Vol. 273 No. 10
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £112,475,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1974, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1974, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.
The net Estimate for Social Welfare for the current short financial year is £112,475,000. This is equivalent to a 12-month estimate of £148,865,000 representing an increase of £12,852,000 over the figure for the previous year which has been adjusted to allow for the Supplementary Estimate taken in December last.
This Estimate was, of course, prepared prior to the budget and does not make provision for the increases in rates of payment, improvements in coverage and new schemes which were announced in the budget. The Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, which passed all Stages in this House last week, made provision for additional expenditure of approximately £15 million in the current financial year, or £30 million in a full 12-month period. It will be necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate later this year to meet this additional cost. The published figures, therefore, do not give a complete picture of the current annual cost of the social welfare services or an adequate comparison of the growth in this cost from year to year. I hope in the course of these introductory remarks, to provide Deputies with as complete a picture as possible.
This is the first full Estimate debate on social welfare since the change of Government and I propose to avail of this opportunity to range widely over the major developments and policy considerations in this area of Government activity. I hope that Deputies will respond by engaging in a positive and constructive debate on social welfare policy. Provision for the social needs of the community— and in particular for the needs of those persons who are not able to make provision for themselves or who are afflicted by misfortune of one kind or another—is of such importance as to require serious discussion, in depth, in this House.
It has been my purpose over the past 15 months to initiate study and debate of major issues of social policy at all levels and I intend to raise a number of matters today which I see as having real priority. I want to make it clear, at the outset, that I shall be thinking aloud on certain questions and I realise, in doing so, that I am taking a political risk. The subject-matter is of such importance that it must be debated openly and, where necessary, controversially.
Social reform has been, and remains, a major thrust of Government policy. It was made clear, within days of this Administration taking office, that the overall policy to be pursued would involve a campaign against poverty and unemployment in which economic and social measures would be intertwined to form a comprehensive and realistic programme. Economic development is of the utmost importance for a country like Ireland, but it is to be valued solely in so far as it contributes to the welfare of every member of society, and especially of the weakest and most vulnerable groups. So-called progress can by-pass many groups and individuals. In the time that it takes one man to make a million pounds a poor family may move one or two places up the long housing points list.
Economic and social policy must be linked in reality and not merely in rhetoric. All aspects of policy must be directed towards social objectives so that the betterment of the living and working conditions of the people will become the yardsticks of political action and of Government decision.
This requires that social policy— in its broad dimensions and in terms of detailed implementation—should be debated fully and in an informal manner. In this country there has been no tradition of study and debate in this area. Recent years have seen some important initiatives — by political parties, by voluntary and Church organisations and by academics—and these have given a welcome impetus to thought and concern in the community. However, I do not think it can be denied that we have relied too much on what has been described as me-tooism, a tendency to follow developments and thinking in Britain rather than to work out our own approaches in the light of our own economic and demographic patterns and of our traditions.
Social policy cannot be regarded as merely a matter of what we usually describe as social welfare—which is, in fact, income maintenance. The income maintenance system, developed from the old British legislation and administrative structures, has concentrated almost totally on catering for the needs of those afflicted by various social problems. Our task now is to seek and implement overall programmes which can solve problems by identifying and dealing with their root causes.
This Government have, in their two budgets, given concrete expressions to their stated concern for the needy. They have, indeed, brought immediate assistance to those in need and have sought to deal, as they promised, with the plight of the aged, deprived children, the widowed, orphaned and deserted, and the physically and mentally handicapped. I have, within the past month brought into this House two Social Welfare Bills which indicate this concern which the Government have for social reform. These measures are but a beginning.
Raising total Exchequer spending on social welfare from £92 million, in 1972-1973, to the current full-year level of approximately £180 million represents a major commitment in budget terms. I intend to return later to some of the broader implications of this element of policy. However, it is most important to stress that increasing expenditure under the traditional subheads is only part of the story. We must develop our capacity to deal with the new social problems which emerge in a complex, modern society. These problems include the various marginal types of poverty; the specific difficulties of urban populations; problems arising from the restructuring of agriculture; the inter-related needs of special groups such as deserted wives, unmarried mothers and so on; regional difficulties and the whole spectrum of social services needs.
Before attempting to spell out in concrete terms these general policy considerations, I want to deal with the facts and figures which illustrate the work of the Department of Social Welfare and the steps which are being taken to build up the efficiency and effectiveness of the Departments' services.
As I stated at the outset, the net Estimate for this year is £112.5 million. I shall be seeking a Supplementary Estimate of approximately £15 million to implement the provisions of the budget, as embodied in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill. The net Estimate is, as Deputies will appreciate, only the amount which the Exchequer must provide for the social welfare services. A considerable sum is provided also by employers and employees through their weekly social insurance contributions —both flat-rate and pay-related.
The most useful indication that can be given of the cost of our services is the estimate of the total expenditure on these services in a full 12 months based on the most up-to-date rates of payment. On this basis it is estimated that, taking into account the provisions of this year's budget, total expenditure is now running at an annual rate of about £295 million. This annual rate of expenditure compares with a figure of £246 million based on the 1973 budget provisions and represents an increase of 20 per cent. Even more striking is the comparison of the current rate of expenditure with that in the year ending 31st March, 1973 which was £151 million. The increase is almost 100 per cent.
Because of the changed financial year, I do not think it would serve any useful purpose if I were to compare the figures for the different subheads of the Vote with the corresponding figures for last year. If any Deputy requires information on a specific provision I shall, of course, be glad to supply it.
Total expenditure on the services administered by the Department of Social Welfare had risen, as a percentage of gross national product, from 5.1 per cent in 1959-60 to 6.76 per cent in 1972-73, the last year of the period in office of the previous administration. The corresponding proportion in 1973-74 was 7.97 per cent and the estimated figure for the current year is in excess of 8.5 per cent.
In the course of my Second Reading speech on the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, I made reference to the breakdown of the sources of social welfare expenditure as between employers, employees and the Exchequer. The proportion of this expenditure borne directly by the Exchequer in Ireland is exceptionally high—only in Denmark among the member states of the EEC is the State share higher. 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 the three sources I have just referred to. In the past three years the proportion paid by employers has risen from 32.18 per cent to 37.34 per cent, that paid by employees has fallen from 31.46 per cent to 30.42 per cent while the Exchequer share has declined also from 34.32 per cent to 31.10 per cent which still remains high by international standards of comparison. I shall be returning to some of the implications of these facts before I conclude.
Deputies are aware that changes in the social welfare payment rates and the introduction of new schemes involve a great volume of work in the Department. The estimated weekly average number of persons who will benefit from the improvements in social assistance and social insurance provided for in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill will be 767,000, including 219,000 child dependants. In addition, some 375,000 families will receive increased children's allowances. This year, the lowering of the pensionable age to 68 years will result in some 13,000 new pensions being awarded in the contributory and non-contributory categories, while the raising of the means limits will bring in some 1,250 new old age or widow's pensions. The cumulative effect of the reductions in pensionable age in the last two budgets has been to increase the number of old age pensioners by about 25,000, while some 12,000 persons have become eligible for pension as a result of the means test easements.
The processing of all of this work is proceeding satisfactorily and I am confident that it will be completed expeditiously. The time available to the personnel in the Department for the implementation of budget changes has been greatly reduced by the Government's decision to pay increases three months earlier than in previous years. I must pay a sincere tribute to the officials of the Department at all levels, and in all locations, for the manner in which they have tackled the very heavy burden of work placed upon them by the Government's determination to improve the social welfare system. They have responded willingly and with great dedication and I am sure that all Deputies will join with me in thanking them for all they do to provide a good and efficient service. I want also to pay tribute to the other Departments which have cooperated so readily with my Department in this work, and in particular to the staff of the Revenue Commissioners and of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
The staff of the Department in the current year is estimated at 2,729, an increase of 431 on last year's figure. Despite this 20 per cent increase in the numbers working in the Department, the staffing situation in the Department still gives rise to very real pressures and calls for much patience on the part of the personnel.
Accommodation also gives rise to concern. Aras Mhic Dhiarmada has again become overcrowded, despite the housing of some sections in Phibsborough Tower, O'Connell Bridge House and D'Olier House. Additional accommodation—including facilities for a new and greatly enlarged central public office and information centre— has now been obtained in Ossian House, Pearse Street, which should be fully fitted out and ready for occupation in the near future. Problems of space interfere with the efficient discharge of work and cause serious and regrettable inconvenience to the staff.
