two and to £1.50 for each additional child.

The effect of these increases will be that the maximum weekly amount of unemployment assistance payable in an urban area to a married couple will go up from £9.25 to £10.95, from £12.55 to £14.85 if they have two dependent children and from £15.05 to £17.85 if they have four dependent children. The comparable increases for those in rural areas will be from £8.85 to £10.55 in the case of married couples, from £12.15 to £14.45 if they have two dependent children and from £14.65 to £17.45 if they have four dependent children. It is estimated that the average number of persons who will benefit from these increases will be some 53,000, including about 23,000 smallholders, and that these will have some 31,000 adult dependants and 83,000 dependent children.

This year again we have found it possible to improve the general children's allowance scheme. The rates payable for each qualified child are being increased by 30p a month. This will bring them up to £2.30 per month for the first child, £3.30 for the second and £4.05 for each additional child. The new monthly rates will therefore, be £2.30 for a onechild family, £9.65 for a three-child family and £17.75 for a five-child family. These rates compare very favourably with the rates payable under the general family allowances scheme in Britain and Northern Ireland where nothing is paid for a one-child family, £8.23 per month is paid for a three-child family and £16.90 for a five-child family. This, I think, is a quite remarkable improvement in the situation having regard, in particular, to the fact that the family allowances in Britain and Northern Ireland are treated as taxable income and also subject to "claw-back" whereas the Irish allowances are not taxable and as announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement, the existing "claw-back" is to be abolished. The number of families who will benefit from the increase in rates is approximately 375,000, involving over 1,100,000 qualified children or some 37 per cent of the population. This illustrates how high the "young" dependency ratio is in Ireland.

I come now to increases in the rates of pensions and short-term benefits under the social insurance system. There is an increase of £1.30 a week in the personal rates of retirement and old age (contributory) pension for persons under age 80 and £1.40 for persons aged 80 or over. The increases in the allowances for adult dependants are 85p for those under 68 years and £1.35 for those who are 68 years or over. The rates of widow's contributory pension, deserted wife's benefit, maternity allowance, flat-rate unemployment and disability benefits and invalidity pension are all being increased by £1.20 a week. In the case of a recipient of widow's contributory pension, who is aged 80 or over, the increase will be £1.30 a week.

The allowances paid with pensions and other benefits in respect of qualified children are being increased also. In the case of widow's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit the increase is 40p for each child and in the case of the remaining pensions and benefits, the increase is 35p for each of the first two children and 30p for each other child.

The new weekly rates of flat-rate unemployment and disability benefit will be £7.75 for a single person with an additional £5.05 for an adult dependant, £2.20 for each of the first two qualified children and £1.80 for each additional child. A married couple with two children will thus get £17.20 a week and a couple with four children £20.80 a week. In addition to these amounts of flat-rate benefit, pay-related benefit is payable also as a supplement to unemployment and disability benefit and maternity allowance and, in certain circumstances, with occupational injury benefit.

The personal rate of widow's contributory pension will go up to £7.80 and the allowance for each qualified child to £2.55. Thus a widow with two qualified children will get £12.90 a week compared with £10.90 at present and one with four qualified children will get £18.00 as against £15.20 at present.

In the case of retirement pensions and contributory old age pensions the personal rates go up to £8.50 where the pensioner is under the age of 80 and to £9.10 if he is 80 or over. The amount payable for an adult dependant will go up to £5.50 for one who is under the age of 68 and to £6.50 for one who has attained that age. Thus a married couple both of whom are aged over 68 will get £15.00 by way of weekly pension or £15.60 if, in addition, the pensioner is aged 80 or over.

The payment for a prescribed relative looking after an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £3.50 to £4.15 as in the case of non-contributory old age pensioners.

Pensionable age under the social insurance system is being reduced again—this time to 68 years. This affects not only the qualifying age for old age contributory pension but also the maximum age up to which the short-term benefits such as disability and unemployment benefit can be paid. Liability for payment of social insurance contributions will, of course, also cease at 68 years instead of 69 as at present. Because of this the reduction in pensionable age could have undesirable repercussions on some contributory pensions. In order to prevent these, section 11 has some special provisions including a number of "saver" clauses to protect the position of existing pensioners and persons approaching the age of 69 years.

The first of these special provisions is aimed at preserving in so far as is possible the requirement that in order to qualify for pension under the old age contributory pension scheme a person must have had not less than ten years' insurance. When that scheme was introduced with a qualifying age of 70, the first contribution condition to be satisfied required that a person must have entered insurance before reaching the age of 60 years. With the reduction in pensionable age to 68 the age at entry into insurance should be reduced to 58. This is provided for in the Bill but only in respect of persons who have not yet reached the age of 57 years.

This new condition cannot be applied in all cases, however. There are insured persons already over the age of 58 who entered insurance before reaching the age of 60 but not before reaching the age of 58 and who thus satisfied the first contribution condition as it was when they became insured persons. This must be recognised and the rights of these persons preserved. Other insured persons cannot be affected by the change in the contribution condition as they have by definition already entered insurance and must be able to satisfy both the new and the old conditions.

There are four saver clauses in subsection (5) of section 11 of the Bill to deal with problems resulting from the reduction of pensionable age to 68. The first of these in paragraph (a) is designed to allow persons who will attain the age of 69 between the 1st of July next and the beginning of January 1976, to opt to have their entitlement to old age (contributory pension determined as if the pensionable age remained at 69. These people will thus be able to avoid having contributions which were paid or credited in the last contribution years before they reach the age of 69 omitted from the calculation of their yearly averages. Such omission could in certain cases adversely affect pension rights by reducing the yearly average. A similar saver is provided in paragraph (c) for widow's (contributory) pension and deserted wife's benefit.

The other two savers in paragraphs (b) and (d) will protect the position of persons who are already qualified for old age (contributory) pension, widow's (contributory) pension or deserted wife's benefit on the basis of insurance which ended at the age of 70, the former pensionable age; or 69, the pensionable age since 1st July, 1973. These savers will ensure that these persons will get the increased rates of pension or benefit payable from 1st July next without having to have their cases re-examined on the basis of insurance up to the new pensionable age of 68. The savers will not, of course, interfere with the right of any person who has failed to qualify for pension or benefit under the present conditions or who has been awarded a reduced rate of pension or benefit only, to have this case reconsidered under the new provisions effective from 1st July, 1974.

One of the basic truths that must always be borne in mind when considering improvements in social welfare schemes is that they cost money. The cost of the social assistance schemes falls wholly on the Exchequer and is met from general taxation. The cost of the social insurance system falls on the Social Insurance Fund which is financed by contributions from employers, employees and the Exchequer.

To meet the extra cost of the improvements in the social insurance services provided for in this Bill it will of course be necessary to increase the rates of social insurance contributions payable by employers and insured persons. As announced by the Minister for Finance in his budget statement, employers are being asked as last year to bear a higher proportion of the cost of improvements in view of the further relief which they are getting in their rates liability on industrial and commercial premises.

A total increase of 60p in the rates of social insurance contribution which cover all benefits of the social insurance system is necessary. I propose in the Bill that the employer should bear 40p of this and the employee 20p. Increases of less than 60p will be applied to those rates of social insurance contribution which do not cover all the benefits of the system.

The ordinary rates of social insurance contribution, including the occupational injuries contribution, will thus be increased to £2.98 for men, of which the employers will pay £1.74 and the employee £1.24. For women the new ordinary rate will be £2.87 of which the employer will pay £1.69 and the employee £1.18. These rates do not include the health contribution of 15p where that is payable. Neither do they include the redundancy contributions which are 13p for men and 12p for women of which the employer pays 10p in each case.

In line with the improvements in the general social insurance system, the Bill also provides for increases in the rates of various benefits payable under the occupational injuries scheme. The increases in weekly rates will be broadly in line with those provided in the general social insurance benefits. It is not proposed on this occasion to increase the weekly contributions which are payable by employers only to the Occupational Injuries Fund from which the cost of occupational injuries benefits is met.

I have referred earlier to the new allowance for dependent wives of non-contributory old age pensioners. I am glad to be able to make provision in this Bill also for three other innovations. Two of them are designed to help certain persons for whom there is no specific provision at present under the social welfare code while the third will improve existing arrangements in special circumstances.

The first of these innovations is the introduction of a scheme of allowances for single women who have attained the age of 58 years. Many of these women have never been in wage-earning employment because they remained at home as housekeepers, for example, to look after ageing parents. Because of their age they can no longer be regarded as having a reasonable prospect of securing employment and thus they cannot come within the scope of the various social insurance schemes. The new scheme will be non-contributory and subject to a means test, and the allowance will be paid in the form of a pension, the maximum rate being the same as the urban rate of unemployment assistance. The means test to be applied will be broadly on the same lines as for unemployment assistance.

The second development is the introduction of a social assistance allowance for the wives of men committed to prison for a period of not less than six months. The rate of allowance payable to a prisoner's wife will be the same as the rate of widow's non-contributory pension which would be payable to her if she were a widow and there will be appropriate increases in respect of qualified children. The scheme will in fact be parallel to the schemes of allowances for deserted wives and unmarried mothers.

The third new scheme is designed to help the family of a social welfare beneficiary who dies leaving an adult dependant. Inevitably, in such cases there is an immediate drop in the family income. Where the adult dependant is the wife, she will usually be eligible for a widow's pension, either contributory or non-contributory, but some time must elapse before payment of pension can commence. Thus the stress and hardship which are occasioned by a family bereavement are aggravated.

To alleviate the plight of the dependants in these cases, it is proposed that where a person who is receiving benefit, including an increase in respect of an adult dependant, dies, payment of the benefit will continue to be made for six weeks to the surviving adult, normally the widow. As a corollary to this proposal, it is also proposed that title to the appropriate widow's or orphan's pension, which would be payable to the survivor, will not commence until after the six-week period has expired but regulations may modify this to save an individual from loss where the appropriate pension is greater than the benefit paid.

Detailed conditions of these new schemes will be prescribed in regulations which will be designed to provide, as flexibly as possible, a humane and dignified from of payment in these difficult circumstances.

The Bill also includes provision for a number of miscellaneous improvements in the social welfare code. The first relates to widows of retirement pensioners. At present the widow of an old age contributory pensioner receives a window's contributory pension automatically on the death of her husband without further reference to insurance records. The widow of a retirement pensioner does not and I propose to make provision to extend the concession to her. This automatic entitlement will simplify procedure and expedite the award of pension to these widows.

Deputies will recall that last year, widows, deserted wives and unmarried mothers who were receiving pensions or allowances as such under one or other of the Department's schemes were relieved of the liability to pay the employee's share of the social insurance contribution when working. I propose in the Bill to extend this concession to working widows receiving widow's pensions under the occupational injuries benefit scheme or from a member state of the EEC under legislation to which the EEC regulations concerning the social security of employed persons and their families moving within the Community apply. This will fill a gap which has come to light in the implementation of the arrangement.

A scheme of deserted wife's benefit was introduced into the social insurance system last year. Provision is included in the Bill for some improvements in the scheme designed to bring it more closely into line with the widow's contributory pension scheme on which it is based. The first of these is necessary because there is no provision for payment of a prescribed relative allowance with deserted wife's benefit where the beneficiary being over pensionable age is incapacitated and requires full-time care and attention, as there is with other pensions and long-term benefits payable to persons over pensionable age. To remedy this situation the Bill includes provision which will enable such an allowance to be paid to an incapacitated recipient of deserted wife's benefit who is over pensionable age. The second improvement will enable a person who can quality for both deserted wife's benefit and non-contributory old age pension to draw only the deserted wife's benefit except where the rate of non-contributory old age pension would be greater, in which event the pension only will be paid. The third is concerned with the contribution conditions for deserted wife's benefit which are somewhat more stringent than those for widow's (contributory) pension. I propose to bring the contribution conditions of both schemes into line by providing that the yearly average of contributions for deserted wife's benefit may be calculated over the last three or five contribution years before desertion as an alternative to being calculated over the insurance lifetime. As a result of this change a deserted wife will have a better chance of qualifying for the maximum benefit.

I propose also a small improvement in relation to unemployment assistance. A person applying for unemployment assistance is required to serve a waiting period of three days before becoming entitled to assistance. The waiting days requirement was removed in 1960, for certain classes of persons who apply for unemployment assistance immediately after they cease to be entitled to unemployment benefit. This concession helps in some cases but it does not help a person who for one reason or another does not apply for unemployment assistance immediately on ceasing to draw unemployment benefit. I propose to extend the concession provided under the 1960 Act by removing the waiting days requirement where the application for unemployment assistance is made within 20 weeks of the date of cessation of unemployment benefit.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are largely technical. The first of these which is concerned with pay-related benefit, is designed to remove any doubt about the eligibility for pay-related benefit of a person receiving injury benefit under the occupational injuries benefit scheme in respect of an occupational disease, who would otherwise be getting disability benefit or maternity allowance. The provision in question will also ensure that a person may receive pay-related benefit for up to 147 days of incapacity for work or unemployment in a period of interruption of employment for which he is paid flat-rate disability or unemployment benefit. This will be achieved by eliminating any possibility of days, for which he may be suspended from or disqualified for the flat-rate benefit and thus unable to draw pay-related benefit, being counted in the 147 days.

The other technical provision concerns maternity allowance and, in fact, also arises out of the introduction of pay-related benefit. Hitherto there has been no statutory provision for the calculation of a daily rate of maternity allowance. The amendment which I propose will provide for a daily rate to be calculated on the basis of a six-day a week. This will bring the maternity allowance procedure into line with that for disability benefit and unemployment benefit and so facilitate the payment of pay-related benefit.

All the improvements proposed in the Bill are to come into operation at the beginning of July next or on the first pay day in July. As I mentioned earlier, social welfare improvements cost money and it follows, therefore, that if there are to be substantial improvements, there will be heavy extra cost involved. The magnitude of the improvements can thus, to a certain extent, be measured by their cost and on that basis the improvements in the Bill are very substantial. On the social assistance side, which includes children's allowances, it is estimated that the increase in cost to the Exchequer will be £26.23 million in a full year and £13.12 million in the current financial year up to the end of December, 1974. On the social insurance side, the gross increase in expenditure from the social insurance fund is estimated at £21.93 million in a full year, of which £17.92 will be met by increased contribution income leaving just over £4 million to be borne by the Exchequer in a full year and some £2 million in the current year. The total cost for the full year will, therefore, be £48.16 million.

These figures compare very favourably with the figures of the cost of last year's improvements which totalled £62.24 million including £20.20 million for children's allowances alone. These were the highest ever figures for a full year's cost of improvements in the income maintenance services of the Department of Social Welfare. The total extra cost this year will be shared between the Exchequer which will bear 63 per cent of the cost, employers 25 per cent and employees 12 per cent. Last year the breakdown was Exchequer 74 per cent, employers 19 per cent and employees 7 per cent.

I am happy to be able to sponsor the improvements which these costs represent as a further stage in the development of our social welfare services. I have great pleasure, therefore, in recommending the Bill to Dáil Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. Faulkner

We are in the rather unusual position this year of discussing the Social Welfare Bill before the Finance Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has given a very detailed account of the various changes announced in the budget. As he dealt with each category, he stated that the various beneficiaries in each category would benefit from the changes made. If by "benefit" he means that they will receive more money I agree that that is so, but if by "benefit" he means that their standard of living will be improved, this is quite another matter and I take issue with him.