In the course of the debate on the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, certain criticisms of the Department's efficiency were made. It is my earnest desire to ensure, as far as is necessary and possible, that the improved social welfare services we are providing will be matched by a corresponding improvement in our administrative practices.
There are delays in dealing with applications and with queries—and, in this area of Government activity, any delay is to be deeply regretted. A delay in relation to a pension claim, or a disability benefit application, can cause real hardship to a man and to his wife and children. It is a matter of urgent concern that such delays are reduced to an absolute minimum. Achieving a desirable situation in this respect involves action on a number of fronts: staffing, staff training, accommodation and methods of administration and operation.
I am giving serious consideration to all of these issues and if helpful, I will have no hesitation in seeking professional and specialised advice on the requirements of efficiency. Some months ago, I arranged to have a full and thorough review undertaken of all the Department's methods and procedures, its general structure and organisation, and its accommodation, staffing and equipment, with a view to gearing it to fulfil adequately its increasingly important role in the life of the community and to discharge effectively its responsibilities to the public with which it has so many, so varied and so close contacts.
Because of the extremely heavy work-load with which all sections of my Department have had to contend over the past year this review has made slower progress than I had hoped but, nevertheless, significant and valuable improvements have been made and other developments for the better, including the installation of the most modern office equipment are in progress or planned. I am confident that, with the ready co-operation of the staff of the Department, we will be able to streamline our services much to the benefit of the public and the Exchequer alike. In particular, I am taking steps to investigate the causes of delays. Among the reasons which have come to light are problems of data handling and errors in the making of claims.
The installation of the Department's computer configuration which was formally opened last February has provided us with a resource of the greatest importance. The computer—which was in the first instance utilised for the processing of disability benefit claims and the issue of flat-rate disability benefit cheques—is necessary to permit the operation of the new pay-related sickness and unemployment benefit schemes which came into effect last April.
To date, the computer has performed reasonably satisfactorily in dealing with these new schemes in what is a particularly novel approach to the use of the computer in the public service. This is an application of the computer to a completely new social welfare scheme, the various inevitable difficulties, snags and anomalies of which were not known when the original computer programmes were devised. The experience which is being gained in this exercise will prove to be invaluable as the use of the computer in the Department's work is extended in the period ahead.
Problems do arise in connection with the making of claims. I am very disturbed by the fact that many delays in processing claims arise from errors in completing forms—in particular failure to provide correct insurance numbers. In the initial stages of implementation of the pay-related benefits scheme some claimants have not provided adequate information on tax reference numbers, with resultant delays in payment of entitlement. It is most important that, as far as possible, application forms should be simple and easily understood. I am taking steps to have all Departmental forms simplified. In this connection, the requirement that application forms should be certified by approving categories of persons is being removed. Existing forms will no longer require certification and new forms will be printed without the present certification section. This change should speed up applications in many cases.
This problem of delays cannot be separated from the issue of the provision of information to the citizen. The view of the Government, as expressed on many previous occasions, is clear. Access to information about the activities of the Government, and of the various public authorities, is essential. Information about entitlement to the services provided is a critical requirement in modern society.
The services provided by Government and public agencies are increasing in complexity as well as in quantity. Every year sees a marked growth in the scope and range of such services. People can very easily become perplexed by the number of laws, regulations and schemes which exist for their good but which are complicated and difficult to interpret. As services grow they are often characterised by a degree of technical detail which is necessary in terms of professionalism which can, unless understood, create problems for the man and woman in the street.
I want to make one point absolutely clear. Every scheme which my Department operates — and, indeed, every Government service — is designed for the people and to meet their needs. Very often those eligible for such services, and availing of them, are in great need, or under particular stress. Often they are disadvantaged in terms of education, knowledge and self-confidence. But in every case they are exercising a social and civic right and must be treated as such. They cannot, however, exercise their rights if they do not know them or how to go about availing of them.
Few, if any, of the Departments of State have as much direct contact with the people as the Department of Social Welfare. Following the abolition of the £1,600 income limit for insurability more than 860,000 adults are insured under the various schemes operated by the Department. As I have pointed out, the average number of persons who are in receipt of assistance or insurance payments is 767,000, including adult and child dependants. Some 123 public offices are maintained throughout the country and many thousands of claims and inquiries are dealt with through the post and by telephone every day.
I have been conscious of the need to improve the information service provided to insured persons and their employers and to those who may be eligible for various forms of assistance. A number of positive steps have been taken in this matter.
The Information Section of the Department has produced a greatly improved and more readable version of the annual Summary of Social Insurance and Assistance Services. The new format of this booklet has been welcomed widely but it can, no doubt, be further improved. The suggestions of Deputies on such improvements will be welcome. It is my intention that this year's version of the summary booklet will be available by the end of the current month.
Press, radio and television advertising has been increasingly used by the Department to inform citizens of new and extended schemes and special telephones have been installed at headquarters to deal with inquiries from the public. In particular the introduction of the pay-related benefits and the changes provided for in this year's budget were dealt with in special advertising campaigns. I believe that this use of the media is absolutely justified by the results obtained — more than 15,000 persons sent in the application coupon for the pay-related benefits pamplets. Criticism has been varied of some of these advertisements, with the implication that they were in some way slanted in a party political fashion. I totally reject this and can assure the House that there is only one objective in this information campaign —to increase the degree of public awareness of the social welfare services. In coming months this form of communication will be made more systematic and will cover general issues connected with the Department's services as well as the specific, topical matters which will arise.
The Department now has information offices situated in employment exchanges in up to 18 towns and cities. These offices are staffed by specially trained personnel and are designed to give enquirers full information about benefits and assistance available under the social welfare legislation and allied schemes, to assist members of the public with the completion of forms and to pursue complaints about delays or hold-ups in payments or awards of service. In the most recent three-months' period these offices have handled no less than 15,000 personal and telephone inquiries. I intend to expand the network of information offices throughout the country and plans are advanced for five new offices, including two in the Dublin area.
The EEC regulations regarding social security of migrant workers have been in operation here for more than a year now. The basic purpose of the regulations is to ensure that nationals of other member states will carry their acquired rights to social security with them on moving to another member state. The regulations cover insurance for sickness, maternity, invalidity, old age, survivors, employment injuries and diseases and family allowances.
The implications of these Community provisions have been publicised by advertisements in the newspapers which have indicated the action to be taken by persons affected. My Department have available a comprehensive explanatory leaflet which will be supplied to anybody seeking further information.
Work in relation to EEC membership is increasing and the Department has a special section dealing exclusively with the various aspects of existing and developing Community policies. Through the work of a social attaché in the permanent representation in Brussels the Department are kept fully informed of developments and are represented on the appropriate committees at various levels.
Finally in this general review I should like to comment on the cost of administration of the Department's services. Administrative costs as a percentage of expenditure have been reduced from 4.86 per cent in 1972-73 to 4.47 per cent last year and to an estimated 3.77 per cent in the current financial year.
May I turn now to a brief consideration of some of the principal current activities of the Department and in particular of the main schemes of social protection?
The total cost of social insurance schemes in the current financial year, excluding the cost of the increases provided for in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, will be £92.0 million, equivalent to £125.0 million in a full year. The net Exchequer contribution to the social insurance fund related to this expenditure will be £25.9 million in the current year, or £33.2 million in a full year.
The increases in insurance benefit payments which are provided for in the Social Welfare Bill will be in general at the rate of 18 per cent. Thus the personal rate of unemployment benefit will be raised from £6.55 a week to £7.75 a week and the rate for a married couple from £10.80 a week to £12.80. In the case of the contributory old age pension the rate for a married couple both aged 68 years or over will be increased from £12.35 to £15.00 a week.
It is not my purpose to dwell at any length today on the rates of increases — the debate last week on the Bill was extensive and covered that adequately — but I wish to indicate that social welfare benefits are being raised substantially. While the average weekly increase in the rates of benefit over the period 1963 to 1972 was approximately 40p, the increase in 1973 was £1.00 and in the present year £1.20£1.30.
The reduction of pensionable age to 68 years in the 1974 budget is the latest step towards the stated goal of a pensionable age of 65 years at the earliest date possible.
The system of pay-related benefits in the case of unemployment and disability, as well as maternity allowance and occupational injury benefit was introduced in April of this year. It is early to make a comprehensive statement on the workings of the scheme but there is no doubt that it has proved to be of great significance for very many families afflicted by the hardship occasioned by the illness or unemployment of the breadwinner. As Deputies are aware the Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill has made provision for certain amendments in the legislation covering this scheme. I shall ensure that the working of this complex system is kept under continuing review and that any necessary adjustments will be made without delay.