While I welcome any increases in social welfare payments, I must stress the fact that the increases provided for in this Bill are out-stripped by rapidly rising prices. While we will not oppose the legislation necessary to implement the budget proposals, we can only regard it as an interim measure. I must urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that he should reconsider the whole position as a matter of urgency and make further provision to alleviate the hardships faced by social welfare beneficiaries due to the ever increasing cost of living. Let me add that quite a considerable share of the increase in the cost of living is due to the Coalition budgetary policy and they must take responsibility for it.

We must judge the contents of this Social Welfare Bill in the context of the times in which we live and not simply on the basis of the amount of money being made available for increases in social welfare payments. I must stress that the actual amount of money made available this year for increased social welfare benefits is much lower than the amount made available last year. This is very difficult to understand in the context of the inflationary situation in which we live. In my view, speaking of total sums in present circumstances can no longer have any intrinsic meaning. The buying power of money is what is important.

The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Social Welfare have spoken at length on many occasions proclaiming their concern and the Government's concern for those depending on social welfare payments. If there is any basis for that claim, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply will explain why it is that, in the light of the fact that prices have now reached a level which could hardly be contemplated two years ago, and in the light of the fact that according to the EEC report on our economy a further £30 million is being made available this year—and, in fact, if we are to take a reply given by the Minister for Finance to a question in the House a short time ago £60 million is available from EEC resources—the actual amount of money being made available for increases in social welfare benefit has been reduced.

We must judge the merits of this Bill in the context of what it does for the least well of sections of the community, that is to say, widows and deserted wives on social assistance, in particular, because they are in general the worst off sectors in the community. Their pensions, and other forms of social assistance, are subject to a means test and while the means test limit has been increased it is still very low by present day circumstances. We also must take into account the fact that very many people in these particular categories have no income at all.

The Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister for Social Welfare, and the Members of the National Coalition Government, lay great stress on the actual amount of money involved in the increases with no reference to the cost of living. The endeavour to make political points by referring to increases given by Fianna Fáil Governments in the past but they are very careful not to refer to the lack of performance by previous Coalition Governments. In my view to assess the actual benefit to social welfare beneficiaries in the inflationary situation in which we live at present in this way is nonsense. It shows little appreciation of the true position in which all those who are dependent on social welfare payments find themselves in these days of galloping inflation.

It is a fact that even a small increase in social welfare benefits at a time when the cost of living is stable and when there are no price increases is a very real increase because it ensures that the recipient is able to buy more than he could in the previous year. Therefore, his standard of living and quality of life are improving. On the other hand, an increase in social welfare benefits and assistance of a much larger sum of money at a time when the cost of living is rising at an even greater amount is no increase at all. It is quite obvious that in such circumstances a social welfare recipient is much worse off, that his standard of living falls and that the whole quality of his life disimproves.

A person who is dependent on social welfare is concerned not just with the actual cash increase but with the improvement this increase will make on his standard of living. He is concerned not just with the increase in his income but with what this income can buy and whether this increase is providing him and his family with a reasonable standard of living. Those in receipt of social welfare benefits can justifiably look to the most recent national wage agreement to see the minimum income and the increases the worker finds necessary in present circumstances and compare, relatively speaking, the benefit or assistance which is being made available to him.

We are living in a time of galloping inflation some of which is due to world conditions. However, quite a considerable amount of it is due to Government policy. Deliberate increases in VAT last year on clothing, fuel and lighting, some of the basic necessities of life, made it more difficult for those on low level incomes to live, such as those dependent on social welfare benefits. The Parliamentary Secretary may refer to the removal of VAT from food which we were informed cost £18 million. However, it is a well-known fact that the public at large got no benefit whatsoever from this and the fact that they did not benefit, something which we pointed out when this idea was first mooted, is recognised in the National Prices Commission's report of January, 1974. Then it was stated that the removal of VAT from food seemed to have been absorbed by the marketing sector under the policy of constant percentage margins and was not passed on to the consumer.

This action by the Government in so far as social welfare beneficiaries was concerned was useless. On the other hand, by deliberate action the Government increased the cost of clothing, fuel and lighting and many other essential commodities. Quite a proportion of the money made available in social welfare benefits was absorbed in meeting these increases. They simply brought the social welfare beneficiary to the position where he had been before the budget. This is a matter which should be noted. This left only a portion of the total amount of money which appeared to be allocated for improving the social welfare situation available for combating the rapidly escalating prices and for the improvement of the standard of living of those who were most in need.

To quite an extent the amount of the individual increase was eroded through the increases which were made by the deliberate act of the Government in increasing VAT on the various commodities I have mentioned. In our view if this £18 million spent on the removal of VAT from food was used for social welfare purposes instead of using it to help those in higher income brackets who are quite capable of looking after themselves it would have been much better.

Some time after the so-called removal of VAT off food the Minister for Industry and Commerce was asked, during the course of an interview on RTE, if the Government would agree to the subsidisation of food and his reply was that he did not favour this course, and that the proper one to pursue was to increase social welfare benefits. Our argument had penetrated at that stage. In all these circumstances, therefore, it was clear that if we were to do what was right in the area of social welfare, if we were to show our real concern, the opportunity was there to make dramatic changes. The Coalition Government inherited from us a buoyant economy and they also had available to them the £30 million saved on agricultural subsidies because of our entry into the EEC. It was known that this money would be available during the general election campaign and every party contesting the election promised to utilise this money for the purpose of improving social welfare benefits. I find it rather strange that in any reference to the changes made and the improvements in the monetary sphere by the National Coalition that it is rarely mentioned by the media that this £30 million was available. I have no doubt that had we been in Government and had we made these changes with the EEC money there would have been specific reference to the fact that that money had been available. Of course we would have utilised the money to a greater effect than the present Administration have done.

If we are to do what is right in relation to social welfare we must think not in the simple terms of monetary increase but in terms of what increased buying power we are making available. That is the question of utmost importance. Nobody can deny that the cost of living has rocketted since this time last year. To confirm this one has only to study a reply given here by the Taoiseach to Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, who asked for a list of items that were included in the consumer price index which increased in price in the 12-month period up to March 31st, 1974; for the percentage increase in each case; for the total number of increases and for the average percentage increase. The reply was a lengthy one because there were 357 items each showing an increase. A study of that document would show the dramatic effect that price rises have had on the incomes of pensioners and others who are depending on social welfare payments.

It is worth noting the types of clothing and fuel that were subject to the most dramatic increases. In some instances the increase was as high as 60 per cent. This indicates more clearly than anything else how unreal it is to take a global percentage cost of living increase as a fair indication of the increase in the cost of living when we are concerned with people who are on low level incomes such as those in receipt of social welfare payments. It is interesting to note also that the cheaper the article the greater was the percentage increase.

Judging from the increases recommended by the Prices Commission during March and April it would appear that there is to be no moderation in the rate of increase in price levels. In March the commission allowed increases totalling £21.1 million and in April of £10.7 million, a total of £32.8 million. The oil price increases are beginning to have effect now. Therefore the statement made by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech that social welfare payments would be increased by 18 per cent and that this increase compared with the increase in the cost of living since last year's budget increases would ensure that all beneficiaries would enjoy an increase in the real standard of living, is bogus and misrepresents the real position. It is not the increase in the cost of living from the budget of 1973 to that of 1974 that is relevant here. What is relevant is the date of payment—July 1974. A study of the figures would show that the percentage increase in the relevant period is very much higher than that which was given for the other period.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy will realise that his party never paid increases in benefits until October. He will realise also that the budget is for a nine-month period.

Mr. Faulkner

The important aspect here is that we are living in an inflationary situation. While I say that the Coalition were responsible to some extent because of their budgetary policy for this inflationary trend, it is of no great consequence as to who was responsible. The fact is that we are living in a serious inflationary situation and therefore it is the duty of the Government to ensure that the incomes available to those depending on social welfare benefit or assistance are adequate.

Mr. Cluskey

Thank God we have gone some way towards that.

Mr. Faulkner

We must take into consideration the fact that prices have been rising at a very rapid rate and that it is useless to talk simply of the total amount of money being granted by way of increases if these increases are not adequate. From a study of the rapidly increasing cost of living and of the changes which took place in the percentage increases in prices as outlined in the reply given by the Taoiseach to Deputy Fitzgerald, I am convinced that any apparent increase in social welfare being made available by the Coalition in July will be lost in the sea of inflation.

In dealing with the total amounts of money being made available we must take into consideration also the reduction of the age limit for pensions and also some other changes that have been made which resulted in the total amount of money being divided between a greater number of people. I am in agreement with what has been done in so far as these changes are concerned. However, when the changes had been made, further money should have been made available in order to improve the standard of living of such persons as widows, deserted wives and others already depending on social welfare assistance. Our concern and our commitment will be judged in this light.

It is obvious that in these days of rampant inflation, factors other than food will absorb a considerable amount of the money that is being made available and that consequently less money will be available to social welfare recipients for the purchase of food so that they will not be able to provide themselves with an adequate diet. I am concerned particularly for such persons as widows, deserted wives and non-contributory pensioners. Persons in these categories can earn up to £5 per week while retaining their full rights to benefit. In the event of their earning more money benefit would be reduced. It is difficult to visualise the circumstances in which in today's world a person could be employed for a week and earn less than £5. In that sense, then, the allowances are more apparent than real. The situation is worse when a widow or a deserted wife is not in a position to go out to work. There are many instances of persons in these categories having no income at all. In such cases the allowances are of no consequence.

I am not disparaging the allowances. However, when one considers the tremendous cost today of feeding a family and the fact that in such cases as I have referred to the entire weekly allowances could be spent on the purchase of a pair of shoes, and the fact that the increase for example in the price of coal was 55.4 per cent between mid-February, 1973, and mid-February, 1974, it is clear that more financial assistance is needed in these particular cases if their situation is not to become intolerable.

The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech on the budget referred to a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. Deputy J. Lynch pointed out that it would be necessary to increase the social welfare allowances by 25 per cent if we were even to approach what could be done for those who are unable to help themselves and are dependent on the State for assistance. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the 18 per cent increase was for a nine-month period and that this was slightly more than a 24 per cent increase over a year. I think that the opposite is true. If one takes the total amount of money made available for nine months, which gives 18 per cent increase, and it is spread over 12 months, then the percentage increase must be less than 18 per cent. If the Parliamentary Secretary studies the various categories in the social welfare code, and takes each category separately, he will find that each recipient receives approximately an 18 per cent increase. No matter how the figures are juggled, they will not give 24 per cent.

Mr. Cluskey

I will be very glad to deal with that point in detail in my reply.

Mr. Faulkner

I am very glad to hear it. The total amount of money made available for nine months gives 18 per cent each week. If that same amount of money is spread over 12 months, it will not give an increase of 18 per cent each week.

Mr. Cluskey

It will not be for 12 months. It is for nine months. Then there will be another budget.

Mr. Faulkner

That is a different matter. I am sure that that was not in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind when he made that statement——

Mr. Cluskey

I made it clear——

Mr. Faulkner

Spreading the money over a longer period than nine months will give a reduced percentage increase. The Leader of the Opposition advocated an annual increase of 25 per cent.

Mr. Cluskey

I can appreciate the Deputy's difficulty. When his leader looked for something and got it——

Mr. Faulkner

The Parliamentary Secretary may try to wriggle out of what he said but——

Mr. Cluskey

I will not be too hard on the Deputy. It is hard to defend——

Mr. Faulkner

I can equally appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary must try to put as good a face as possible on the increases because when the overall cost of living increases are taken into account they will be found not to be sufficient. He should try to be more accurate.

He referred to an increase of 18 per cent in social welfare benefits. Percentages of themselves mean little. We must examine the basic amount in the context of the present period of rapidly increasing prices to see how it stands up to purchasing power. In other words we must ask ourselves if it is possible for a person to exist on the money he is receiving, or if it was possible for him to exist on the money he received over the past year, particularly when we remember that the prices of food, clothes, light and fuel increased to such an alarming extent.

We should also remember that people in the low income group can buy food in relatively small quantities only. For that reason, they very often pay a higher price than if they bought in larger quantities. If we are not satisfied with the basic income for last year we should try to assess what the income should have been and build on that, so that what is necessary to improve the quality of life for our people on social welfare will be realistic. The increases granted this year must be viewed against the background of the erosion caused by rising prices on last year's pensions and allowances and also the forecast for the increases in the cost of living anticipated in the coming year. In these circumstances, it is obvious that those who rely on social welfare will be worse off by the end of the year. We must not overlook this fact.

The amount of monetary increase of itself is not important. What is important is whether the pensioner, the unemployed or the person who is ill will be able to buy more not less, by the end of the year. But all the pointers seem to show that they will be buying less. I said in the budget debate, that as things were shaping up I had no doubt that much of the increases granted in the budget would be eroded before the beneficiaries received the money in July next. I did not think my words would come true as quickly as they did. A few days after the budget we were informed that butter was up by 2p per lb., margarine by 7p per lb., cooking fats and oils were up and bottled gas had increased by a phenomenal amount. These particular commodities are used to a considerable extent by those who rely for their income on State aid. One can immediately see the way in which pension increases will be eroded.

Because of inflationary pressures at the present time we must do an intensive study of our social welfare code. Our aim must be to have a comprehensive social security scheme for all workers. In the meantime we must examine the amounts being made available in each case to see how they measure up to today's soaring living costs and decide what we must do in order that the people who rely on the State can live in comfort.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the increases in children's allowances. I think everybody has agreed—and this was mentioned time after time in the budget debate—that the 30p per month increase in the children's allowances was so small as to be derisory. When one takes into account the phenomenal increase in the cost of rearing a child today this tiny increase makes no impact whatsoever. I took particular note, in the reply which Deputy G. Fitzgerald received from the Taoiseach, of the percentage increases in the price of food and other commodities relevant to the cost of rearing children. It was quite clear that the Minister, when deciding on the children's allowances increase did not take cognisance of the situation obtaining. It would appear to me that he merely thought of the smallest possible number, 1p per day, and decided on that. The increase in the price of milk between mid-February, 1973 and mid-February, 1974—the period between the two Coalition budgets — was 9.5 per cent. There was a much higher increase in the price of condensed milk. The increase in the price of bread was 9.1 per cent; eggs increased by over 60 per cent; cooking fat by 39.9 per cent; oranges by 12.3 per cent; oatmeal by 10.1 per cent and rice by 40.6 per cent. It will be admitted that all of these items are necessities where the rearing of children is concerned and the increase given with which to cope with those rising prices is 1p per day. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will have to think again in relation to this particular aspect.

I have looked up also the question of the price of clothing. I noted that certain clothing for boys went up by 27.4 per cent; boys' shoes by 24.3 per cent; girls' shoes by 25 per cent and all of these percentages were being added to already high prices. In these circumstances it is ridiculous to offer such a miserable increase. I am afraid it shows up in a rather poor light the much vaunted concern of the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that children's allowances here are now somewhat higher than in the North of Ireland. Perhaps I might refer him to a survey conducted recently into food costs in supermarkets in Donegal and Strabane and published in one of the Sunday papers. It was shown in that paper that a certain number of food items cost, in Donegal approximately £7 and, in Strabane, about £5. Therefore, the fact that our children's allowances are slightly better than those in the North is more than offset by the difference in prices as portrayed in that survey. At the same time, I must say that I am pleased to note that our children's allowances are higher than those in Northern Ireland or Britain.