The total cost of social assistance schemes provided for in this Estimate, but not taking into account the provisions of the Social Welfare Bill, is £51.6 million in the current financial year or £68.8 million in a full year. The cost of children's allowances in the current year will be £29.5 million, or £39.3 million in a full year. I may mention here that following the implementation of the recent budget increases in children's allowances, expenditure on this service will be running at the rate of £43.50 million in a full year.
As in the case of social insurance payments, the average level of increase in assistance payments will be 18 per cent. Thus the personal rate of old age non-contributory pension will be raised from £6.15 a week to £7.30 a week on 1st July. The rate of urban unemployment assistance will be raised from £5.35 to £6.35 a week for a single person and from £9.25 to £10.95 a week for a married couple. The four important new schemes provided for in the Social Welfare Bill will come into effect next month, including the introduction of an adult dependant allowance for the wife of a non-contributory old age pension recipient. This will raise the weekly payment in a case where the new allowance applies from £6.15 a week at present to £10.95 a week next month.
In the case of deserted wives, the period of six months which they had to wait before they could qualify for payment has been reduced to three months.
Some 375,250 families with 1,045,000 children under age 16 will benefit from any new rates of children's allowances. In addition, allowances are now payable in respect of some 70,000 young persons who are between the ages of 16 and 18 and undergoing full-time education or are apprentices or incapacitated. Our scheme of family allowances has been improved to such an extent that it now compares not unfavourably with the schemes in the other member states of the EEC. Furthermore under legislation which was recently enacted the mother has become the person entitled in her own right to payment of the children's allowance.
The Estimate provides for an expenditure of £3.69 million in the current financial year, or £5.15 million in a full year, for the various miscellaneous services administered by my Department. These include the schemes for the supply of cheap fuel and cheap footwear to necessitous families, of free travel facilities for those over pensionable age, for the provision of free television licences and for school meals.
These are important and valuable schemes which bring badly needed assistance to very many persons and households. I am having each of these elements of our overall programme assessed with a view to ensuring that they contribute to the welfare of recipients to the utmost extent. In particular the cheap fuel scheme is characterised by a number of quite serious anomalies. The scheme is being critically reviewed at present.
The position of the social insurance fund calls for some comment. The total expenditure, which is also the total income, of the fund has grown from £9.9 million in 1957 to £104.4 million in 1973-74 and to £92 million in the current short financial year. Contributions from employers and employees have increased from £5.6 million in 1957 to £70.7 million last year and £65.5 million this year. Thus the State grant has altered from £3.8 million, 38.2 per cent, in 1957 to £32.5 million, 31.1 per cent, last year and £25.9 million, 28.1 per cent, in this short financial year. The major point arising from these rather tedious statistics is the decline in the State grant as a proportion of the total income of the fund. The rationale of this trend is based upon the known pattern of social welfare financing in other European countries.
The 867,000 persons at present covered by social insurance in this country represents some 77.5 per cent of the total national workforce. The very substantial increase in insurance coverage brought about by the abolition of the £1,600 income limit is reflected in the comparison of the percentage figures for 1973, 71 per cent, and the current figure which I have just given.
Consideration of the most up-to-date figures for coverage indicates a number of issues requiring very serious policy consideration. Of the total covered, almost 100,000 are not insured for all benefits because of the nature of their employment—civil servants, teachers, local authority officials and so forth—and their situation has been the subject-matter of some discussion and controversy. This is a matter which I intend to review in the near future.
The other major issue is that of the approximately 300,000 self-employed persons in the national workforce who are, with only some exceptions, not covered at all by the social insurance system. The proportion of the workforce in self-employment in this country is very much out of line with other countries of the EEC and with developed economies in general. In fact the proportion varies from 7.5 per cent in Britain and slightly more in the other highly industrialised countries to more than 30 per cent in Italy and Ireland.
Consideration of the role of the Department within the overall social programme of government shows a very significant development. Total spending on social welfare and health has risen from £75 million in 1968-69 to £278.2 million in the Estimate for the current financial year—from 23 per cent of total Government expenditure to 32 per cent. Expenditure of this magnitude is very clear evidence of the importance of social policy, not least in its implications for economic development.
I have attempted to indicate the scope and current developments in the work of my Department. I want now to turn to a consideration of a number of policy issues which are at present the subject of study and preparatory work within the Department. They serve to underline the major preoccupations in key areas at this stage of the Government's social programme.
The Government have very clearly committed themselves to combat poverty and deprivation in the community. This is a real commitment and one which must be given concrete expression. The establishment of the advisory committee on pilot schemes to combat poverty in May was a most important contribution to this area of policy. I am confident that this initiative will be successful in bringing relief of an immediate nature to some of those who are living in need and, more importantly, in providing the Government with the practical foundation for really effective long-term policies to eliminate poverty from our country.
The membership of the committee represent a very wide range of disciplines, skills and experience which will be relevant to the demanding work which must be done. The mixture of statutory and voluntary involvement; of academic and field-work background; of national and local levels of activity, of the members of the committee is a necessary element in tackling this very special task.
I want to place on record in this House my belief that we must act rather than talk in relation to this issue of anti-poverty policy. Our actions will give focus and meaning to our debate on the nature and incidence of material and moral deprivation. Properly planned, these pilot actions will create a momentum and an attitude which can give us hope of long-term success in combating poverty.
I have made clear to Sister Stanislaus, who is bringing such skill and dedication to the task of chairing the advisory committee, and to the other members that the pilot scheme project is to be seen as
first, an exercise in practical commitment to provide effective help for groups and individuals in poverty and for disadvantaged areas
second, a piece of planned action research aimed at the improvement of existing services and, more significantly, at the development of long-term policies to eliminate poverty
third, a positive response to, and vital element of, the social action programme of the EEC, and
fourth, a conscious effort to create awareness of and sensibility to the needs of the poor in Ireland so as to ensure the public political will for change.
I have also explicitly stated that pilot schemes as envisaged in the programme of the advisory committee are not intended to be
symbolic actions, designed to signify our distaste at the existence of need. They are to be real, concrete interventions in areas of deprivation, or among groups in need,
academic research projects. They must become community-based projects, meaningful to local people and involving them fully
not the final answer to social problems. Of their nature the pilot schemes will be limited in scope and resources. They will be a form of action research, giving some practical results in the field but more significantly giving data and insights to policy makers.
In dealing with the work of my Department in the area of provision of information to the citizen I made clear my deep concern at the existence of a wide problem of lack of awareness of State services and provisions. It is, however, necessary to recognise that the need for information and advice to the citizen goes far beyond the area of social welfare entitlements. Citizens require to be informed and helped on a wide range of matters since the right to know extends to all areas of public and community life.
The Government have responded to the growing demand throughout the country in recent years for the establishment, with State support, of a network of citizens' advice bureaux, In February the decision, in principle, to support the setting-up and operation of bureaux was announced. I hope that the consultations which have followed that announcement, involving both my Department and the Department of Health, will soon result in a detailed scheme for the implementation of the Government decision. I see this as a most important step which will be based on a welcome collaboration between voluntary organisations and the various statutory agencies.
I have already indicated my thinking about the extension of the various information services related to the work of my Department. It is of the utmost importance that every new development in social welfare is communicated to the maximum number of citizens. What is necessary is a greater degree of scientific assessment of the effectiveness of this communication. The objective must be to bring about a situation in which no one is ignorant of his social rights. I am anxious to concentrate some of the continuing advertising campaign of the Department on the routine issues related to making claims, approaching the Department or other relevant services etc. People should be helped to deal with the various aspects of the social welfare system simply and straightforwardly.
I see the extension of social insurance to the self-employed members of the work force as a priority for action and I have initiated a farreaching and deep study of the various implications of such a development. Deputies will recognise that the extremely varied categories of persons in the self-employed sector of the work force gives rise to many problems. These categories include professional and quasi-professional people, small traders, workers in independent crafts and services, many persons engaged in catering and the great bulk of those in the agricultural and fishing sectors. The self-employed group covers, therefore, an extremely wide range from small shopkeepers, street traders, stall-holders and small farmers with earnings at or even below subsistence level to professional people in the highest income brackets. To produce a scheme capable of catering for so diverse a group is a considerable task.
It will be necessary to consider the possibilities of providing coverage by means of a compulsory or voluntary scheme; the difficulties of financing such schemes in the context of our tripartite contribution system for a category lacking one of the three usual contributors—the employer; and the very real issues of the relative poverty of many persons classified as self-employed. I can envisage a beginning by means of pilot or experimental schemes geared to the specific needs of definable groups, not least in cases where a clear desire for such coverage has been indicated to my Department.