As a matter of interest, I noted that in his budget speech the Parliamentary Secretary claimed credit for the pay-related benefit scheme and also for the help provided for deserted wives, neither of which schemes was introduced by the present Administration. Perhaps this underlines the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary feels the need, in the circumstances, to claim as much as possible.

Mr. Cluskey

That is not factually correct, Deputy.

Mr. Faulkner

That is as it appeared to me and if the Parliamentary Secretary says it is not correct, I accept that.

I do not propose to give a list of the measures brought in to assist further categories of people by Fianna Fáil in recent years. To some extent, I have already done this in my speech on the budget; I suppose I can do it with more relevance at a later stage. However, I will repeat that what the Coalition are now doing is simply a continuation of the extension of the social welfare code carried out by the Fianna Fáil Party over a number of years. In present circumstances, with inflation running at such a high rate, the cost of living soaring, with unprecedented increases in the prices of necessities announced weekly and, very often, daily, and coupled with that the great opportunities this Government have had of improving radically the social welfare system — because so much money was available to them from EEC sources—I must repeat that we, on this side of the House, cannot be satisfied with the increases granted to those who are entitled to much more consideration by the State.

A number of new items are introduced in this Bill further to assist new classes of people in need. As I pointed out earlier, this is a continuation of Fianna Fáil policy, which was to search out those not catered for already and who are in need of assistance. I welcome the changes proposed. It is proposed to make available adult dependant allowances in the old age non-contributory pension category. This is welcome and goes some way towards bringing the dependant in the assistance area into line with the dependant in the social security area, as has been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the improvement of £3.65 per week relates to dependants of non-contributory pensioners in all instances? In the budget speech of the Minister for Finance—and, to some extent also in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech—he referred specifically to the drop in income of a man and his spouse on unemployment assistance where the man had reached old age pension admissibility age and, at that point, received nothing for his dependant.

In those circumstances, the Minister said, that man would get £3.65 per week for his spouse. The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken along the same lines. I should like to ask whether those circumstances mean that the increase will apply in the particular circumstances outlined only or, on the other hand, will a non-contributory old age pensioner receive extra money for his dependant wife in any circumstances? Of course, there are many other types of non-contributory old age pensioner than the one outlined. For example, there is the self-employed man no longer able to earn his living by his own efforts when he reaches pension age. There is the farmer who hands over his farm to a son or another young relative. There is the small farmer whose farm was never viable. I should like to know if such people are also included.

The extra cost of providing the allowance for the dependant, particularly in the circumstances outlined by the Minister and, to some extent by the Parliamentary Secretary—that is, to a person who has been in receipt of unemployment assistance and who reaches pension age—in many instances would not be all that great, I should imagine, because in most cases where a person reaches pension age and where his total income was derived from his pension—which, last year, was £6.15—I have no doubt that he would be entitled to home assistance. It might not make much difference in many cases from the monetary point of view. I do feel that the most important aspect of it is that it gives this extra money as a right. This is of considerable importance and is certainly a boost to the morale of the people concerned; that they have it as of right rather than having to look for it from some other source.

I am glad also to note the new scheme of social assistance which is being introduced for wives of long-term prisoners. The prisoner himself by serving his sentence is paying a debt to society and it is wrong that his innocent wife and family should be forced to suffer also. Again, home assistance payments have been helping here but the fact that the wife would be entitled to an allowance would help her and the family to face not only the difficult financial circumstances but the social problems involved.

Many prisoners prior to conviction are in insurable employment and in normal circumstances their contributions would entitle them to unemployment or disability benefit. Because of the offence committed I understand they are no longer entitled to this benefit. The people to suffer in these circumstances are the wife and family. I wonder if, in the case of a long-term prisoner it would be possible to make available the benefit from his contributions.

Mr. Cluskey

For unemployment?

Mr. Faulkner

No. Normally, if he were not a prisoner his contributions would be available to him for different social welfare benefits but because he is convicted I understand it is not possible to draw any benefit. Could something be done in regard to this benefit for the wife of a convicted prisoner? I listened with interest today to the Parliamentary Secretary replying to a question regarding reduction of the period in which a deserted wife must wait for an allowance or benefit from six months to three months. Perhaps it would also be possible to reduce the period in the case of the prisoner's wife. In the case of desertion, I suppose it is necessary to go through certain formalities to try to trace the husband to find out whether he can be compelled to pay maintenance and so on but in the case of the prisoner, as soon as he becomes a prisoner his wife is, to all intents and purposes, deserted. Without any examination of the situation we know she is deserted and, as the Parliamentary Secretary has reduced the timelimit in the case of the deserted wife, perhaps he would also consider the case of the prisoner's wife. I welcome the scheme of assistance proposed for unmarried women over 58 years who are in poor circumstances. Very often women in such circumstances are the most dedicated people in the community. They were never in the ordinary sense employed; they were never in insurable employment but they stayed at home to look after parents or an invalid brother or sister. I am glad their circumstances are getting the consideration given them in this section. I should like to ask why the Parliamentary Secretary chose the age of 58. Was there any particular reason? Is it an arbitrary figure? Could he reduce it? There are times when a woman in these such circumstances is at a much younger age to all intents and purposes unemployable. According to my recollection the Minister for Finance speaking on the budget said that the women who would qualify here would have to be in poor circumstances. How would "poor circumstances" be defined? Would it mean a woman living alone or a woman living with her parents who were drawing the old age pension? Would consideration be given to a woman keeping house for relatives who might not be very badly off but who did not pay her and she personally could be regarded as poor?

I was glad the Parliamentary Secretary said that when drawing up the regulations here he would be as liberal as possible because this sort of scheme has much to commend it but if not operated in a liberal way it tends to lose its value. If the means test were very rigid the change would not be as effective as it could be. Many of the women concerned here, particularly if living alone with no income, would also be in receipt of home assistance. Neverthless, I commend the various changes including this one basically because it gives a right to the individual to have an income in his or her own right. I feel it raises the status of women in that way.

I also welcome the change in regard to the fact that benefit will continue for a number of weeks after the social welfare beneficiary dies. This has always been a problem where the survivor is left without any income and the case is being investigated. It is a worthwhile innovation to continue payment of benefit in such cases. The loss of the husband or father is a very severe one and being immediately cut off benefit at the same time creates greater problems and I am glad of the change.

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary on many occasions about the percentage of the total money in the social security fund which is paid from the Exchequer and I noted from his replies that the Exchequer percentage contribution is falling considerably. In this budget statement the Minister for Finance said we were paying a higher proportion of money from the Exchequer than was normal in the case of — I think — all the other countries in the EEC and that this would have to be rectified here. In our circumstances, where we are not as highly industrialised as the other countries, and where it is not as easy for the employer or employee to pay his share of the contribution, at least for some time to come the State should continue to contribute at its present level. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that the State contribution has been reduced. For historical reasons we are not as highly industrialised as the other countries in the Common Market and, consequently, from the point of view of the employer and the employee they are not as well able to pay the contribution. The State should not reduce its commitment in this regard, at least for some time.

The continuing rise in the cost of the stamp—in a sense this is a hidden taxation in the case of an employee— goes a considerable way towards neutralising the effect of the reduction in income tax that was granted in the budget. I admit the worker is entitled to benefits from the contributions he makes but we must take care not to overload him in this matter. He has now to pay 1 per cent of his gross income in addition to the cost of the stamp. While the cost of the latter was reduced slightly last year because the income from the contribution of 1 per cent by the employee and 2 per cent by the employer was much more than that needed to pay the estimated outgoings in the pay-related benefit scheme during the year, so far as the worker is concerned he is paying much more in toto than heretofore. Now that the price of the stamp has been further increased to pay for the new rates of benefit, altogether quite a considerable portion of the worker's income is being paid into the social insurance fund. This is another reason the State contribution should be held at a steady level for some years.

The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that widows and deserted wives were relieved of an obligation to pay the employee's share of the stamp and this is so. I agree it is an improvement on the situation but I wonder why the difference between the disability or unemployment benefit to widows and to other people in like categories is retained. The widow and the deserted wife are still being paid only half the unemployment or disability benefit. Did the Parliamentary Secretary carry out any survey to find out if widows or others in this category would prefer to pay the full contribution and receive full benefit? The result of such a survey might be interesting, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has his own reason for having the situation as it is at the moment.

The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that quite a number of anomalies have arisen as a result of changes in the social welfare code, particularly in relation to the reduction of the age limit for old age pensions from 70 years to 69 and now to 68 years. I came across a number of such cases. For example, a widow drawing a widow's contributory pension with a limited amount of disability benefit could draw both pensions up to the qualifying date or an old age pension. That meant she could draw both until she was 70 years and now 68 years. When the age limit was reduced to 68 years the disability benefit was lost at that point. I do not think anybody should be worse off than he or she was previously. I realise it may be difficult to legislate for that kind of situation but such cases have occurred. I also found in the case of an old age pensioner drawing a contributory pension for himself and his wife, where the wife was drawing unemployment or disability benefit in her own right she lost that on reaching the pension age. Therefore, the lower the pension age the worse off was this woman.

There is another aspect of the matter which I would like to refer to the Parliamentary Secretary although I am not completely certain in my own mind of the position. I understand that before the income limit of £1,600 per year was removed in relation to insurable employment, where a person over that limit was paying a voluntary contribution he was covered for health purposes. In such circumstances the income had no bearing on his right to free hospitalisation and free specialist treatment. However, on the removal of the £1,600 limit naturally that person could not continue as a voluntary contributor if he were compulsorily insured and he lost the right to free health benefits unless he was was under the limit of £2,250. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would look into this matter and let me know the position.

The efforts made by the Coalition in social welfare matters and their performance to date would be more credible if they abandoned what I regard as gimmickry which they feel must attend everything they do. They may think they gain political advantage from this, and perhaps they do, but when dealing with the poor, the disadvantaged and the underprivileged generally, both sides of this House should endeavour to avoid striving after party political advantage. I say this quite sincerely. We are all concerned with the welfare of the underprivileged and if we are seen to be blatantly attempting to capitalise politically on this we can hardly blame the public in general if they are cynical in their attitude to politicians. I am very much in favour of ensuring that every person who is entitled to benefit or assistance under the social welfare code knows of it, that we do everything possible to ensure that these people be made aware of their rights. In my view and in the view of others, what I regard as a rash of politically-orientated advertisements in the media recently was geared towards extracting the greatest possible political advantage.

Mr. Cluskey

I regret the Deputy does not like them but he will be getting a lot more of them.

Mr. Faulkner

Let me continue. If I were to press the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter I am sure he would inform me that this was for the purpose of informing the public of their rights under the social welfare code and he would probably accuse me of not wanting the underprivileged to know what their rights were, I think, and I am not alone in this, that they were obviously designed and phrased so that they were purely political. Why, for example, was it deemed necessary to show the present weekly rate of social welfare assistance, to show the increase and then to show the new rate while at the same time cloaking in very tiny type the abysmally tiny increases in children's allowances?

Mr. Cluskey

Does the Deputy suggest that people are not entitled to know what their rights are?

Mr. Faulkner

I am saying they are fully entitled to know their rights but I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me why this type of advertisement was necessary. For example, what was the point in saying that 275,000 pensioners were getting increases? What help was that to an individual beneficiary? How could it tell him what his rights were?

Mr. Cluskey

The public are entitled to know what the statistics are, how their money is being spent, how many people will benefit from the social welfare code. The social welfare code is no longer a secret society.

Mr. Faulkner

It never was a secret society.

Mr. Cluskey

I regret that the Deputy's Government had nothing to put in the newspapers.

Mr. Faulkner

They had very much to put in the newspapers.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy will get a lot more in the newspapers, and probably on television and radio as well.

Mr. Faulkner

The Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to do that if he wishes. I am simply stating that I cannot see how informing the public that 275,000 pensioners and others will get increases helped any individual beneficiary to know what he was entitled to or what his rights were. I have considerable doubt as to the right to spend Departmental funds on this type of thing. If I were concerned with the political aspect only I would be quite happy with those advertisements because whatever about their informing individuals of what their rights were, at least they enlightened the public generally as to the low level of income which in these very inflationary times are being made available to pensioners and others who are in need of social welfare benefits.

Mr. Cluskey

I will be glad to deal with all that in my reply and to compare levels and inflationary trends and percentages.

Mr. Esmonde

It might help to stop the false propaganda at election time —telling of people that their pensions would be removed from them if they did not vote for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Cluskey

They will not be told that they are getting handouts. They will be told they are getting their rights.

Mr. Faulkner

If that is the attitude adopted by Deputy Esmonde and his friends in the campaign, he has something to answer for.

Mr. Cluskey

I will try to answer the Deputy in my reply.

Mr. Faulkner

When he was replying to the Second Stage of the recent Social Welfare Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of what he called the lack of social conscience in the Fianna Fáil Administration. As the Parlamentary Secretary is only too well aware, this is only——

Mr. Cluskey

I might even repeat it in my reply on this Bill.

Mr. Faulkner

The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary repeats it does not prove anything. It just means he is repeating something which he well knows is obviously untrue.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy must not have done any canvassing this time.

Mr. Faulkner

I certainly did, and the Parliamentary Secretary will be very interested in the results. Practically every advance made in the social welfare system over the years was introduced by Fianna Fáil. In reply to a question some time ago, the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged that every major contingency was catered for in the code as it stood. Basically the only changes the Coalition can lay claim to is the amount of money being made available. As I have pointed out and as everybody knows, the money was provided through the savings of £30 million in agricultural subsides and from the greatly increased added income from the EEC this year, as the Minister for Finance said in reply to a question in this House recently. The Labour Party cannot claim credit for that.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy is forgetting the fact that we now have access to the files going back over the years. We know what they intended to spend and what they did spend.

Mr. Faulkner

I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary finds it necessary to interrupt me.

Mr. Cluskey

I am not interrupting. I am correcting the Deputy.

Mr. Faulkner

One can look at the social conscience of previous Coalitions. It was very definitely nonexistent especially when the decision to increase social welfare benefits included the painful exercise of extracting the money through taxation. In the first Coalition we had promise after promise from a Labour Minister for Social Welfare to provide this country with a comprehensive social welfare scheme. That scheme never materialised in the term of his office. What was for its time a comprehensive social welfare scheme was brought in 1952 by a Fianna Fáil Minister and we all have been building on that Act ever since. Might I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that when the Coalition went out of office Labour blamed the Fine Gael party. Shades of the present situation. A student of politics——

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy had only Neil Blaney to blame.

Mr. Faulkner

In the second Coalition, the present Minister for Social Welfare was then also Minister for Social Welfare and I do not think anybody would be particularly anxious to acclaim the feats in the field of social welfare during that time. Fianna Fáil showed the way to the development of a social welfare code down through the years and the complexity of what was basically a simple measure recently in the House showed the number of social welfare Bills and Acts brought before the House by Fianna Fáil. From 1957, not a solitary year passed without increases in benefits, not a year passed when Fianna Fáil did not seek out more and more of those who were unable to look after themselves.

Mr. Cluskey

Could the Deputy give us details of those?

Mr. Faulkner

I will give them later. The social conscience of the Coalition awakened only when EEC money became available. The £30 million was money which every party in the House promised would be devoted to the social welfare programme. Since the Coalition Government came into office, they have followed the pattern set by Fianna Fáil except for the fact that this additional money became available because of our entry into the EEC. We listen to Coalition speakers—I noted this particularly when the Parliamentary Secretary was replying on the other Bill—asking why had we not made changes before they came into office. The development of our social welfare code is a progressive exercise, as it has been in every country in the world. When the memory of this Coalition has faded into the limbo of forgotten things, other Governments will continue to develop the code, will continue to make more and greater provision for those in need, and I do not think a future Government will criticise the present one for not having accomplished everything during their term of office. The Parliamentary Secretary has said on a number of occasions that there is much more to be done. Of course, there is. Every Government recognised that there was more to be done and proceeded to do it.

I welcome the changes that are made in this Bill and which assist further groups to benefit. However, I must stress again that the amount of money made available in the prevailing highly inflationary circumstances, and particularly also in the light of the EEC money which is available, is too low. Therefore, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at the matter and to draw the attention of his colleagues in Government to the very obvious need for further improvement. Let me say that constant repetition of the word "concern" is not the answer and gives little comfort to those who cannot make ends meet. Action is needed. It is not enough that social welfare increases should fill the role of last-minute measures to compensate the needy and the poor with no effect on the prevention of foreseeable deprivation. The measures in this Bill do not even compensate them for inflation, and I pointed this out on a number of occasions during my speech.

I have no doubt that when the Minister comes to reply he will repeat that the amount of money provided by this Government is greater than was provided by previous administrations, without of course concerning himself with the exceptionally large amount of money available from the EEC or the inflationary situation, but let me add that this type of repetition is a useless exercise. What those in need want is the means to live in relative comfort, free from anxiety, and this Bill does not provide that.

Mr. Toal

This legislation before the House today deserves the wholehearted support of every Member. Various types of legislation pass through this House. There is legislation dealing with international relations, legislation dealing with the administration of justice and with the business and commercial life of the country. However, this particular legislation will stand out as one of the most important pieces of legislation which came before the House this year. The provisions of this Bill will bring fruitful consequences to homes in all parts of the country.

Many people nowadays ask themselves about patriotism. Dr. Johnson gave a very abrupt answer to that, but if patriotism means love of your country or love of the people in the country, the best way to express that love is by doing something for the less well-off members of society. This Bill is a concrete expression of that. A foreigner reading the newspapers every day about events in Ireland and realising how much Ireland dominated the world Press in proporation to its size might want to find out what kind of a race these Irish were. If he took the trouble to come over here and spend money on a holiday, when he arrived in the capital city of the country, he could not walk across O'Connell Bridge or take a stroll around St. Stephen's Green or even go into a church to say a prayer without being accosted by beggars—I cannot call them anything else; they are there in tattered dress begging for money. Unfortunately that is a stain on the appearance of this city, and it is prevalent in other parts of the country.

Poverty is rampant. Oscar Wilde, who had a passing interest in medicine, said that the greatest disease of all was poverty. When this Government went into office they undertook to tackle the question of poverty. One important feature in this Bill is the reduction in the qualifying age for the old age pension. I met numerous people, especially in the rural parts of the country, who were 67, 68, 69, who were really destitute, and who have said: "I have only a couple of years to go until I get the old age pension." They were like the prisoner counting the days until he got his freedom. They were literally wishing their lives away looking forward to the day when they would get the old age pension. For the first time in 50 years that 70-year limit has been broken. The Government took this initial step shortly after they went into office. This Bill is further evidence that they intend reducing that qualifying age until they arrive at the age of 65. I am sure every Member of the House will give that provision his wholehearted support.

There are a few innovations in the Bill. First of all, there is a new scheme of allowances for single women aged 58 and over. I do not think there is a Deputy in this House who does not know of numerous cases where women sacrificed their youth, set aside their matrimonial prospects, gave up a worthwhile job and jeopardised their future careers, by staying at home to care for their aged parents. Having cared for their parents all down through the years until they died, they were left destitute. This is very prevalent in rural Ireland. It is a characteristic of the Irish people that they have more respect than in many other countries for their parents and for the elderly. A man can always fend for himself by going out to work, but when women sacrifice a career to look after their parents, when they come to middle age—if you call 58 middle age—they have nothing in the way of job opportunity or in the way of income or prospects. Therefore, it is fair and proper that the State should come to their assistance and give them an allowance.

There is another proposal in the Bill which deserves mention, that is, the allowance for the wives of men committed to prison. When a man is sent off to jail people do not have much sympathy for him, perhaps, but they say: "It is a pity about her. What is she going to do?" After a week or two the whole thing is forgotton and she either goes home to her relatives or locks herself behind closed doors to eke out a subsistence until her husband is released. This is an imaginative and compassionate proposal and I am very glad to see it in the Bill.

There are numerous increases provided for in the Bill. There is an increase for old age pensioners and there is the allowance for an adult dependant. There is the increase for the child dependants of the old age pensioner, the increase in the prescribed relative's allowance, the increases in widow's pensions, children's allowances and deserted wives' and unmarried mothers' allowances. I suppose it is to be expected that the Opposition side will say the increases are not that big. I suppose it is their duty to complain, but if some of them won £50,000 in the Sweep, instead of being delighted with their good fortune they would probably say: "What would £50,000 buy you nowadays? It would not even buy a decent farm." That is the wrong attitude to social welfare increases. These increases are generous and the recipients, who will pass judgement in the end, will appreciate them when they realise that they have more money in their pockets from the first week in July.

The words "social welfare" sometimes conjure up in the minds of people a type of social welfare State where the Government give all kinds of hand-outs and free money to people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anybody who qualifies under the schemes has the money by entitlement. It is his as of right. If he is not entitled to it, I would be the first to say he should not get it.

The Department of Social Welfare have made tremendous strides under this Government. The Parliamentary Secretary himself bears witness to that. His concern about poverty in this city, his concern about the less well-off members of society, was well-known before he went into office but now that he is in the driver's seat he is in a position to do something about it. I wish him well in future.

Mr. Brennan

I would be remiss if I did not have a few words to say on this piece of legislation in relation to a Department in which I have a great interest and of which I was in charge for a number of years. The evolution of social welfare in this country is well known. Like social welfare in every other country, it is comparatively young. Not many years ago there was no such thing with the possible exception of the few shillings per week for the old age pensioner. In passing, I should say that somebody worked out for me the other day that the 10/- given to an old age pensioner in 1918 purchased the same amount of essential groceries as the amount which an old age pensioner receives today.

Following the last war social welfare began to shoot up in all civilised countries and to encompass many categories. The Department of Social Welfare is the most important Department in any State today. I mention that for the purpose of putting on the record something which I felt was not properly looked after in my time, that is the personnel requirements of the Department. The Department are short of staff. I would be surprised if they have half enough staff to do the amount of work there is to be done in the time one would like it to be done. The Government should give serious attention to the provision of adequate accommodation and to the proper staffing of the Department of Social Welfare to meet the huge volume of work which has to be done. Few people appreciate the volume of work which falls on the Department. A proper research section is not in existence for the updating of schemes and for finding more expeditious means of dealing with repetitive work and a better means of getting across to the public. I am sure a large number of extra staff is required. We frequently complain when we do not get prompt attention. The officers of the Department are extended to the utmost to keep things rolling. The Social Welfare Bill each year gives effect to budget changes. That means a change in the format of documents, regulations, instructions, a complete change in the working of the Department. It is scarcely completed when it has to be done all over again. If the Minister in charge of the new Department for the Public Services examined the work of the different Departments he would find that the Department of Social Welfare require top personnel as well as clerical assistants to deal with many of the important tasks which the evolution of social welfare has brought about and will continue to bring about for many years to come. Every Minister for Social Welfare over the years had his quota of new schemes and benefits and each Government publicised what they did for social welfare. This is a very emotional subject. Every Government want to say what they have done for the old, the infirm and all those in need. They want to say they have done better than previous Governments. When all that verbiage is cut away the fact remains that a large number of people are under the umbrella of the different welfare schemes, all benefiting in some particular way. The administration attached to this has grown out of all proportion to what it was when the Department of Social Welfare were a part of another Department a few years ago.

During my time as Minister for Social Welfare I had the pleasure of seeing some new schemes started, which I think every Minister for Social Welfare will be able to look back on with pride. I brought in the deserted wives' allowance, the pay related benefit scheme, the death grants and the prescribed relative's allowance, which is a most worthy scheme. I also brought in the free travel, the free TV licence and the free electricity schemes. These are schemes which were not copied from any other country or were not foisted on us by a need to harmonise with the EEC or any other countries. This was all part of the evolution of social welfare.

There are many things yet to be done and no doubt the face of social welfare will change as the years go by. There are many things dictated by logic which the Parliamentary Secretary could usefully examine in the time he has left in that Department. I cannot see the wisdom of paying up to £30 a week for each old person in a home when many of those people could remain in their own homes if some relative or some other person were given half that sum of money or even a reasonable sum of money to take care of them. Those old people would be much happier living in the environment they have been used to all their lives. A concentration on that would be a very useful exercise in the advance of social welfare in the years ahead. All sides of the House would be glad to co-operate in the furtherance of a scheme of that type. It would certainly relieve the demand for beds for old people in homes. More money should be provided for community care. We often hear talk about "do gooders" in towns and villages throughout the country. These are people who involve themselves in community work and are providing a service for the aged which monetary payments alone could not give. Those people should be given some legal recognition. The grants payable to them should be increased in order that they may better care for the aged, infirm and hardship cases who are not able to look after themselves.

We need to provide an increased number of trained social welfare workers. I am glad to see that the regional health boards are now doing their best with regard to providing more of them. I may be getting out of order in referring to matters which come under the Department of Health but these matters are very much related and they have a bearing on the Department of Social Welfare.

I should like to command the Parliamentary Secretary for anything he is doing in regard to providing increased social welfare benefits. I should like him to take note of the point I made with regard to overlapping in many cases. When I was in charge of the Department of Social Welfare I found it very encouraging to see how contributory benefits were taking over from non-contributory benefits. Non-contributory benefits are always subject to a means test. A means test is always distasteful, no matter in what way it is carried out. It must be carried out in accordance with yardsticks set down. I wonder if the investigation officers are with it in regard to the new values in agriculture? I believe we should ease the means test because the number of sheep on a mountain farm 20 years ago were of little use to an applicant for an old age pension. These are worth considerably more now. This could easily be put down as the expected cash income of the applicant over a year. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to assure us that the means test has been updated, that it takes into account rising costs and that people are not victimised in respect of the values that were used many years ago.

Some of the payments the Parliamentary Secretary has announced are akin to many of those paid in the past. These payments replace home assistance payments. The scheme which applies to spinsters in need is not very different from that in respect of a spinster who had to apply for home assistance. The new benefit will give her a weekly allowance which, if she was in dire straits, she would have got from home assistance. Some of the schemes put on to the Department and directly administrated by the Department were schemes which eased the burden of the existing home assistance service.

That brings me to one of my pet themes. I always felt that home assistance should be fully integrated with the Department of Social Welfare. I know the better side of home assistance. I also know the side which makes it somewhat distasteful because of the tag customarily attached to it. I believe that national assistance administered by the Department, retaining local effectiveness, would be a much better scheme than that which is administered at present. I had many memoranda on this, all of which contained certain unworkable suggestions and none of which could not be eliminated to bring this into a practical scheme encompassing home assistance within the meaning tance. I had in mind particularly those chronics who are not qualified for home assistance within the meaning of the Act, those drawing what is commonly called the dole.

The fact is that we have a huge body of men drawing unemployment assistance. If the regulations were to be strictly applied a great many of them would be struck off. For instance, they must be available for, capable of, and genuinely seeking work. But each one needed what he was getting and I believed that a national home assistance scheme should replace unemployment assistance in such cases. That would mean these men would not have to tramp to the nearest barracks or the unemployment exchange to sign for something. The position could be subject to a periodic review and, in the meantime, they would have this weekly payment which would enable them to exist on a small holding or with some part-time employment; they regarded this payment as a supplement to whatever small earnings they had.

Circumstances governed the position. Some had old people at home and could not go out to work. This was brought home very acutely to me when I re-introduced the employment period order. I believe that exercise was well worthwhile if only for the information it revealed. Those who used to condemn the dole as a Fianna Fáil panacea, something which should never have been brought in, were very vocal in condemning the reintroduction of the employment period order. There was an uproar from every section of the Press. What were the people who could not draw benefit the year round going to do? How were they going to live? Now the employment period order was a common feature of the original scheme and it was in my early days in the Department that we decided not to introduce the order and to allow those concerned to draw assistance all the year round but, in one particular year, we decided to re-introduce it on a limited scale. From the word go there was a certain misconception; words did not apparently actually mean what they were meant to convey. The order was going to be introduced and everyone was going to starve. The Press described it as an unforgivable act. The season passed. No one died. No extra people went on home assistance. The people struggled through. There was no inincrease in emigration. Apart from the fact that everyone came in on the side of the dole—something that up to that time had been severely criticised by all and sundry—I learned the important fact that many of those included in that order could not avail of the extra work we made available to them. We put an extra £500,000 into a very commendable scheme designed to improve accommodation roads. But, as I say, many people were not able to take advantage of this £500,000. They could not accept employment even if it were outside their own doors because of health conditions, household conditions or age. That confirmed me in my belief that there were many people on the register who would benefit from a national home assistance scheme and I was particularly concerned to meet those particular cases.

When the Department of Labour initiated AnCO the intention was that people would be taken from the employment exchanges to undergo training. It was decided to have separate offices in large towns throughout the country in which there would be placement officers who would keep a list of those seeking employment. However, this proved impracticable because if a man is registered with the National Manpower office and also drawing benefit at the employment exchange he may be offered employment from one or other, or both, and may not be able to accept that employment and his non-acceptance would disqualify him from receiving benefit unless he could show cause why he was not able to accept the employment offered. Unless there were extenuating circumstances he would lose his benefit.

Now, after some experience of having these offices operating in many of the larger towns and particularly all the counties, it is right to say that both schemes are working fairly well side by side. I do not think that the fears we had were justified.

There is no reason why the two offices should not work independently. A time may come when they can be amalgamated. One is a benefit paying office and the other seeks employment. They have diametrically opposed functions but they dovetail into each other when it comes to the question of offering employment to a person who may be in receipt of benefit and who may refuse the employment. Provision is made for those who go to the National Manpower Service genuinely seeking work and anxious to obtain it, very often school leavers who are not yet on the register and, in many cases, people who are in other employment and are seeking better employment or a different type of employment.

The EEC has created a good deal of extra work in the Department, I would imagine. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the publication of all the schemes, not everybody is au fait with what their entitlements are in relation to contributions paid in other countries and their association with contributions paid in their native country. If the Parliamentary Secretary finds that in publicising these schemes he is doing a good job for his own party at the same time, good luck to him.