On the question of the home assistance scheme, my views have been expressed quite unequivocally. In describing it as a disaster I was, I believe, echoing the opinions of those Deputies who, over the years, have put down many questions in this House and of many other informed critics. While the scheme is now provided under the terms of the Public Assistance Act, 1939, its origins lie very obviously in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1847—a fact which should give rise to a sense of concern and even disbelief at this stage of our development.
As things stand today, home assistance remains an essential support service of last resort which enables immediate and relatively flexible assistance to be provided for those in need who do not qualify for benefit or assistance under the State schemes. It helps also those whose needs are inadequately met under those schemes and those confronted with emergency situations.
This scheme is, however, most inadequate and characterised by many anomalies, not least the regional differences in conditions and levels of assistance. It is in need of radical overhaul to fit it to fulfil its proper residual and support role within the income maintenance structure. As presently administered, the scheme is working in an arbitrary fashion so that major inequalities exist as regards the standard of eligibility and standards of payment between one authority and another and even within the same authority in the treatment of basic needs. I have had the scheme reviewed in detail and it is my hope that changes will be possible in the near future on the basis of recommendations drawn up by my Department.
I have been giving consideration to the question of an extension of the social security system by the introduction of income-related pensions. This question was first raised some years ago in the full employment report of the NIEC. There is now considerable evidence of public demand for such a scheme, or for a national occupational pension scheme of some kind. Furthermore, the fact of our membership of the EEC raises the issue of harmonisation of social security. Most of the other member States have income-related pension schemes of one kind or another. There are very many technical and administrative problems connected with the provision of such a scheme in this country. I see the introduction of a scheme of income-related pensions as a necessary development of our system, for reasons of good social policy, and I am hopeful that worthwhile progress in this direction will be forthcoming in the near future.
Deputies will recognise from the preceding remarks that my Department is pursuing an active course of development and that major advances in the structure, coverage and efficiency of the social welfare system are being planned and worked on. As has often been stressed, by the very nature of social welfare—and because of its close relationship with economic progress—development of the system is a progressive thing and one can never claim that the ultimate stage of advance has been reached or is in sight. What matters is that very clear objectives are identified and precise, workable plans for their attainment drawn up and implemented. I want now to share with Deputies some of my thinking on the desirable lines of development in a number of areas of particular importance.
The Statement of Intent of the National Coalition Parties included the commitment that "a central feature of social policy will be a complete reform of the system of financing social services through the introduction of a comprehensive social security system covering all citizens". The implications of this statement require to be spelled out in clear terms and translated into action.
My concept of a comprehensive social security system encompasses matters which, strictly speaking, fall outside the scope of this Estimate. I see the desirable system embracing the present responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Welfare with provision, at least, for the co-ordination of general services such as those for children. This view arises from a conviction that the whole social service field can be seen as a complex of inter-related systems complementing one another.
Quite simply, I hope to see developed a single system of coverage for all citizens which will provide for income maintenance, pensions and health or hospitalisation services as a matter of acquired right. Such a system would require to be underpinned by an appropriate scheme of social assistance to provide adequately for those in real need or for persons who, for one reason or another, fall outside the qualification limits for the general scheme. While I do not want, at this stage, to go into any detail in outlining my views on a system which will have to evolve through quite lengthy study and consultation, I would stress that it is essential to recognise that social services in modern society must go beyond the traditionally accepted elements such as basic income maintenance or hospitalisation. There is a whole range of personal and community services which must be seen as essential to any really comprehensive programme and which must provide a flexible and sensitive set of supports for those in need of one kind or another.
I would like, at this stage, to refer to the question of the financing of the social services in general and of social welfare in particular.
I have already indicated the rate of growth in both total and Exchequer spending on social welfare over recent years. In the light of these facts a few comments appear timely.
It is necessary to ensure that the best return, in terms of genuine social service, is obtained for such high increasing levels of public expenditure. The continuance of certain schemes, or the general availability of certain categories of payment may, in fact, be at the expense of directing adequate funds to the relief and eradication of particular hardcore problems. We must look critically at the effects of what we are doing, a task calling for planned research.
Those who foot the bill have a very real interest in this question of the effectiveness of the social welfare system. In this country the major share of cost is borne by the general Exchequer. It might be thought that such a situation implies a major element of vertical redistribution of income in this country. However, it needs to be borne in mind that as much as two-thirds of the general taxation raised in this country comes from various forms of indirect taxation. Indirect taxation tends to be regressive—and the same tendency can be detected in the basically flat-rate system of social security payments in Ireland.
I see in this whole area a field of necessary and fruitful study and policy consideration in which the fundamental relationship between the tax and social security systems would be examined in detail. The principle of equity must prevail in this matter.
Within the ambit of EEC social policy we are contributing to the development of the European social budget and other related indicators of the scope, structure and main trends of social expenditure and financing. I can see the advantages of this approach, not least for the educational point of view. The more people know about where the money they contribute to the general taxation pool ends up—and particularly about its uses in the social field—the greater the hope that they will respond positively to the demands which any Government must make upon them.
In the prevailing inflationary situation, it is to be expected that the relationship of social security provisions to the cost of living will be a most legitimate concern. Our purpose, in the last two budgets, has been to cushion the many thousands of social welfare recipients and their families from the impact of price rises upon their already precarious standard of life.
I am very conscious of the situation in which many families and individuals find themselves in such a period and I am anxious to devise a satisfactory method whereby the system of social welfare payments will, of itself, provide protection against inflation. The practice over the years has been for the annual review of social welfare at budget time to be carried out in the light of the development of prices in general. This does provide some measure of guarantee of the maintenance of the purchasing value of social security benefits.
Thus, as the EEC Commission has pointed out, the real income of pensioners, widows, the permanently disabled and other social welfare recipients may remain relatively constant but their income, as compared with the average earnings of the working population, tends to decline and the provision of a guarantee to maintain the purchasing power of social security benefits is rare even in the most advanced systems. So rapid has been the rate of increase in the weekly earnings of industrial workers in this country that rates of social payment, for instance old age pensions, may not have kept pace and the pensioners may well be falling behind to some extent.
I welcome the inclusion, in the social action programme of the Community of the long-term aim of bringing about a "situation in which all beneficiaries of social security benefits can share in rising prosperity by linking the real value of social benefits to the increase in incomes enjoyed by the productive sector of the population and thereby help to guarantee adequate social protection to all groups". I look forward to our active co-operation in this aspect of a Community policy and I am anxious that a suitable system for inclusion in our national scheme should be evolved as soon as practicable.
The provisions of this year's Social Welfare Bill have added yet another set of assistance schemes to a system which has become a conglomeration of individually desirable but collectively unwieldy attempts to meet situations of deprivation. I am happy that we have been able, within fifteen months, to show our practical concern for unmarried mothers, single women aged over 58 years, adult dependants of non-contributory old age pensioners and the families of long-term prisoners. In particular, I am satisfied that very many persons in these categories have been removed from dependence on the home assistance scheme.
However, such a piecemeal approach to the development of the assistance services is not satisfactory. It does represent the determination of the Government to maintain momentum in that development, but it adds up, in fact, to an exercise in the plugging of welfare gaps, rather than a planned approach to the expansion and improvement of a necessary service.
It is my concern to see developed a single scheme, planned in such a way as to be an adequate complement to the comprehensive scheme of social insurance, providing supplementary income maintenance to any person in genuine need. Such supplementary support should be available as a social right, and should be backed up with a proper set of personal and community services geared to the long-term solution of social problems. As a matter of basic logic in the approach to such problems of deprivation there should be a working link between social services of this kind and the national employment and manpower training services.
Such an assistance scheme would eventually encompass the existing assistance payments services and would have responsibility for the various ancillary services such as provision of free transport, free electricity, etc. The criteria should be simplified, as far as possible, to become equated to need.
I am personally convinced that the development along progressive and effective lines of the assistance services, and indeed, the proper evolution of our total social welfare system, depends upon the solution of certain very pressing issues of definition and classification of objectives. One of these relates to the much discussed concept of a minimum family income. The statement on social policy published in December, 1972 by the Catholic Hierarchy's Council for Social Welfare recommended that "the principle of a guaranteed minimum income, related to the cost of living index, for each household, whatever the circumstances, ought to be accepted". The policy statement on poverty published by my town party at their annual conference last autumn contained a call for the acceptance of the same principle, related to family size and other relevant factors.
I accept these views as valid and as of the utmost importance. It is, however, necessary to realise that the definition of a standard of this nature which would command general acceptance in the community raises difficult and complex issues which extend beyond the field of social welfare. For example, such a departure could have very obvious implications in the field of collective bargaining. These various issues will take time to resolve. The definition and acceptance of a guaranteed minimum income would, of course, be a valid and, I believe, most necessary element in any review of the whole social security structure. It is a task to which serious consideration will have to be given.
I am concerned also that continuing study should be undertaken on the adequacy of the services provided and the various payments made under the schemes administered by my Department. It is necessary to recognise that, in an inflationary situation and in a social setting in which expectations and standards are changing rapidly, the provision of social services must be kept in line with prevailing needs and attitudes.
Social protection and social security are not an exercise of communal dogooding — they are the discharging of the real and solemn responsibility of the community to citizens who, for one reason or another, are in need of support. This responsibility is fully discharged only if the social services are adequate to the needs of the people.
These remarks on adequacy of services and on minimum family income lead me to the subject of research. That research is necessary in relation to many social problems in this country cannot be denied. Indeed, it is a commonplace of all discussion on such problems to deplore the lack of good and reliable date upon which to base policy decisions. We need better information, more relevant information and we need it as soon as possible.
I recognise that research has its particular and proper place in the overall approach to the evolution of social policy. I agree, also, with the views of the director of the Economic and Social Research Institute when he wrote that "the potential contribution of research should not be exaggerated and it is important to be clear at the outset about its role". I accept as valid Dr. Kennedy's threefold definition of this role in which he pointed out that research can help to awaken the public conscience to major social problems; to evaluate alternative solutions in terms of their relative costs and relative effectiveness and to identify and draw attention to future problems before they reach major proportions, thereby offering the possibility of preventive treatment.
I have been engaged recently in most useful discussion with many of those actively involved in the field of social research and hope to develop these contacts further. The preparation and implementation of a programme of social research, particularly in areas such as poverty, the problems of children and other key groups in the population, social administration, planning methodology and the medico-social field, is a necessary and urgent priority.
As a preparatory step towards the establishment of a permanent working relationship between my Department and the research area, and in order to ensure that development work with the Department is co-ordinated internally and externally I am taking steps to create a special research and development section. This section will become the central point of policy and programme development; it will work with those engaged in relevant research and will have the task of interpreting and assimilating research findings which relate to the work of the Department and to the future direction of social policy.
I regard the development of the social policy of the EEC as one of the most important elements of the work of the past year and as one of the major determining factors of much of our work in the future. I would like to say a few words on this subject.
The position of the Government on the Community's social policy was made clear in a most comprehensive statement submitted to the Council of Ministers last December. That statement said:
The commitment of all member states to change the whole approach and scale of social action within the Community by undertaking an active programme of social reform was clearly expressed in the Paris summit communiqué.
The aspirations of that communiqué for the future of Europe were progressive. It was recognised that economic expansion was not an end in itself and that its first aim should be to bring about social progress. As much importance was attached to social progress as to the achievement of economic and monetary union. This declaration of the Heads of State or Government raised considerable expectations for future policy in the Community. In particular it gave to the community as a whole the task of proving, in practical terms, that it is capable of providing for all of its citizens the social fruits of the economic achievement to which they have contributed so much.
It is against the standards implied in the Paris summit communiqué that I have continued to evaluate the work, and the decisions, of the various institutions of the Community and, in particular, of the Council of Ministers which has the ultimate political power and responsibility.
The social action programme adopted by the Council last January and now being worked on at various levels represents, in my view, the minimum in terms of scope and urgency which will meet the responsibilities of the EEC in this policy area. Each of the actions provided for must be proceeded with in the timetable laid down.
It is the basic position of the Government that a genuine social action programme for the Community must make provision for social problems arising from employment and for social problems outside the field of employment. For this reason, and not merely because they fall in functional terms within my responsibility, I place very particular emphasis upon those elements in the social action programme which go beyond the employment area. I refer to the programmes dealing with the handicapped, with poverty and with the extension and harmonisation of social security systems. These are actions of great potential importance and their full development — with adequate resources made available for their purposes — will be a true test of the social and political will of the Community.
The situation in respect of the European Social Fund is unsatisfactory. The fund for this year 1974 amounts to 328 million units of account — less than £140 million — which is only 6 per cent of the total budget of the EEC and which is equivalent to around 60 per cent of the cost of administering the Community itself. Last year, the supplementary sum sought by the Commission was slashed by more than 60 per cent. It is clear that many worthwhile social programmes will have to be curtailed as long as expenditure is maintained at this low level.
Quite simply, the funds available for social programmes are grossly inadequate and it is not going to be possible to devise a worthwhile social policy as long as this situation continues. There is no point in drawing up agreed programmes as long as the necessary financial means are not also agreed. I have the greatest sympathy in this matter with the officials of the Commission, and with Vice-President Hillery, whose efforts have been so often frustrated by the lack of political will at the level of the Council of Ministers.
During the past 15 months I have attended three meetings of the Council of Ministers at which, in collaboration with the Minister for Labour, I have taken a very firm line on this question of the expansion of social policy. I hope that in the period of Ireland's presidency of the Council next year we shall be able to give some positive leadership and direction in this vital area of Community development.
I have been in regular contact with Vice-President Hillery during the past year and we have met in Brussels and Dublin. His staff and the staff of my Department are collaborating on many aspects of social policy and we were recently pleased to welcome in Dublin the Director General for Social Affairs, Mr. Michael Shanks and the Director of the European Social Fund, Mr. Rifflet.
I believe that we must continue to work hard for a progressive social policy in the Community. Our approach cannot be that of looking to Brussels to solve our social problems — that is our political duty and responsibility here in our own country. Community policy can however support and give real impetus to policy and action developments here and it can provide us with the valuable fruits of the experience of our fellow member states. Above all a valid social policy can ensure that the European Economic Community becomes what it must become if it is to be of real and lasting value to its people—a social and economic community in which the fruits of economic growth are made available to all the people and to meet their real needs.
In the statement of intent of the National Coalition the commitment was made that "the elimination of poverty and the ending of social injustice would be a major priority in the next Government's programme". I believe that the clearest possible evidence has already been given of the Government's will to honour that commitment. My concern is to ensure that, in so far as it is a proper function of my Department, the work needed to achieve full success is planned and carried out. I have absolutely no illusions about the size of the job which we are facing and I am making no facile promises about easy solutions or fast conclusions. The struggle against inequality and poverty in society is a long and difficult one.
When I attempt to interpret the commitment contained in the statement of intent in practical terms, as a guide for action and for the drawing up of our long-term plans, I am drawn to the following main conclusions.
The complex and intractable nature of the problems of poverty and deprivation must be recognised. We are here dealing with what is in human terms the most significant aspect of inequality in our social and economic system. It is a sad fact that even having regard to the major economic advances of recent years social inequality remains. Such inequality is capable still of turning men against men in our society.
It is clear that the roots of inequality are deep in the economic organisation of our society. Poverty, based on inequality, can only be ended if the structures and institutions of our socio-economic system are altered profoundly. This is a policy goal which is both radical and long-term, calling for related and co-ordinated policies in economic, fiscal and broader social fields.
But the need to press for effective long-term policies against poverty does not remove from us the responsibility to combat the existing and obvious effects of poverty. By whatever measure one approaches the issue, a large proportion of the people of this country are living below reasonable or acceptable standards of welfare and human dignity. The best available information suggests that almost one quarter of the population have a personal income inadequate for their needs. When one looks at the total number of persons in receipt of social welfare payments—over 767,000 —it is important to realise that they include 219,000 child dependants, a figure which is more than one-fifth of all the children in the country. That is why the elimination of poverty is a long-term policy priority of this Government and why its alleviation is one of the key immediate priorities.
This immediate priority calls for a continuation of the policy of the Government in respect of the allocation of resources to the social welfare system. The budgets of 1973 and 1974 have greatly increased these resources, as is reflected in the provisions of the Estimate now before the House. We must ensure that not alone are the payments made to the recipients of social welfare maintained at their present levels of purchasing power but that they are brought into line with reasonable and decent standards of social provision.
The fact that social welfare protection is a right arising out of citizenship is a primary consideration which I feel cannot too often be stressed. This consideration calls for enhanced provision of usable information to all citizens and for the highest standards of service and help for all claimants and recipients in their dealings with the Department. I am concerned to ensure that the premises in which the public carry out their business with my Department are improved and brought up to desirable standards, particularly in respect of privacy, and that all members of the Department's staff are provided with proper training, working facilities and back-up to guarantee a first-class personal service.