When I published schemes I was always accused of propaganda but the Department produce a booklet each year and its proper circulation is ample information for anybody seeking social welfare benefits. One of the things which I did and which the Parliamentary Secretary might follow—he probably does—was that I made sure that the secretary of every Fianna Fáil cumann had one of those booklets. The Secretary of any development association and anybody in touch with the public should have them. They are leaders of public opinion and they are in contact with people seeking advice and information. The proper distribution of that information, even on a political basis, is very useful and can be followed up profitably.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know what progress has been made on the scheme whereby a married woman is not required to have paid contributions after her marriage. I am talking here with a rather limited experience. The few applicants I know of all failed to obtain any benefit. It was provided that a married woman would require 26 contributions after her marriage before she would be entitled to unemployment or disability benefit. That was waived and if she has the contributions before her marriage she should qualify immediately. I had a case which I passed on to the Department. I do not approve of individual cases being mentioned in the House but sometimes it is necessary to mention them to illustrate what one is trying to say.

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

Mr. Brennan

I was saying that I did not like dealing with individual cases but that sometimes it is necessary to refer to an individual case to illustrate what one is saying. I was talking about the married woman who is no longer required to have contributions paid after her marriage. There are many such cases. There are the girls who are employed in the tourist industry in the summer. Owing to their qualifications as a waitress, or a cook, or a receiptionist, they continue to work for a number of years after marriage. They are in short supply and they are very much in demand. When such a girl finishes work at the end of the season she expects to draw some benefit. I have not come across any such girl who has qualified this year under the new scheme. It was pointed out that she had not got 26 contributions paid. I thought that was no longer a requirement.

I want to deal now with a matter which was a thorny point in my own time, one which Deputy Tully frequently reminded me of, and it is the question of the married woman, after the birth of her first child, failing to get any benefit. It has always been accepted by the appeals officer that she was not available for work. I could never agree with that although it was in accordance with the regulations. I doubt if I ever came across a single case where she qualified.

It is quite a common thing now for the mother to attend parties two weeks after the birth of a baby. Many such married women have in-laws to look after their children and they are available for employment almost immediately but the Department regulation does not accept that. The result is that they do not receive benefit. I can see that the line taken here was that the Department were saying that if such women are available for employment is not their old job there for them? The Department feel that such women want to have it both ways, that they want to draw the benefit and look after the baby at home and when they feel like it to resume work.

Where a married woman has to relinquish her employment for a period during pregnancy the job she had has to be filled. It is difficult for an employer who takes on somebody to tell her that she will only be employed until the other woman has had her baby. The result is that after that woman's baby is born her job is not there. She is available for work but she will not qualify for benefit. There should be some new thinking on those cases. I am not talking of isolated cases because this is a general problem.

It is wrong that widows who have a second pension should have to pay income tax. I met a case recently where the widow of an excise officer who was in receipt of a pension arising out of her husband's employment and was also in receipt of a widow's pension was paying income tax because the two together went over the limit. There is a means test for the non-contributory pension and I should like to know if the potential income tax payment is taken into account in that means test. We should waive income tax altogether in the case of pensioners.

Another problem to which I found it difficult to find an answer when I was Minister was in cases where an English pension and an Irish pension were payable. In such cases when the English pension is increased the Irish non-contributory pension is reduced. The recipient always felt it was unfair that this should happen. This is one of the things with which the Minister should deal when preparing the annual Bill. The Minister could easily give a direction that pensions should not be subject to income tax and if an old age pensioner has a pension from another country it will not be taken as means. Perhaps under EEC regulations this will not arise because it is possible that the two pensions will be co-ordinated anyhow in the association of contributions from both countries.

I should like to put on record the importance of encouraging community care associations. They are getting through to people on an intimate scale and in a way which a remote Department in the capital city could not possibly do. The community care service genuinely organised, is very often subjected to a good deal of cynical talk by those who are not involved. These people give an excellent service to old people. There should be some encouragement by way of better grants or some statutory recognition to put them on a sound footing so that they will be able to continue to give this service. The meals-on-wheels service and the attention to chiropody are just two examples of the valuable service such organisations provide for old people. These services are not available from any Department.

Social welfare is an evolving benefit which encompasses more services and better benefits each year. Any scheme, however limited, broadens out within a few years. When I introduced the prescribed relative benefits scheme it applied only to those who gave up insurable employment to look after parents. Only 700 people qualified that year but when it was extended to those who remained at home and were not in insurable employment some thousands were brought in.

As a result of all our benefit schemes there is a growing lack of affection for parents which was evident and very much practised in years gone by. People now tend to think that the parents will be looked after by the State. They believe that any case of infirmity, whether it is congenital or contracted, will be looked after by the State. Members of families who after getting married move from the home district feel that their responsibility to their parents has ended. I do not think it was ever intended that the benefits available to individuals would be sufficient to maintain them in the type of comfort we all would like to enjoy when we reach a certain age or when we are unfortunate enough to become a charge on the State due to disability or some affliction.

In the days when not a penny was paid for looking after old parents we had families willing to care for them. They cared for these old people with pride and affection because they were their parents. It is a pity, and I am afraid the signs are there, that in the growing welfare state of recent years, and it is only in the last 30 years that welfare became an important feature in any civilised country, the same affection for parents is not there. This does not apply to all. Older people can recall when their parents had to depend entirely on their family to care for them in their old age. Nothing can replace that. We must make every effort to ensure that people, whether in old age, in destitution or affliction, are not left without friends. Therefore, we must do everything possible to encourage community care. A very essential step forward in this direction is the giving of as much encouragement as possible to those who are organised on a social basis to look after such persons. The employment by the regional health boards of more social workers will go a long way to ensuring better standards for the categories of persons with which we are concerned here.

The term "poverty" is one that is often bandied around and we hear of people who are regarded as being either above or below the poverty line but nobody has ever set a standard as to where is that line. What might have been regarded 50 years ago as an affluent situation in a household might be considered the poverty line today. As standards of living improve, that improvement should be reflected in every class in society. While poverty is something that is relevant it is important to remember that poverty as it was known 50 years ago would be regarded today as being destitution. This emphasises the upsurge that has taken place in living standards in recent years. Of course it is only right that the standards of half a century ago would not be accepted today.

This Bill marks a further step in the evolution of social welfare but it leaves many areas yet to be brought under the umbrella of social welfare. I used tire of people talking about a new deal, of the introduction of a comprehensive scheme. There is no such thing as a comprehensive scheme. A scheme comprehends most of what it should contain and the scheme that we had here was well above the minimum requirements for membership of the EEC. Any scheme that is introduced, whether it be called comprehensive or otherwise, must contain provisions for the aged, for the infirm, for the afflicted and for those who have suffered as a result of injuries or who have been made redundant. Some of these are social schemes which may not be administered by the Department of Social Welfare.

Critics of social welfare here are inclined, when making comparisons with other countries, to take figures from booklets in the Library and say that a certain figure does not compare favourably with, say, the corresponding figure in West Germany or in the Netherlands. They do this not knowing what is put into the schemes in these other countries. Social services in these countries embrace many aspects that are not administered by the departments of social welfare. Many of the health, local government and education schemes are social schemes. The same applies to housing and education. Every department in those countries has its own social schemes which are paid for by the Exchequer. If one takes all our social schemes and compares them with those of any other country, either inside or outside the EEC, one realises that those who talk of bringing in a comprehensive social welfare scheme do not know what they are talking of. The term "comprehensive" can be applied in respect of any other services we provide.

We all look forward to the day when social welfare schemes will be contributory, when all persons will contribute to insurance. In that way the distasteful means test in respect of non-contributory schemes can be eliminated. Very often criticism is levelled at investigation officers of the Department whose duty it is to ascertain what are a person's assets and income, if any. There is no other means of deciding whether an applicant qualifies for benefit. Perhaps it would be better if these investigation officers had special training in social work and that when they would approach an applicant they would begin by saying: "I am here to help you but in order to ascertain whether you qualify for benefit I shall have to ask you a few awkward questions. These are designed only for the purpose of eliciting the necessary information and if you co-operate with me I shall be as helpful as possible". It would appear that at times these investigation officers instil a fear into applicants so that they are given the impression that the Department are endeavouring to deprive them of benefit. This approach can result in the applicant becoming very nervous and, perhaps, telling lies. The result of this is that the investigation officer becomes sceptical about the information he is being given and this results in there emerging a nasty sort of picture. Such a situation has no place in the investigations of the Department. The modern approach to social welfare is hastening the day of the elimination of the means test. The Department are aware that they have been codded on a few occasions and there have been a number of cases in which an estate has had to be surcharged with the amount of pension drawn because of the revelation only at the time of probate application of the non-eligibility element. The number of surcharges and deductions made from the estate at the time of the probate application reveals the large number of cases in which the correct information is not elicited. The nice approach of the man coming to help rather than to hinder should always be the approach of the investigation officer.

I had intended to speak only on one or two items. As often happens, one is inclined to move on from one subject to another. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to do all in his power to ensure that the Department be brought up to full strength. If they are to do the job which their critics want them to do, they will require additional personnel, not only in the lower but also in the top grades, particularly in the sections dealing with research, up-dating the service, coordinating where overlapping is taking place and finding out the many ways to expedite the payment of various benefits.

The decision to purchase a computer was a wise one and I have no regrets for purchasing it. We were in in London signing a reciprocal agreement and spent a few extra days visiting Newcastle-on-Tyne. The officials there gave us every facility to examine their huge computer service. That helped us make up our minds to move along the same lines. It also helped us not to make the same mistakes. They told us that they had bought a most elaborate and expensive computer system but had to sell it and buy another. They were dealing in millions not thousands. This service was of immense benefit to us.

I hope the House — whether for cultural motives or otherwise—will always display that public conscience which characterises this annual debate. My only criticism of new and additional benefits is that they were not enough. Because of inflation one would not know what amount was enough to give these recipients. Three weeks after increases are granted they are eroded by the galloping inflation which, unfortunately, we are experiencing at the present time.

Mr. Esmonde

This Bill can be described as a meaningful step to an enlarged social welfare scheme. I should like to deal with a matter which is causing me some concern, and that is in relation to cases where social welfare is payable by the United Kingdom authorities. It is well to know the position. I take my guidelines from the pamphlet issued by the Department of Social Welfare. In order that there will be no misunderstanding of the position as to who is liable for social welfare payments, I want to quote a small paragraph on page 11 of that booklet:

If an insured person leaves Ireland to work in another EEC country otherwise than at the direction of his/her employer, he/she will cease to be insurable under the Irish scheme and will become subject to the legislation of the other country. Whether or not he/she is insurable in that country will depend on the type of employment engaged in and the provisions of the social insurance legislation of that country.

Many people are under the impression that since we became members of the EEC matters fall to be dealt with automatically under some EEC regulation. I want to dispel that impression. My experience has been of a certain tardiness on the part of the United Kingdom authorities in paying and dealing with social welfare claims. This was probably the experience of other Deputies too. We would not be fair to ourselves if reference was not made to this aspect of social welfare moneys.

It is rarely the case that people leave this country on the invitation of their employer. They leave it for reasons of their own, because they have to, or because they cannot get a way of life or sufficient and adequate employment here. It is employment which is basically motivated by the employee himself and does not originate from anything done, said, offered or induced by any particular employer. In those circumstances and in view of our history, we cannot but be conscious of the fact that over the years there has been a heavy and continuous emigration to the industrial areas in England. This has gone on for a full generation and more. When somebody dies there might be a question of moneys due to the dependants here which are properly paid by the British authorities but in respect of which there may be what I can only describe as an inexcusable delay in payment. This may be because of the EEC regulations. It seems to have conicided with the commencement of the EEC regulations, but that should not be an excuse. I should not like to see the position arise whereby, because of the commencement of the EEC regulations, an Irish claimant would be put down the queue. Up to the coming into effect of the EEC regulations there was, I understand, a fairly happy relationship between our Department of Social Welfare and the English Department of Health and Social Security. I would hope that that would continue. But, as this is a debate dealing with our social welfare schemes and assistance, it is only right, if people have complaints about the matters to which I have referred, to point out that it is not the fault of our Government.

Mention has been made by the previous speaker of abuses in relation to unemployment assistance. So that the public might understand what we are talking about, I shall call it the dole, as it is commonly referred to. There is no doubt that there is considerable abuse of this dole money and that there are people obtaining it who are not so entitled. Indeed this is now becoming a nationwide matter for discussion. While it was always possibly a canker in our social welfare code — one of the things it was very difficult with which to deal—it seems to have grown and is inclined to grow day by day despite the work of the Department. Possibly this has arisen because some people have been successful in getting away with it in an area. If Paddy sees Joe getting away with it, it is quite likely that Paddy is going to be infected by the same disease. I know that possibly urban areas are one of the worst areas of abuse.

It is impossible to keep a check on people in large centres of population; possibly it is a little more obvious in rural areas. But when one sees people with motor vans and cars driving into a town, parking them on the outskirts and proceeding on to collect their dole money at the unemployment exchange, one gets a little concerned because, if this is part of the price of improved social welfare benefits, it is necessary that the public conscience be awakened to the fact that these abuses exist and that something of a more radical nature will have to be done to rectify it in the near future. It is an uneviable task and one which nobody likes facing up to. But I think one should be quite clear on what are the rights and wrongs of the situation. The obtaining of dole without the right, in law, to do so is a fraud, nothing short of a fraud. The fact that these people obtain this money to which they are not entitled is having the effect of eroding the size of the loaf available for distribution in other more needy sections of society. The well of finance for social welfare payments is not bottomless; there are limitations on the public purse. But this eroding canker is something of which none of us can approve or be in any way complacent about. It is quite obvious that it has been going on for quite a number of years. What I am underlining is the fact that in recent years it seems to have increased and be on the increase.

I think there is an arrangement whereby people can sign on in the local Garda station. That might be the germ of an idea of dealing with these matters. I know the Garda are hard pressed and have other work with which to deal but I think they can be used as a source of information. I think there should be very careful warning given. For instance, a card could easily be handed out each time a person signed on warning him that he left himself open to prosecution for fraud if he misused his right to dole money. This message needs to be brought home more forcibly.

I did not envy the function of the principal spokesman for the Opposition, Deputy Faulkner. He had a very hard brief to hold to or of which to make anything. I gather the theme of his argument was that the increases provided in the Bill we are now debating are far outstripped by rapidly rising prices. When Deputy Faulkner was giving utterance to such thoughts, I wonder whether he remembered the fact that there used to be VAT on food when he was a Cabinet Minister. We removed that and we took a positive step in relation to the cost of living. But a lot of people fail to understand or appreciate—certainly spokesmen on the other side of the House do not want to understand it—that the major part of any rise in the cost of living is due to external circumstances. I am talking about normal external circumstances.

We are very susceptible to increases in world prices, being in large measure an importing country for finished goods. If there is blame in that regard, well, Opposition spokesmen in office for 16 years did not have to deal with a fuel crisis. They did not have to deal with an inordinately high rate of interest right across the world — scarcity of money. We have and are dealing with it and dealing with it in a meaningful way.

Just to take one part of what we are discussing here today: the general increase in the weekly rates of assistance pensions and allowances will be of the order of 18 per cent to 19 per cent. But, in certain categories, it is going to mean an increase of 80 per cent. It might be no harm to mention some figures. A man under 80 and his wife under 68, at present have £6.15. As of July next, that will be increased to £10.95. That is a meaningful inclusion of a dependant.

I noticed certain figures were read out regarding increases in prices and that in one case there was an increase of 30 per cent but that is not something that is consumed every day. One must have the overall mix, what is utilised in the family home. There is such a thing as weighing the cost of living index and the items that go to make it up. Therefore, one must look at the overall picture; the actual position of the cost of living for the family.

In this Bill we are giving a good sound average of about 18 or 19 per cent of an increase. Many of the figures quoted in this House are figures by comparison with 1972. People are inclined to forget that we gave increases across the board in the 1973 budget and if you add the 1973 increases to the increases in this budget you find we are away ahead because it is the policy of this Government and the parties supporting them not only to keep abreast of increased costs but to give real and meaningful improvements to those who most deserve them.

It is fair to say that the social schemes of a Government are the mirror of the political conscience of that Government and this Bill gives a true, fair and realistic picture of the conscience of the present Government. Not only have they increased the benefits in monetary terms but they have also brought down the age of entitlement and brought other people into the categories that benefit, but a fact that might be overlooked is that other benefits accure. For instance, in the case of the pensions qualification people now aged 68 are entitled to free travel, free electricity allowance and free television licence. These are meaningful things to people at that time of life. The benefit is not confined to monetary terms.

It was implicit in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech on this Bill that it was an ongoing operation and that it is very likely that in the future, with the aim of perfecting our social welfare code, statutory instruments and regulations will be introduced. As a Deputy, I found as I am sure other public representatives have found— that when dealing with assistance cases the person who has a complaint very often does not know how his means are assessed. I have seen in some cases a receipt of particulars of how means are assessed and it might be no harm if the assessment were set out on a sheet and made available to the applicant so that he would know the reason behind the decision allowing, disallowing or allowing in part his social assistance. I do not think it is a breach of secrecy; it is a matter between the claimant and the Department but on occasion it has given rise to unnecessary work in the way of correspondence, inquiries and phone calls between the public representative who is consulted by the claimant and the Department. That could be largely eliminated if the basis of assessment of means was made known to the claimant. Many people do not realise what matters are taken into consideration for a means test. There is much room for further improvement in assessing means.

For instance, I do not see why a claimant in County Wexford should be prejudiced more than a claimant in County Mayo when looking for assistance when he has a small holding. In Wexford every rock, stick, stone and blade of grass is valued. In Mayo if your valuation does not exceed £20 you qualify. There are many men with dairy farms in the west who qualify for assistance but in Wexford they would not; they are fully valued and fully assessed. In today's marketing conditions and conditions in the agricultural community there should be one law for all. I am not arguing against the continuation of the £20 provision but if that is to continue in the western counties— Mayo, Roscommon, Galway and the others — it is only right that in counties such as mine the first £20 attributable to the valuation of a farm holding should be excluded. This can be done quite simply on an apportionment basis; it would create no difficulty and it would not only do justice but make justice appear to be done in regard to the means test.

In relation to the means test there should be a regular monthly revaluation figure. I know of cases where values fixed on cattle, sheep, milch cows and other stock were completely out-of-date when the claim was dealt with. When discussing this on one occasion I was amazed when I found that this was the position. I understand that in many cases it is left to the local officer to try to keep in touch with market prices and similar guidelines. Today we are dealing with a situation where the price in Sligo might be more relevant than the price the previous week in the Enniscorthy mart and this might create a sense of injustice. There should be an average across the country and figures should be issued regularly by the Department showing the basis of the valuation for means test purposes. If that were done there could not be any complaints. It could be done quite easily once a month by the various officers whose job it is to assess values. Possibly it is done in Departments but it is also done at local level and I am concerned that there might be an injustice. Of course, there may be an in-built safety margin utilised of which I am not aware. If that is so I should like to know what it is and how it is applied.

The question of the means test gives rise to quite a little trouble and frequently public representatives are blamed because somebody down the road has got the benefit while another claimant did not get benefit. We know there are cases where people who have obtained social welfare assistance are not entitled to the full amount but a difficulty arises in the case of next door neighbours when one person receives benefit and the other is refused. Possibly there is something to be said for Deputy Brennan's suggestion of a certain review being carried out periodically. It need not be a drastic review but an eye might be kept on the situation.

With regard to deserted wives, I have a reservation — it is not a criticism as such—regarding the view of the Department of Social Welfare on the meaning of the word "desertion" for the purpose of obtaining the deserted wife's allowance. It appears to me that the Department interpret the situation as being one where the wife is physically deserted by the husband in the sense that he leaves the home or whereever they are living. My opinion is that this is very "old hat" thinking, and particularly so in Irish circumstances.

What happens is that the situation becomes intolerable for the wife and she has to leave the house, and perhaps she has to leave the children with her husband. Very often there is a good deal of trauma and terror in a situation such as this and most lawyers are aware of it. The Department might approach the question of desertion in a more up-to-date fashion. I put it to them that they might have a look at some of the decisions in recent times in the divorce courts in England for a definition of desertion. They will find there is quite a body of law which says that if the wife leaves her husband because of the circumstances, the husband has deserted the wife because he has created the situation and made life intolerable for her. If the Department would think on the lines I have suggested, exercising due caution as they would in such a situation, quite a number of unjust situations now existing here would be rectified. It is time we thought on those lines in view of the fact that the subject of battered wives is in the headlines of the newspapers, is a subject that is being discussed to a greater extent and is something of which all of us must take cognisance.

I am serious when I say there is also the question of the deserted husband. There could be a situation with a large family of small children where the wife leaves the husband. Up to that time the husband may have been in reasonable employment but one evening when he comes home he may find his wife has gone for no just reason. That father has to decide between getting somebody to look after the children or, as the remaining parent, he must stay at home and look after them. That situation can and does occur.

We are talking and thinking in an age where there is considerable parity of the sexes. If there have been injustices where the wife is concerned, it is fair to say there have been injustices also where the husband is concerned. There should be some social welfare scheme evolved which would enable the deserted husband who is left with a family to bring in somebody to look after the children while he is at work. I know it is difficult to gauge what would be required in those circumstances, having regard to present-day wages. Those of us who are married know that when we want some assistance in the home when we are away or when there is illness, it is very difficult to get home help or someone to assist one's wife and look after the children. Some real constructive thinking, followed by action, should be provided in those cases.

There is another matter I wish to speak of. Unfortunately I have mislaid the reference but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows what I am referring to when I speak of the residence qualification, in particular for old people—old age pensioners. There are people who are living near the breadline, people who possibly had a little money laid by but now find that has been eroded by inflation. They do not qualify because they lack the necessary years of residence. We have always been a nation from which, during the working years, the good years, we had gone abroad and worked, but it has always been the dearest wish of Irishmen to come back and finish their days on Irish soil.

Some of the people I refer to may not be Irish nationals but in such cases the person might be one of a couple one of whom would be Irish, or they might have a child married to an Irish person and they might want to come back to spend their last few years in this country. I am afraid our social welfare code does not make provision for such people—they are excluded if they do not comply with the residence qualification. I have come across such cases in recent times and I have been in correspondence with the Department. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on it when he is replying.

Assessment of disability is another matter that needs to be looked into. I have had experience of cases in which nothing could be done because the deciding officer in the first instance gave a decision and then it was referred to an appeal body. I understand that when it goes on appeal unless there is a change of circumme stances that decision is final and binding and that the Minister has no jurisdiction to interfere.

I know of one case where a man was unemployable because of disability —totally unemployable. If he were to take up manual work, the only type of occupation for which he was trained, he would be risking his life. I do not mention names or localities, but I have come across such cases. There is a case of a man who had to fight gangerine. He is not out of the wood yet. He has been found to have only a small proportion of disability but he is a totally disabled person as far as employability is concerned because for him to work would be putting him at risk of death. He is ineligible for a full disability allowance because of the low proportion of disability found by the deciding officer. I suggest there should be a review of the code to allow such cases be re-examined by a completely different board or official.

Generally my view is that this Bill illustrates a completely different approach in Government thinking in this day and age. As a Deputy, following the 1973 increases I got many and frequent letters of gratitude for what the Government did for social welfare recipients. They have now been brought to such a state that they are no longer regarded as they were, semibeggars in their localities.

Mr. Wyse

I speak on this Bill at risk of repeating what has been said by other Deputies but I should like to join them in welcoming any increases in social welfare. However, I think the increases provided in this Bill are totally inadequate when one considers them in the context of the enormous increases in the cost of living during the past 12 months, particularly since the last budget. Those most affected by price rises are people in receipt of social welfare benefits and I think everybody will agree that the increases provided here are insufficient to cushion the less fortunate against the impact of inflation, more especially where it affects food commodities.

The Minister, in co-operation with the Parliamentary Secretary, has set up a commission to investigate areas of poverty. We know, as does the Minister, that the most obvious areas of poverty are those involving people dependent on social welfare income. In the past two years the Exchequer benefited by an extra £30 million which was saved on agricultural subsidies and one hoped that greater benefits would be given to the social welfare classes. This was the first opportunity a Government had to do something worthwhile in the matter of social welfare benefits but they have failed lamentably.

As other Deputies have said, the Minister should re-examine the whole structure of the Department in an effort to bring about a more realistic social welfare policy. One of the first things he should aim at is more efficient administration. Perhaps the Department are understaffed but the delays in payments are so intolerable that one wonders why the Parliamentary Secretary has not so far tried to achieve more efficient administration.

There is one very serious aspect of the social welfare system which I have mentioned on numerous occasions. It involves non-contributory old age pensioners. The Minister should give serious consideration to the removal of the old age pension committees. I am a member of an old age pension committee myself. Here there is great delay in the payment of old age pensions. I remember a case where a woman was waiting for over three months for payment of her old age pension. When I inquired from the Minister's Department I was told that unfortunately the committee had not met for three months. Here was an injustice being done to a woman who was mainly dependent on an old age pension income. The parliamentary Secretary could consider the old age pension committee as an appeal court. Where a person who, for some reason or other, disagrees with a decision of the Department, he could then go to the old age pension committee and put his case before them. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary in all sincerity, to consider this aspect of his Department.

I would also like to bring to the Parliamentary Secretary's notice the case of people claiming unemployment benefit. When we talk of poverty and hardship, it is well for us to look at the conditions of entitlement to services. Where a dispute arises between an employer and his employee as a result of which the employee is dismissed, the employee should be paid unemployment benefit until such time as his case is heard by the appeals officer. We know of cases in which people have waited six weeks or more for their appeal to be heard, and in many cases the person is then paid the arrears of benefit. Why should this happen? Why should a worker be considered guilty before the appeals officer hears his case? Where such a case arises the man or woman should be paid unemployment benefit until such time as the appeals officer decided that it was a case of misconduct by him or by his employer.

Likewise in regard to people applying for disability benefit. How many times have I written to the Parliamentary Secretary in cases in which the medical referee decides that the person is capable of work, while the person's own private doctor decides the person is not capable of work? Doctors differ, and the case goes to the appeals officer. Again, this person is not paid until such time as the appeals officer arrives at a decision. Here, again, a person is being victimised. When we talk about people claiming disability benefit we are talking about people who may have contributed for many long years to the Department of Social Welfare, and yet they are being deprived of a service until such time as the doctors and referees make up their minds whether the person is capable or incapable of employment. I am saying this, because I have no doubt that the commission the Parliamentary Secretary has set up to investigate areas of poverty or to define poverty, if you wish, will be coming back with many of the defects I am now talking about as existing in the Department of Social Welfare.

The case of the deserted wife has also been mentioned. I cannot understand why an unfortunate woman with a young family who has been deserted must wait three or six months before she is classified as a deserted wife. It could be that three weeks could be that bit too long. A woman suffering from this frustration and anxiety might very well leave her own home and leave her children to the care of somebody else. Immidiate action must always be taken in a case of that kind so as to avoid further harm to the family. The only option to a woman in this position is to see the home assistance officer and not every woman is anxious for that kind of service. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give very serious consideration to this. She is entitled to at least some comfort and to be able to depend on somebody at such an hour. I met this group very recently. This is the point I put before them, and they agreed that immidiate action must be taken where the wife is deserted.

Recently in the Dáil I asked a question as to whether it would be possible for a man or woman in receipt of a retirement pension to take up part-time employment so as to supplement his or her income. The reply I received from the Minister at the time was that he would consider the matter. This is very important. There are many men and women who are not ready for retirement at the age of 68 and who are still able to work. For instance, there are people who work as petrol pump attendants and women who do part-time domestic work. Everyone should be entitled to subsidise his income without being deprived of his retirement pension. It is important for a person to remain active as long as possible. The Parliamentary Secretary should consider allowing such people to take up part-time employment. This would be a great help in many homes. I know he will mention the question of insurance. I would lay down the condition in those cases that they should be insured only for occupational injuries and that they should not contribute to other social welfare services.

We all know that the cost of fuel and electricity is beyond the capacity of many people, especially old age pensioners. Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider allowing old age pensioners unlimited free electricity? An old person needs heating from early morning until late at night. Old age pensioners cannot afford to buy coal or pay for extra electricity. The Parliamentary Secretary should carefully consider this matter.

I referred to the delay in payment of benefits. This is something that relates to all areas of the country, not just to my constituency. The Parliamentary Secretary should consider appointing a senior officer locally who would be responsible for investigating and ratifying payments rather than having people waiting perhaps weeks for a reply from Dublin. I do not believe that this would be cost the Department anything extra. There should be a local official who would meet the applicant, discuss his claim and sanction payment. The whole thing is ridiculous at present. The claims of insured persons are clearcut. Whether it is for unemployment benefit, disability benefit or occupational injuries, the fact that the applicant is an insured person and can produce a certificate to that effect should mean that payment could be sanctioned locally. These are small points but they are very big things in the lives of people who are mainly dependent on social welfare benefits.

I agree with Deputy Brennan who said that the whole social welfare structure should be examined. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of many anomalies in it and that he is anxious to cut down on delays in payment and so on. Social welfare should no longer be the cinderella of budgets, which I believe it is. Something really positive should be done to avoid delays, to avoid embarrassments and to ensure that those in need get what they are entitled to without delay.

Mr. Governey

I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his work and achievements since March of last year. The attention which has been paid to recipients of social welfare benefit in the last 14 or 15 months is something that any supporter of the Government can be proud of. While saying that, I should like to make this personal remark: although the increased benefits which have been given are a wonderful advance on those given in previous years, I believe—and I do not say this in a critical manner—that we have a long way to go in easing the burden on the recipients of those benefits. I have no doubt that in the future there will be further benefits given.

In the 1973 election campaign we, the Fine Gael Party, part of the National Coalition, undertook to move towards relieving poverty in this country. I was amazed to hear some of the Opposition speakers, after being in office without a break for 16 years, say here today that the benefits given have not kept pace with rises in the cost of living. As we all know, these benefits were the largest ever given in the history of this State. As back-benchers in the National Coalition Government we must strive to remove all poverty from our community. The efforts that have been made in the last two budgets and the work of the Minister for Social Welfare and his Parliamentary Secretary certainly have been in the right direction but much still remains to be done. I am confident we will continue to ensure that the promises we made before election will be fulfilled during our present term of office.

The plight of deserted wives is a very great one. This is a problem which I am sure the Minister for Social Welfare and his Parliamentary Secretary will deal with as expeditiously as possible when applications for allowances are received. We can all imagine the plight of a deserted wife who may have a young family. I know certain investigations have to be made to ensure when State money is given that the Minister and the officials of the Department are satisfied that the necessity is there for the spending of the taxpayers' money. However, it would be unfair if there was any undue delay in paying out the benefits. I hope that red tape will be cut at the nearest point in all applications for deserted wives' allowances. It is alarming to note from the figures we have received the number of deserted wives there are in the country.