It is impossible to discuss social policy today without a serious reference to inflation. I have no doubt that inflation is to be seen as the crucial world economic problem of this era, just as unemployment was the key economic problem of the inter-war world. Here in Ireland we share the world's concern with inflation, and we still have high and persistent unemployment. The impact of inflation —the more so at the levels at present being experienced—is clear and most harmful. Beyond all its economic illeffects, inflation tends to make inequalities worse and it bears most harshly on the poorest groups in the community.
Inflation can lead to big changes in people's views of the economy, of their place in it and of the correct manner of distributing its fruits. When we are discussing the impact of inflation on social welfare payments, as we must, we should put our discussion clearly in the context of public attitudes towards wealth, income and taxation policy. We need to be honest about our standpoints on these matters. The approach of the Government to tackling poverty will demand the support of everyone in the national community, who must be prepared to respond along the lines spelled out recently by the Tánaiste when he said that.
the whole population must be prepared to give support, politically— with their votes—and economically through taxation, in accordance with their incomes and responsibilities. A caring community is one which does not merely express verbal concern about needs but one which is also ready to give of itself in terms of support, of personal service and, most important, of money.
If we talk about a caring community, then we must talk also about one which is prepared to give every citizen a share in the fullness of its life. Perhaps that is an appropriate guideline for our policies, at least in the short-term. This idea was expressed most interestingly in a recent report to the Government of New Zealand on social security. It was argued in the report that every citizen should have a level of income which enables him
to belong and to participate — so that no one is to be so poor that he cannot eat the sort of food that citizens usually eat, wear the same sort of clothes, take a moderate part in those activities which the ordinary citizen takes part in as a matter of course. The goal is to enable any citizen to meet and mix with other citizens as one of them, as a full member of the community —in brief, to belong.
That seems to me to be a useful starting point for debate. And debate there must be, as I hope there will be on the Estimate which I am now presenting for the House's consideration and recommending to it for approval. The development of our social policy calls for the most wide-ranging and complete discussion and argument, both about objectives and methods.
In taking this approach to the presentation of my Department's Estimate today, I fully realise that I have taken a risk. I have raised a wide and comprehensive range of issues and I have moved, at least by implication, into areas of controversy or of indirect relevance to my direct responsibility. I want to conclude by stating that it is my belief that any society is to be judged by the care which it has for its poorest members and that it is worth some political risk—of mis-interpretation or of implied broken promises—to bring the issues related to providing this care to the attention of the House and of the public at large.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare since the Coalition took office. The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a very comprehensive review of his Department's workings.
This is one of the most important Estimates which comes before the House because it caters for the poorer sections of the community, the unemployed, the sick, the aged, the handicapped, widows and orphans, the underprivileged of our society. On our commitment in this area of government can be judged our real concern for people. Since it is such a short time since we discussed the Social Welfare Bill authorising the increases in social welfare payments in the budget perhaps I should begin by picking up the threads where I left off on that occasion.
I pointed out then that the increases being made available by the Government were insufficient even to keep pace with the inflation over the past year not to mention the inflation which must be faced in the coming year or the improving of the standard of living of the people who are dependent on the State for help. The Parliamentary Secretary complained in his reply that I did not take what he termed my usual reasonable attitude in relation to the Bill. Quite frankly I cannot understand why he should say this as it appeared to me not only reasonable but my duty to underline the havoc which inflation was playing on the incomes of those in the lower income brackets. I felt it was my duty to point out the fact that the Coalition themselves, by their increases on VAT on many essential items, such as clothing and fuel, had contributed greatly to the inflationary spiral. I also felt it my duty to underline the need for a further urgent survey of the situation.
Before that debate I had made a very careful survey of the situation and I clearly indicated in my speech that the trend, in my view, was very much more serious than would appear from the statistics which were already to hand. I doubt if anybody can accuse me of making rash statements. I suppose, to some extent, I suffer from the political disadvantage, if it is a political disadvantage, of being over-careful to ensure that what I say is factual.
However, it now appears that possibly the reason why the Parliamentary Secretary was perturbed by the speech I made was because he knew at that time, from official statistics which were not issued for a couple of days after the debate, that my summing up of the position was correct and that the inflationary situation was getting out of hand, with a resultant serious deterioration in the living standards of all social welfare beneficaries. The official figures issued on 14th June showed that inflation had gone up by over 16 per cent and that the value of the £ in February, 1973, had dropped to 83p in May, 1974. From May, 1973 to May, 1974, the value of the £ had dropped by 14 pence.
If we were to take, for example, the present contributory old age pension of £7.20 its value as compared with May, 1973, would be approximately £6.15. In other words, £6.15 in May, 1973, would buy as much as £7.20 in May, 1974. The increase in pension in July is £1.30 and taken at May, 1973 values that would equal about £1.11, so that if the increase were to be granted the pension would total about £7.20 in terms of May, 1973, which is approximately the same amount as was available in value when the increases were granted last year. Of course, the increase will not be available until July and by that time the inflationary process will ensure that the actual amount, in buying power of May, 1973, will be actually less than it was in 1973. This means that the contributory old age pensioner after he gets his increase in July will be worse off than he was last year in terms of purchasing power. On top of this he faces a year of inflation when the value of his income will continue to decrease. Special consideration should be given to this aspect of the matter. This is exactly the case I made when dealing with the Social Welfare Bill last week, the only difference being that the public now see clearly from the statistics published by the Government how right I was in the case I made. I pointed out then, and I repeat now, that speaking of total amounts granted in increases without referring to the balancing factors of the loss in buying power of money is unreal and does not do any service to the cause of those in need.
To take another case, the widow's contributory pension is now worth £6.60. The increase to be granted in July is £1.20 and the new total will be £7.80. If we were to take it that £7.80 was granted in May, 1974, instead of in July, 1974, this £7.80 would buy as much in 1974 as approximately £6.60 in May, 1973. Therefore the pensioner would be facing the next year of inflation with no real increase either to meet the inflation or to improve her standard of living.
As in the case of contributory old age pensions this increase will not be available until July, which means that the pensioner will start at a worse level than he did last year, that he will have no reserves to meet the increased cost of living in the coming year from July, 1974 to July, 1975, and of course there will be nothing in real terms available to him to improve his living standards.
There is no need for me to go through the various categories because the same pattern emerges. I believe I have done sufficient calculation to show that there is an urgent need to examine the whole social welfare system and to relate it to the present-day exceptional increases in the cost of living if we are to be realistic and if our treatment of those who are unable to help themselves is to be realistic.
Very briefly I should like to refer to the exceptional opportunity that the Coalition had to improve the whole social welfare system. They inherited from us a buoyant economy which is the real basis on which it is possible to build a sound system of social welfare. They also had available to them the £30 million which was saved on agricultural subsidies because of our entry to the EEC. I am aware that the Coalition are not particularly anxious to refer to this £30 million. I suppose the Fine Gael Party would like to forget it because they would prefer to pretend that the increases came from our own resources. The Labour Party, of course, opposed our entry to the EEC and if they had had their way the £30 million would not have been available at all. However, the fact is that it is available and one would have thought that in these circumstances the Coalition would have put more thought into the developing of our social welfare code.
I should like to comment on some aspects of the development of our social welfare code under the Fianna Fáil administration. Fianna Fáil have had an exceptional record in relation to the development of social welfare. They took over rather simple social welfare services in 1932 in much the same state as they were when the British left. The record in this field has been one of continuous and steady progress. Many major advances have been made along the road towards the development of a comprehensive and adequate social security system in this country. The services already there were developed and down the years many new categories of people who were in need of assistance from the State were added until we reached a stage where we had a well laid foundation and were building a worthwhile social welfare code.
We can now point to the fact that under Fianna Fáil the development and the rate of expansion of our social welfare code compared favourably with the developments in other countries which were much better off economically and which had begun the development of their social welfare services long before we had an opportunity of starting development. While I do not feel it is necessary to go into any detail regarding the progress which was made over the years, nevertheless I believe I should very briefly mention some of the landmarks in the development of our social welfare code.
We brought in the unemployment Assistance Act 1933, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Scheme, 1938, which provided contributory and non-contributory pensions for widows and orphans, the Intermittent Unemployment Insurance Scheme, 1942, which was popularly known as the wet time insurance, a general scheme of children's allowances in 1944, paid for entirely out of State funds, the Social Welfare Act, 1952, which provided for a co-ordinated system of social insurance covering practically all employees between the ages of 16 and 70 for a wide variety of benefits and which also provided for many significant improvements in the social assistance and in the non-contributory schemes. We introduced the contributory old age pension scheme, 1961, the superseding of the old system of workmen's compensation by the scheme of occupational injuries insurance, 1967, retirement pensions at 65, an invalidity pension for permanently incapacitated people, a death grant, pay related benefit scheme, free electricity and television licences, free travel for old age pensioners and so on.
The list I have given is not intended to be exhaustive but simply to give a very brief outline of the progress and the development achieved over the years and of the sound foundations on which the present and future Governments can build. The Parliamentary Secretary in the course of his speech pointed out that the development of our social welfare system was something which was progressive and where everything cannot be done immediately. I am simply underlining this because of the fact that some criticism was levelled at this party because we had not done while in Government everything the Coalition Government had done since they came into office.
The schemes providing free transport for old age pensioners and those receiving blind pensions, the free electricity scheme and the provision of free television licences to those who are eligible are, in my view, very important schemes and I am glad to know there is a broadening of the scope of these schemes. It is true to say that the Parliamentary Secretary had not a full appreciation of the value of these schemes originally because I can remember one occasion when some stress was laid by this side of the House on the fact that the Fianna Fáil Government introduced a free electricity scheme and he said: "If you have money you can get electricity". Perhaps he missed the whole point of these schemes and while speaking of a new concept in regard to human relations and social welfare recipients he failed to grasp that the provision of these fringe benefits to old people was an exceptionally worthwhile exercise in human relations.
The question that should be asked is this. If, for example, an extra sum of money were allocated to old age and blind pensioners instead of the benefits mentioned, how many of them would utilise this extra money for the purpose of travelling from one place to another? How many of them would ensure that the money was spent on providing the extra comfort that free electricity and free television licences make available to them? The introduction of the free travel allowance had a psychological effect of gearing old people's minds towards travel, towards being interested in moving around from one place to another and meeting people. It would be impossible to estimate the pleasure and satisfaction old people got and still get from their ability to travel free of charge, nor would it be possible to estimate the number of years that this particular scheme has added to their lives.
A very worthwhile day's work would be done if further consideration were given to the development of schemes such as these. Vision and imagination was shown in the introduction of these very worthwhile ideas. I feel that practical assistance in the generation and in the development of further ideas could be had from many voluntary organisations dealing with old people.
I believe one of the most important new schemes which was brought into operation by the Fianna Fáil Government was the prescribed relatives allowance. It is natural that old people would prefer to spend their remaining days in their own homes with their own relatives and among the neighbours they have known all their lives. To send them to a home, however well run it may be and however kind the staff may be, is a traumatic experience for them. We have only to note the anxiety of most people in ordinary hospitals to get home, however comfortable they are, to have some appreciation of the sadness, the loneliness and the feeling of not being wanted which must tear the hearts of old people who leave their homes forever. In some instances the fault may lie with the relatives who are not anxious to be burdened with their parents, but generally speaking people are sent to old people's homes because of financial difficulty or because of lack of accommodation in their own homes. If we were to provide a reasonable amount of money for relatives or anybody willing to take over the responsibility of looking after old people and if we provided the necessary facilities I have no doubt that many of those in old people's homes or those who are about to go there would be cared for where they would most prefer, that is, in the surroundings to which they have been accustomed. When one considers the cost of keeping an old person in a home there is little doubt that the cost of keeping such an old person in his or her own home would be much less.
This is an aspect which should not of course be a major factor. The motivation towards change should be to ensure that our old people, to whom we owe so much and to whom so much lipservice, if I may say so, is paid, should end their days in conditions congenial to them. I have often wondered why for so long we should have been willing to continue to send the aged into homes when the cost is so much greater than it would be to keep them in their own homes and I could only come to the conclusion that this had been the position for so long and we had become so accustomed to administering it in the way we do that no one thought of making a change or, if anyone did, there was some idea that it would really be too much trouble.
The introduction of the prescribed relative's allowance was the first step towards change. It is true that many of our aged will still need to be sent to a home for medical and other reasons. It may have been felt that while the homes were there we might as well make full use of them. If we are to solve the problem we shall have to face up to it in a big way and provide the financial assistance in the home to the extent necessary, providing additional accommodation where that is needed; to the extent to which we are prepared to make money available for this purpose we will show our real concern for our old people.
This is basically a family problem and it should be dealt with as such. I have visited old people's homes in my constituency and I have found them excellently run. I have noticed the exceptional kindness of the staff towards those placed under their care. For most old people, however, and particularly for new arrivals, all of this does not compensate for the dramatic change which takes place in their lives. For the future we should plan at developing the scheme in relation to allowances to prescribed relatives. I note the Parliamentary Secretary has done this to some extent in the Social Welfare Bill. A comprehensive scheme should be worked out to enable as many of our old people as possible to end their days in the surroundings they have known and loved for so long. The prescribed relative's allowance was introduced some time ago. It was improved by us and it has been improved again now but we have not by any means reached the end of its development. It could be extended to cover other individuals willing to take over the responsibility of looking after old people in their own homes.
Our population is growing older. The death rate is down and life expectancy is up due largely to improved health services. Aging today involves many problems, not quite the same problems in every case but nevertheless very definite problems which must be solved if we are to deal adequately with improving the lot of our old people. Due to better health services our older people today are much healthier than were their parents and grandparents before them. Because of this and because pensions are made available by the State some people might believe that old age no longer presents a challenge to society. This is very far from being the case.
To arrive at a true picture of the position in which our old people find themselves one has only to relate the pension rate with the average wage paid to those working in the same employment as the pensioner worked in before going on pension or, better still, compare the annual weekly increase for those in employment with that for those on old age pensions. Even allowing for the more modest needs of the elderly this comparison underlines the fact that these people are living at a relatively low level. The Parliamentary Secretary made a somewhat similar comparison in his introductory statement.
From what I have read the proportion of people who continue to work after reaching retirement age is relatively small. This is particularly true of women. Surveys made elsewhere show that most people who continue to work after retirement do so because they need the money. I understand very few go on working just for the purpose of keeping busy and fewer still for love of their profession. This underlines part of the reason why the commission suggested community aid to guarantee the elderly against loss of income due to premature retirement. Despite what we find in such surveys it is, of course, equally true that some active ablebodied men and women are compulsorily retired on reaching the age limit and want either full-time or part-time employment; these must be catered for.
As well as financial difficulties there are also psychological problems related to retirement. There is the problem of boredom, of feeling useless and of solitude. There is the problem of housing. The latter does not come directly within the scope of this Estimate except in so far as it relates to whether or not we should concern ourselves more with keeping our old people in their own homes. That is the ideal solution. Old people have always been respected in this country. I hope that the scientific and technological achievements will not tend to change this attitude as they are tending to change it in other countries. The old people of today have helped us towards a better society and, looking at the matter from the most selfish standpoint, we ourselves will be the old people of tomorrow.
Up to now we have concerned ourselves with trying to ensure that proper financial provision is made for retirement. We have still got a long way to go in our efforts to ensure that our old people will spend their remaining years after retirement in reasonable comfort. We must direct more of our energies and resources towards achieving this. In conjunction with our efforts to improve the financial situation of our old people we must also concentrate our efforts in endeavouring to make our old people happier, thereby making old age a more fruitful time. It is estimated that men who retire at 65 can look forward to living for another 12 years and women to a somewhat longer period. The term "look forward" suggests pleasurable anticipation. A more common reaction on the part of those approaching retirement is apprehension. The idea is growing that it might be sensible to prepare people for retirement, thus helping them to adjust to its limitations and to benefit from its advantages. It is understandable that many of these people, particularly those who have not had the benefit of a liberal education, suffer from boredom and frustration. Those who have worked for 40 or 50 years have had their lives conditioned by their daily work.
I was very pleased, therefore, to see recently that pre-retirement classes are being held for the first time in the Cork Municipal School of Commerce; they had already been in operation for quite some time in the Dublin Institute of Adult Education. I would like to emphasise the tremendous need there is for courses of this kind not only in Dublin and Cork but throughout the country. I have often wondered whether it would not be possible to have day release courses at that end of the scale just as we have them at the point where people are entering into employment.