Before the last general election the parties in the National Coalition Government promised that the age limit for old age pensions would be reduced and this promise is being fulfilled. After only two months in office the age limit was reduced from 70 years to 69 years last year and it has been further reduced to 68 years this year. New applications for old age pensions should be dealt with without delay. Deputy Wyse mentioned the case of a person who had waited a long time for his old age pension. The local pensions committee did not meet for three months. He was told this in a letter from the Department. I believe there must have been something wrong with the local committee if they only met every three months. I am sure no member of that committee would like to have to wait for three months before his case was dealt with by a local committee. The Minister and his officials cannot be blamed for the delay in that case.

My attention has been drawn to delays in the payment of old age pensions to people who are applying for the first time and I have also heard of delays in regard to applications for some social welfare benefits. I drew the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this and I received a letter from him stating that he is looking into the matter. I know, because of the large number of applications received every week in the Department, that there must be some delay. I have come across cases in which people regularly in receipt of social welfare benefits have suffered as a result of delay in the payment of these benefits. I believe these unhappy anomalies have now been rectified and I trust that in future there will be no delays of any kind and I am sure the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary will take all the necessary steps to ensure there will be no delays.

As well as criticising we should also give credit and I want to refer now to the various improvements under the different headings. In future where a person in receipt of social insurance or assistance dies and leaves dependants benefit will continue to be paid for a period of six weeks after death. Any widow's or orphan's pension will in such circumstances be payable from the end of the six weeks period. This is a tremendous step forward. We have all come across cases in which a husband died and left a widow with a family and she had to go through all the normal processing before she received her widow's pension. I appreciate that in such cases assistance could be obtained from the local authority but that assistance was repayable when the pension was ultimately paid. This particular provision is something that was long overdue and it is one on which we must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary.

Budgets come and budgets go and Estimates are discussed here for the various Departments of State. Very often these are discussed at times when they are overshadowed in the Press by some other events and people are sometimes inclined to forget the increases given in benefits. Opposition Deputies were critical this evening about the present increases. They argued they are not in keeping with the rise in the cost of living. We must remember that the financial year has been changed and the next budget will be early next year and, when the day of reckoning comes, I am sure the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary will have made their case to the Minister for Finance to ensure that moneys will be available to give further increases to social welfare beneficiaries.

It is heartening to know that the means test has been considerably eased. I hope it will be still further eased when the next opportunity offers. It is interesting to note that 275,000 pensioners will shortly receive increases in their pensions, plus increases in moneys paid for adult dependants and children. Over 150,000 entitled to short-term benefits will receive increases, together with their adult dependants and children. In the case of children's allowances some 375,000 families involving 1,210,000 children will receive increases in children's allowances. This is certainly an achievement. It is a step along the road towards what the National Coalition Government set out to do, namely, to eradicate poverty in our society. Much remains to be done but I am confident that in the years that lie ahead, under the guidance of the present Minister for Social Welfare and his Parliamentary Secretary, all that we set out to do will be achieved and people will in time thank this Government for what they are doing to relieve misery and eradicate poverty.

Mr. McLaughlin

For a long time we were told the Coalition Government would not work and that it would never be a success. In the space of 16 short months, or thereabouts, we have seen the fruits of the work of the Coalition Government to date. I thank the Minister and his active Parliamentary Secretary for their courtesy, their consideration and their hard work in carrying out the very heavy responsibilities devolving upon them.

I agree with my colleague Deputy Wyse that there are many delays, but let us not forget the huge amount of work involved in the increases. Every recipient of social welfare payments had to have his book, or his forms, or his claim, or his number, checked. Thousands of applications came in which were not eligible for benefit and they had to be sorted out and examined. This was bound to put a very heavy burden on the Department. Many approaches were made to me about these delays and I explained the amount of work involved. I explained that from the time the application went in they would be entitled to payment when the whole matter was straightened out. That is what happened in the end. These people got a very substantial cheque for back money and they got a substantial allowance under the different headings.

This was the first time substantial increases were given to our people. I can assure the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that they are fully appreciated. When we look at this document we must realise that an enormous amount of money is being paid out to the people we want to see getting these benefits. Last year people of 69 years of age qualified for the old age pension and from 1st July of this year people of 68 years of age will qualify for it. That is a great consolation for many people after a hard life of hard work. At that age people very much appreciate having an income so that they can slow down and live without financial strain. That provision has been very much welcomed by our people.

I come from the west. As everybody knows, a large number of the farming community are now eligible for these benefits. Another relief is that, while last year with an income of £4 per week you qualified for a maximum pension, this year you can have an income of £5 per week and qualify. A husband and wife can have £10 per week and one or other can qualify for the maximum pension of £6.15. These things are very welcome and I can assure the Government, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that they are doing a good job.

Even with all the publicity given to the budget and all the documents put before us, many of us did not appreciate the true facts of the budget. In the country many people did not get all the facts and did not learn of all the benefits included in it. This document explains everything very clearly.

The Parliamentary Secretary said:

To put an end to this unsatisfactory feature of the old age pensions scheme, an increase in old age pension will be provided under the Bill in respect of dependent spouses who are not themselves entitled to pension, as in the case of old age (contributory) pension and retirement pension. The maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory old age pension is being increased from £6.15 to £7.30 for persons under age 80 and from £6.65 to £7.85 for those aged 80 and over.

That is very welcome. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:

Thus the overall weekly payment for a non-contributory pensioner with a dependent spouse will, at the maximum rates, be increased from £6.15 to £10.95 a week, or, if the pensioner is 80 or more, from £6.65 to £11.50 a week. Increases of pension for qualified children of pensioners are being raised to £1.95 a week for each of the first two children and to £1.50 a week for each additional child, while the payment for a prescribed relative looking after an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £3.50 to £4.15.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify the question of the care allowance. People are a bit confused about who is entitled to it, and on what basis it is paid. Some people think that if they stay for an hour or two hours to provide care or to provide meals for a relative they are entitled to it. A few days ago we got a circular pointing out the changes very clearly but not everybody knows them. This part of the scheme should be well published so that those seeking a care allowance will know where they stand, and know who is entitled to benefit and who is not.

This proves that delays were bound to occur in the payment of some benefits and in dealing with some applications. The Parliamentary Secretary said:

The total number of persons affected by the improvements in the old age and blind pensions schemes will be 144,500 made up of 115,000 existing pensioners, 11,500 new pensioners, 13,500 adult dependants and 4,500 children.

I can assure the House that it took some doing to sort out all that and that dealt only with one section, the old age pension section. The Parliamentary Secretary said:

Thus a widow with no other means who has two children, could earn up to £8 a week without affecting her right to the new maximum pension of £12.10 for a widow with four two children. A widow with four children will be able to earn up to £11 a week without affecting her entitlement to the new maximum pension of £16.90 appropriate in her case.

Some time ago I said that, if a widow went out to earn a few pounds to supplement her income, she should still be allowed to draw her widow's pension. I was told that, as the law stood, that could not be allowed and that if she went out to earn money she had to forfeit her pension.

These changes are very welcome. It is estimated that not less than 15,000 widows will benefit from the improvements in the scheme of whom about 250 will be new pensioners, while 7,000 children will be affected. In addition, some 2,500 deserted wives with 2,900 children and 1,900 unmarried mothers with 2,400 children will also benefit from these improvements. These figures speak for themselves and there is no need for me to delay the House in telling of the immense benefit the increase in these allowances will be for these people.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary the problem many young married women, who live in remote areas or in small towns, experience when they seek employment. Such women who would have stamped cards for many years, in some cases for as many as eight years, even though they find it impossible to obtain employment do not receive any benefit. The Parliamentary Secretary should give serious consideration to such cases. I know a young married woman living in Manorhamilton, which is 16 miles from Sligo, who finds it impossible to obtain employment adjacent to her home town. The journey to Sligo where there is employment would be too much for this woman but she is not eligible for unemployment benefit even though there is no employment available for her in Manorhamilton. Lack of employment forces such people to seek benefit and it is my view that they are entitled to it.

The effect of the increases proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary in this Bill will be that the maximum weekly allowance of unemployment assistance in an urban area to a married couple will go up from £9.25 to £10.95. These increases are welcome and will do much to help those in receipt of these benefits. I also welcome the increases to single women who have devoted their lives to caring for their aged parents or for an invalid brother or sister. Many of these live in rural areas and they cannot get employment. The result is that it is very difficult for them to live without some type of benefit.

I welcome the decision to increase the amount payable for an adult dependant to £5.50 for one who is under the age of 68 and to £6.50 for one who has attained that age. Up to this they were left out in the cold. The Parliamentary Secretary is to be congratulated for bringing forward this scheme for a very deserving group. From 1st July social welfare recipients will be enjoying the increases proposed in this Bill.

Mr. Malone

The Parliamentary Secretary in the last sentence of his statement recomands the Bill to the House for "its speedy and favourable consideration". The House has given it very favourable consideration and I will not be the one to make it anything other than speedy. I should like to express my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing in this Bill which has far reaching benefits for many people in the community. I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy and co-operation to me when dealing with my problems. They were dealt with fairly and with the utmost speed.

When I spoke during the budget debate I pointed out to the Minister for Finance that those who seemed to have been forgotten by every Minister for Finance since the State was founded were the unsung heroines of our State, the women who through no fault of their own were left destitute following the death of their parents for whom they had cared. Such women gave a lifetime of service to their parents in their old age but on their passing found themselves without a job which would keep them in reasonable comfort. I know that were it not for the charity of various people a lot of these women would be in a very bad way. However, as a result of measures in this Bill these people will be taken care of. The Parliamentary Secretary, when this scheme gets off the ground, should have another look at the sections dealing with the means test. In my view it is a little harsh.

I should like to make a point in relation to the section dealing with the scheme for wives of prisoners. I come from a constituency where a section of the Army are based. Occasionally Army personnel step out of line and have to be imprisoned by the Army authorities. Recently I had a very sad case where a young soldier who gave himself up after deserting found himself in the Curragh prison for a number of days. During that time his young wife and baby were left without a penny. That soldier, because he was in jail, was not given any payment. In my view this was one of the saddest cases I ever came across and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to inform me whether such a wife would qualify for benefit similar to that given to the wife of a prisoner in a civilian jail. I would hope they would be included also.

I am glad to note that in the event of the death of a socially-insured man payments will continue to be made to his widow until such time as she begins to receive the widow's pension. That is an extremely desirable development because it ensures that benefit contiues to be paid when it is most necessary. This will result in relieving many people of much anxiety.

It is only in recent years that we have begun to recognise and to understand the problems of our senior citizens. Despite the many improvements in old age pensions during past years there is still a great necessity for the many charitable organisations who give of their time and money to bring a little more comfort to these elderly people. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would be the first to laud those organisations for their work, work that very often goes unnoticed.

It may not be recognised sufficiently that one of the greatest hardships of old age is that of loneliness. In urben areas local authorities are endeavouring to build houses for the aged so that they can live close to each other and be near the shops and the churches. However there may continue to be a need for the various organisations who are doing so much in this field—for instance, those who provide the very worthwhile service of meals-on-wheels. Perhaps at some future date a grant will be made available to these organisations to help them in their work. This, too, would help to eliminate what could be described as disaster for the elderly people concerned—the opting out of a person involved in the organisation of these services.

I shall not delay the Bill any further. In conclusion, I congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for their efforts on behalf of such a wide section of the community. I hope that during the years ahead they will be able to continue to improve the lot of social welfare recipients.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

With the volume of notes I have made on the many issues raised during this Second Stage debate, it is difficult to know where to begin. Perhaps it would be appropriate to comment first on the remarks of the Fianna Fáil spokesman on Social Welfare. I regard Deputy Faulkner as being a very reasonable man, as a man who deals usually in a dispassionate and objective manner with the subject under discussion. However, his clear departure today from that approach surprised me. I can only attribute this attitude on the part of the Deputy to the heat of battle and I draw the conclusion that the word coming back to the cumainn from the hustings has upset Deputy Faulkner so that he is not as objective as he is normally.

During his contribution Deputy Faulkner made some extraordinary statements in relation to this Bill. Listening to him one would get the impression that some sort of penal taxation had been imposed on old age pensioners and other recipients of social welfare benefits. The Deputy said that any increase in social welfare payments that have been granted since the change of Government have been more than eroded by inflation. That is an absurd statement. I agree that there has been inflation and that this situation has presented considerable difficulty to this Government as it would to any Government, but to suggest that there has been no improvement in the lot of social welfare recipients since the coming into power of this Government is stretching things a little too far.

Deputy Faulkner quoted figures from the cost-of-living index. I wish also to quote some figures. These figures can be substantiated. They are in percentages since the Deputy said that there was no point in talking in terms of sums of money. He told us that before the budget of this year the Leader of his Party, in a public statement, called for an increase in social welfare benefits of the order of 25 per cent. He was speaking in the context of a full financial year. In fact increases across the board in the budget averaged approximately 19 per cent—something in excess of 18 per cent—for a nine-month period. This is what it worked out at over a 12-month period. If one allows that this was to be for only 9 months and paid from July instead of October as had been the practice under Fianna Fáil, it meant approximately 24 per cent. I can imagine the dismay of some poor unfortunate Deputy when placed in the same position as Deputy Faulkner. Here the Government delivered practically 100 per cent of what the leader of his party sought before the budget was announced.

Mr. Faulkner

We differ in our reasoning.

Mr. Cluskey

That left the Deputy in an extremely difficult position and I have some sympathy for him. I will supply him with a copy of this document in case he doubts the percentages I read out. He can have them checked by that well publicised but not too evident Fianna Fáil think tank which is in operation.

The percentage figures since March, 1973 are: personal and adult dependant rates, retirement pension, 37 per cent; personal and adult dependant below pensionable age, 35 per cent; person with adult dependant above pensionable age, 45 per cent; old age contributory pensions, 37 per cent. I will not go through the whole list because it is too long but I will give a few more. Widows' increases for child dependants, widows' contributory pensions, deserted wives' pensions, 70 per cent; all other insurance schemes, each of first two children, 63 per cent; each subsequent child, 80 per cent. These are well above the 25 per cent the leader of the Opposition was looking for.

Mr. Faulkner

If those figures are correct, what brought the total down to an average of 18 per cent?

Mr. Cluskey

I will give the Deputy a copy of these figures immediately after the proceedings tonight and he can have them checked by the think tank.

Mr. Faulkner

That is not sufficient. What I am interested in is——

Mr. Cluskey

We are talking about the Deputy's statement that since this Coalition took office, factually speaking, the plight of old age pensioners and all other recipients of social welfare benefits has worsened and that inflation has taken up the lot.

Mr. Faulkner

Surely my question is reasonable?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. Cluskey

I will quote more figures which the Deputy might find even more startling and I can stand over them. The Deputy described the children's allowance as a penny a day and dismissed it. There were two budgets under this Administration. On both occasions children's allowances were raised. In the ten budgets under Fianna Fáil only on four occasions were the children's allowances increased. During the budget debate Deputy Tunney claimed that the criteria of concern of a Government was whether it would increase children's allowances and if so by how much. If the Deputy would like to hear the percentage of the increases in children's allowances since we took office, I will give them to him. The percentage increase for the first child was 360, I repeat 360; the second child 120 and the third and subsequent children 80. The Deputy can have this document scrutinised by his think tank. It might give them something constructive to do.

While we are on percentages, another question was raised about the marvellous social conscience which was discovered amongst the Fianna Fáil Deputies. They spoke about what was, should be and would be spent if they were in power as if they had never been in office and were some obscure party with a social conscience trying desperately to get public attention and support in order to implement a great new reformist policy in the field of social welfare. I do not like this attitude and it is extremely hard to take that from a party which have for the greater part of our life as a State been in power. Before this Government took office the Fianna Fáil Party had been in power for 16 consecutive years and all these marvellous things could have been done by them. All these social ills and injustices were not invented by the Coalition Government. We did not pick them out of the air in order to cure them.

Mr. Faulkner

What was done with the £30 million from the EEC fund?

Mr. Cluskey

I will come back to that point later. Here are some more figures for scrutiny by the think tank. The increase in expenditure on social welfare was mentioned. Here are the figures for Exchequer expenditure in the field of social welfare: 1960, £.9 million; 1961, £.5 million; 1962, £2.3 million; 1963, £3 million; 1964, £4.2 million; 1965, £3.9 million; 1966, £4.4 million; 1967, £2.4 million; 1968, £4 million; 1969, this was a difficult year from an election point of view, £10 million and 1970, £13.2 million, 1971, £12.1 million; 1972, £7.8 million; 1973, the first year of this Government, £44 million and 1974, £30 million.

Mr. Faulkner

Is the Parliamentary Secretary including the EEC money? This is a crucial question.

Mr. Cluskey

I have given the Deputy the figures for Exchequer contribution. Again, I will leave them for the scrutiny of the think tank.

Mr. Faulkner

The Parliamentary Secretary is avoiding a crucial question. What happened to the £30 million?

Mr. Cluskey

I am not. We will get around to the crucial question.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow interruptions. A question would be in order but continuous interruptions are not.

Mr. Cluskey

We will get down to the crucial question of what happened to the £30 million from the EEC. As far as I am aware, from your own spokesman and former Minister for Finance, the figure was £27 million.

Mr. Faulkner

If the Parliamentary Secretary would look at the Book of Estimates he would see exactly what it was.

Mr. Cluskey

I was going by Deputy George Colley when he was Minister for Finance.

Mr. Faulkner

Go by the Book of Estimates, the official publication.

Mr. Cluskey

All right, I will accept £30 million if it makes it any easier to answer.

Mr. Faulkner

For last year. It is much more for this year.

Mr. Cluskey

First of all, the £30 million that was being bandied around by Fianna Fáil was never spent by them in any year. If one goes back to 1972, or 1971 — these figures are in the Book of Estimates; and one does not have to speculate about them — this is not what you would have spent, or could have spent, or might have spent; it is what you did spend. This is your total contribution, as a Government, to social welfare in this State. Your total contribution in the year before you went out of office was £11.8 million. Is not that true?

Mr. Faulkner

The total expenditure by the Coalition was exactly the same if one leaves out the £30 million.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy asked about the £30 million. Your expenditure in the year before you left office was £11.8 million. You claimed very late — something like the rates effort— during the election campaign that you would spend £30 million on social welfare, knowing of course that we had not got in at that stage to examine the files or find out the facts. During the election campaign you were in office, your Ministers were in office and you had all the files and information available to you and you knew that the £30 million did not exist.

Mr. Faulkner

That is absolute nonsense. That is a very old chestnut.

Mr. Cluskey

I shall tell you what was there. The Deputy wanted these statistics. In eight years under Fianna Fáil the aggregate figure spent on social welfare was £54 million. That is not speculation. Those figures are on the record and anybody can get them from the Library. The Deputy's Government spent £54 million in eight years on social welfare. This Government, not yet 18 months in office, have spent £88 million in two budgets.

Mr. Faulkner

Inclusive of the EEC money.

Mr. Cluskey

Even were I to concede such a misleading statement as being true, we would have spent more in 18 months than the Deputy's party spent in eight years.

Mr. Faulkner

That is not a fact and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it.

Mr. Cluskey

There are the figures. If one deducts the £30 million which were not there—but, for the sake of the Deputy's argument, we will say they were there—we still spent £58 million in two years. You spent only £54 million in eight years.

Mr. Faulkner

Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that that money was not available each year?

Mr. Cluskey

What money was not available each year? The EEC money was available each year?

Mr. Faulkner

The Minister for Finance stated, in reply to a question, that there were £60 million available this year.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must ask that the Parliamentary Secretary address his remarks through the Chair and that interruptions on my right cease.

Mr. Faulkner

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary does not wish to invite interruptions.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us have no further interruptions.

Mr. Cluskey

While we are on statistics, I might point out that expenditure on social welfare has risen from 6¾ per cent of the GNP in 1972-73 to 8½ per cent in the current year. They are real terms. If one relates to percentage GNP one is talking in real terms and that is the difference.

Mr. Faulkner

Of course, it all depends on what one includes.

Mr. Cluskey

I suppose it does. There were a few interesting points raised. One thing which struck me forcibly was very much out of character for the Deputy. However, we shall forgive it all because the hustling is on. The boys are coming in and telling them what a terrible reception they are receiving.

A Deputy

Wait until Wednesday.

Mr. Cluskey

I was over there for so long that I have a lot of sympathy with fellows there. I know what it is all about. However, Deputy Faulkner did say one thing about which we have to be very serious because it is a very serious issue. He raised the question of Press coverage and advertising. He suggested it was done purely for political motives. I do not accept that at all. One of the greatest needs in the Department of Social Welfare—when the Tánaiste went there as Minister—was to communicate with the people, to let the people know their entitlements—I emphasise the word "entitlements" as citizens. There was a conspiracy of silence as far as Fianna Fáil and the Department of Social Welfare were concerned in regard to people's rights.

Mr. Faulkner

That is positively not so.

Mr. Cluskey

One wondered why it was so hard to find out just what a citizen was entitled to as a contributor to social welfare. Quite frankly, I could not understand it. But I understand it now because, if the people did not know they were entitled to something and particularly if their entitlements were left very vague, the terror campaign could be used during the elections. You could go round to the small farmers, or knock on the door of the poor widow and suggest—as did some of your people who brought it to a fine art— that if Fianna Fáil went out of office the dole would stop or the pension would cease or sickness benefit would cease. As a matter of fact, their world would stop if they did not vote for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Faulkner

The Parliamentary Secretary must have a very poor opinion of the intelligence of the people if he believes that.

Mr. Cluskey

No, but I have a tremendous insight into how the fears of an unfortunate person dependent solely on social welfare or assistance can be played on; how this method can be used, and it was used successfully by Fianna Fáil over the years.

Mr. Faulkner

That is nonsense and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it.

Mr. Cluskey

The campaign being carried out now of widely publicising the entitlements of people has done away with that fear for all time. The Fianna Fáil Party will have to start thinking of policies now, not fears.

Mr. Faulkner

We have no objection to that; it is the format of the advertisements to which we object. We are most anxious that people should know what their rights are.

Mr. Cluskey

Deputy Faulkner was very upset that this Government had taken space in the national and provincial papers, had issued a new booklet, had engaged in advertising to ensure that people knew their entitlements and that they were not hand-outs from Fianna Fáil—and I stress this—or from Fine Gael or Labour.

These are their rights as citizens of this country and nobody could take them away. They could vote as they liked and still retain their rights.

I can well understand Fianna Fáil being very upset about that little balloon being burst because God knows it was used to very good effect in rural Ireland particularly. Upset as the Deputy was with the campaign of publicity in which the Department engaged I can assure him and the House that not only will that campaign continue but it will be intensified and we shall not be happy until every citizen knows his rights and knows that these are not given as hand-outs by anyone.

Mr. Faulkner

We are also very pleased that everybody will know. We are simply objecting to the policy that——

Mr. Cluskey

No. You are objecting to the fact——

Mr. Faulkner

Read my contribution.

Mr. Cluskey

You have gone around the country in the "locals" and people have told you: "We will vote according to our conscience, according to our beliefs, and we will not lose the dole——

Mr. Wyse

Wait until next Wednesday.

Mr. Cluskey

——or the unemployment assistance or the sickness benefit". These benefits are not given out of the goodness of heart of Fianna Fáil or any other political party. They are the people's rights and they will be made aware of that.

Mr. Wyse

If they are theirs by right, why is there such long delay in making payment?

Mr. Cluskey

I shall come to that. Do not worry about the possibility of my evading it. That is a matter of tremendous concern to me. The Deputy raised a number of issues with which I hope to deal, if time permits, but I was very glad Deputy Faulkner raised the point about advertising which is a very important issue.

Mr. Faulkner

I agree.

Mr. Cluskey

Ten information offices have been established and more will be opened. There will be more Press, radio and television publicity and the people will know their rights and know that it will not depend on whom you know and on whom you vote for. We shall ensure that.

Mr. Faulkner

Fianna Fáil will be very pleased with that.

Mr. Cluskey

If that were the only thing to be achieved out of the change of Government it would be worth-while.

Several questions were raised by Fianna Fáil speakers. The former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Brennan, was quite constructive. First, I think he mentioned that we need a development and research section in the Department. He went on to develop some points regarding the difficulties of the staff. I should like to endorse this because I do not think it is very much appreciated. We hear a good deal about delay in answering correspondence and in paying benefits, and I particularly welcome it when the former Minister pays tribute to the Department's staff and stresses the problems of their accommodation and working conditions. I am extremely pleased at that and that he has an appreciation of the difficulties under which the staff work and the volume of correspondence and claims and inquiries that they handle.

Deputy Wyse took another line— that the delays in answering applications for payment were excessive and general. I do not accept that they are general but I fully accept that they happen. A tremendous volume of correspondence comes into the Department of Social Welfare each week. Even before the implementation of the present budget the number of entirely new claims reaching the Department is in the neighbourhood of 10,000 per week. This figure will increase pretty substantially because of the provisions of this Bill. The number of staff was mentioned; it is approximately 2,700. But that is not the problem. The real problem is that we are trying in 1974 to use methods devised sometime in the 1930s to deal with the present situation and it is not possible to do it efficiently and well always. We are asking the staff to do something which is not really possible and there must be, as Deputy Brennan suggested, a completely new look at the situation as regards administration of the Department and the methods of dealing with this huge volume of correspondence. That will not be achieved overnight.

As I said earlier the vast number of claims are dealt with speedily and efficiently but there are delays in relatively few cases. I think Deputy Wyse made a proper point: it is not a question of how many but of the hardship that can be caused. I accept that as a fact. We are not dealing with queries of an abstract nature. If there is a delay in answering a letter or making money available on a legitimate claim it can cause considerable hardship to an individual or a family. This is something to which the Tánaiste and I have given constant attention since we took office and we have had the full co-operation of the Department's staff in doing so. But there will have to be a complete change in the method of dealing with correspondence and processing claims. It is regrettable it was not done some time ago before it reached this point. With regard to the cost of administration of the Department as a percentage of total expenditure, in 1972-73 it was 4.86; in 1973-74 it was 4.47; and in 1974 the figure was 3.77. We could spend quite a considerable amount of money in improving the efficiency of the Department and it is essential that we do that.

Having regard to the questions raised in the debate, one might wonder if we were having a full-dress budget debate because so many issues were mentioned. One point referred to was the matter of non-contributory old age pensions. Deputy Faulkner said that despite the easing of the means test pensioners were worse off because of inflation. There was a considerable amount of comment that everyone was worse off and that old age pensioners were not getting any value from the increases made available. However, the facts are that before March, 1973 a person could not qualify for a full non-contributory old age pension if he had any means whatever. Now these people are allowed £5 per week, although I am not suggesting for a moment that it is a princely sum. Deputy Faulkner is a great person for percentages and I will give him one figure. In March, 1973, the percentage of people who were getting the maximum non-contributory old age pension was 15.

Mr. Faulkner

Does the Parliamentary Secretary know what he is talking about? It referred to a five shilling increase in one year.

Mr. Cluskey

No. What I am talking about here is that a person could not have any means if he wished to get an old age pension, nothing whatever. As the Deputy requested the information, I am telling him that before the easing of the means test the percentage who qualified was 15. The present situation is that more than 90 per cent qualify for the maximum pension.

Mr. Faulkner

Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that the maximum referred to a special condition in relation to a five shilling increase given in one year?

Mr. Cluskey

I was saying that a person can qualify for a pension if he is earning up to £5 a week. Under Fianna Fáil he could not have any means.

Deputy Wyse mentioned deserted wives and he said that the period of waiting before a woman could qualify for a pension was too long and was causing hardship. I agree that for a wife whose husband has left her in this plight with children to care for it is very difficult to manage, but the scheme has been improved quite substantially in the last two budgets. This week the Minister for Social Welfare signed a regulation which reduces the waiting period for qualification for a deserted wife's allowance from six months to three months. In addition, the conditions that the wife must prevail on the husband to come back to reside with her and the full onus that was placed on the wife to trace the whereabouts of the husband have been eased in some respects.

It is great to see that a while in opposition can stir up the old social conscience. There were many suggestions across the floor of the House this evening about all the improvements that should and could be made but somehow they did not get me. All these social ills have not suddenly been imported from elsewhere; they have been with us for a long time. I did not hear any great demands or see any significant desire on behalf of the Deputies who were sitting on these benches at the time to bring about any of these reforms or improvements.

Mr. Wyse

The Parliamentary Secretary should look at the record. Any-time I spoke on social welfare matters during the years I advocated the three points I put to him.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy does not seem to have exercised much influence in his party.

Mr. Wyse

I want to put the record straight.

Mr. Cluskey

We had quite a long litany tonight from Fianna Fáil speakers with regard to social welfare improvements. Home assistance was mentioned. I may be wrong, but I had the impression that the Home Assistance Act was passed in 1847. It has been a long time there. Deputy Brennan was Minister for Social Welfare once but we did not see many changes as a result. This Government did not invent home assistance.

Mr. Browne

There is need for a change and the sooner that is put straight the better. It is now administered by two Departments. For some sort of efficiency in administration, it should be under one Department.

Mr. Cluskey

I am not suggesting the home assistance system is a satisfactory one. I am only pointing out that these problems have been with us for a long time. A whole range of items were mentioned by Deputies with suggestions as to what could be done. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them here. As far as the people throughout the country are concerned, actions speak louder than words and in the past two budgets we have given evidence of the sincerity of our commitments in our 14-point programme put to the electorate in the last general election.

Mr. Wyse

Would the Parliamentary Secretary comment on the point I raised about the old age pension committees?

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy said he was a member of one of those committees. He said they were responsible for a good many of the delays that arise in payments.

Mr. Wyse

Not my committee. I would not let things go like that.

Mr. Cluskey

Personally, I fail to see the useful purpose served by old age pension committees. There is no doubt that in some cases delays occurred because of them. We have had such complaints from Deputies on all sides of the House. On having these matters examined, we found that the Department were completely blameless—that the responsibility for the delays lay with the old age pension committees. Perhaps they fulfilled some useful purpose in the past but I am personally of the opinion that they are useless and I do not think it is desirable they should remain in existence for much longer.

I thank Deputies for their contributions which in the main were helpful. As I stated in my opening remarks, a reasonable amount has been done but we have a long way to go. That does not apply only to monetary benefits: we need improvements throughout the entire code. I am confident that the progress we have shown through the last two budgets will be maintained.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.