Dealing as we do, as public representatives, with many types of retirement problems, it is brought home to us time and again how traumatic an experience it is suddenly to find oneself in a situation which is completely different from the one to which one was accustomed for, in many cases, 40 years. The newly retired person's whole life has been moulded by his work, by his association with people at work, by his ambitions and his successes and failures at work. Suddenly and without warning, as it were— because without being prepared, I suppose, is equivalent to being without warning—he finds himself cut off from a situation which had the apparent stability of being everlasting, cut off not only physically but mentally as well from his friends and associates, and feeling, in a sense, rejected and useless. If he is not mentally adjusted to such a situation and prepared in a practical way to face up to it, then his future is bleak and life after retirement will not only be dull and boring but very often short as well.
When I say that the person going into retirement is cut off mentally as well as physically from those with whom he spends his working life, I should point out that this stems from the fact that he no longer has the same interests as they have and therefore is unable in a natural way to involve himself as he had been involved. I can particularly remember an old teacher in my early teaching days who was a very active member of my union during his whole teaching career. In fact, he was a member at the time when to be such put his job at risk. He was a very regular attender at branch meetings, rarely if ever missing one. He was for years a member of the county committee, and so good a trade unionist had he been during his life that on his retirement the branch made him an honorary member, which gave him the right to attend branch meetings whenever he wished. He attended a few meetings and he then ceased to attend. The fact was that he could no longer, in his changed circumstances, identify himself with the aspirations, hopes and fears of the teachers who were still in the service. Fortunately for him he was a man of many parts and he involved himself in other matters such as the Pensioned Teachers' Association, and he continued to play a worthwhile and valuable role in society for many years.
I simply mention this case to show that it is not possible, in the vastly changed circumstances of a retired person's position, to continue on in life as if nothing had happened. If this were not possible for a man who had been so active, both mentally and physically, as my friend had been, how much more difficult is it for the many who would not have his potential to adjust without adequate preparation?
Subjects covered in courses for retirement could include living on lower incomes, hobbies and leisure, adjusting to retirement, health and diet. Courses could be held for those about to retire and perhaps in our circumstances for those who have already retired. In some of our more heavily populated areas there are clubs for old people run by voluntary organisations. These should be encouraged by the State. I have often felt that it might be better still if we could help these old people to join clubs catering for particular hobbies in which the individuals are interested. This would help them to continue to develop and they would not feel, as they might tend to feel in clubs catering for their own age groups, that they were cut off from society. I also think, particularly in urban areas where there are a number of old age pensioners in the district, that many of them have skills which because they are no longer working they do not use and which they could very easily use to help one another.
While my earlier remarks related to preparations for retirement, obviously a crucial matter when a person retires is his income. All I have said in relation to courses is valid, but it is very difficult, if not impossible for people trying to eke out an existence on a low income to benefit from these courses or to ensure that they will have a happy retirement. We should, therefore, see to it that these people are fairly catered for financially. In these very difficult days of massive price rises and galloping inflation, that is something, as I said in my opening remarks, with which we should be particularly concerned.
While it is some years since the Fianna Fáil Government introduced widows' and orphans' pensions, in recent years more attention has been focussed on the plight of widows than had been the case. This has been caused by a changing social awareness but more particularly by the efforts of the widows themselves in recent years in putting their case to the public and to those in authority and in a position to help. This underlines what I said on a number of occasions, that there is need for voluntary organisations to continue to search out and to spotlight aspects on which there has not been, to date, sufficient emphasis.
The initial stage of widowhood is a frightening experience. The breadwinner is gone and the widow is left to face the future alone with her children. Money difficulties are among the commonest and the most worrying of the many problems which face widows. The more fortunate may benefit from savings or investments, but the vast majority must rely on social security and social assistance, and trying to make ends meet with the present provision and the situation of rapidly rising prices is not easy. The amelioration of the means test limit is of some benefit to a widow on a non-contributory pension and is to be welcomed. However, as in the case of the old age pensioner I would like to draw attention to the particular plight of the widow with a family who is unable to go to work because of the need to take care of her family. She is in most difficult circumstances. Special recognition should be given to this fact by granting some type of supplementary allowance.
In the case of a widow on a contributory pension similarly circumstanced, home help should be made available to give her the opportunity to go out to work if she so desires. In last year's budget the provision whereby the widow who paid full insurance contributions while working but received only half the benefit while unemployed was changed. I am aware of the arguments in favour of this practice but it was wrong that a person who paid the full contribution, a contribution equal to that paid by other workers, should only receive half of the benefit when unemployed. I welcome the change in this regard. However, I fail to see why the change was made in the manner it was. While the widow will now not pay her share of the stamp she will still only be entitled to half of the benefit if she becomes unemployed.
I cannot understand why the difference between widows and other workers should be maintained. The Parliamentary Secretary should have a survey carried out to see whether widows would prefer the system as it is or whether they would prefer to pay the full contribution and receive full benefit when unemployed. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that because the widow does not have to pay contributions she will save more than £1 per week. I accept that this is so but I should like to draw attention to her less favoured sister, the widow who for family or other reasons cannot go out to work.
While the change made in respect of widows who work is justified it is equally obligatory to help in some way the widow who cannot go out to work. I was glad to note the development of a widows' association. I am convinced that such an association can do more in practical ways and can deal with emotional and social problems better than any State agency. Such an association can help widows overcome the feeling of loneliness, to find suitable employment and help in the bringing up of children. Nobody can appreciate what widowhood is like, what the emotional stress and strains are like and what the effect of a large reduction in income is like more than those who have experienced it. Individually widows might not have been able to give much help but as a body drawing on the resources and experiences of many they can be particularly effective.
The Fianna Fáil Government made available allowances to deserted wives, something which was badly needed. It is only in relatively recent times that we have come to appreciate the problems and difficulties facing deserted wives, particularly those with young families who are suddenly left helpless endeavouring to bring up a family without the normal support of the other partner in the marriage. To this is added severe mental stress. The plight of the deserted wife is very much akin to that of the widow with the added psychological effect. Her great problem until recently was that she was not entitled to any assistance from the State and while this matter has to some extent been rectified we must continue to ensure that the allowance is kept at a proper level.
Much more has to be done than merely making a contribution to the financial support of the deserted wife and her family. We should inquire into the reasons for desertion and see what we can do directly and also through assisting voluntary bodies to overcome the problems which ultimately lead to desertion. We pay unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance to those out of work but we do not confine ourselves to this. We throw as much as possible of our national resources into providing more employment so as to make employment available for those who are unemployed. In other words, we recognise that it is much better to have our people employed than to have them depending on social welfare payments. Equally I feel we should be doing all we can to eradicate the causes of desertion. We can best do this by assisting financially community councils and the various societies and organisations who are doing so much to overcome this problem.
Where community councils are operating effectively they have marriage counsellors who not only devote themselves to helping overcome the problems of those who are faced with a break-up of their marriages but also give time voluntarily at pre-marriage courses to help those intending to marry. At such courses they give advice and assistance which helps to reduce the likelihood of a breakdown in the marriage. In this way they help to strengthen the whole social fabric of the community. If these community councils are to survive State financial assistance on a much larger scale than the relatively small amounts which are made available at present is urgently required.
One of the great difficulties facing voluntary organisations in regard to pre-marriage courses is that a large proportion of those who would benefit to a considerable extent from the courses do not attend them. Further financial assistance to the organisation concerned would help them to seek out and encourage such people to attend courses. As a rule marriage counsellors or part-time voluntary social workers are married. They must have special qualities for this delicate work. The help the married counsellor tries to give is not of the "putting you right" kind. Through friendly and sympathetic discussion with either one or both of those involved an effort is made to understand the difficulties in the marriage and see what, if anything, can be done to improve relations between the husband and wife. If necessary the counsellor can call on his supporting team of consultants, doctors, psychiatrists and solicitors to help. In recent years marriage guidance has been developed to cover educational and preventive work as well as remedial work. Over the years it has been realised that young people need help and some counsellors have specialised in conducting discussion groups in schools, youth clubs and similar organisations.
While most of us are aware of the many reasons for marriage breakdowns some research was done in my constituency and it showed that apart from the general lack of preparation for marriage, the problems of heavy drinking and gambling, one of the causes of breakdown of marriages was the incapacity of some parents to bridge the generation gap. Certain parents are incapable of communicating with the children with the result that the love which is so necessary for the full and proper development of the child is missing. The young teenager tends, in such circumstances, to look elsewhere for the feeling of security and love that he or she needs. He tends to seek this love and security within his own age-group and, believing he has found it, gets married at a very young age without preparation of any kind. Very often this type of situation leads to disaster and to the breakup of marriages, a problem that is very much on the increase among the young.
In this country there are a number of community centres and councils that are endeavouring to combat this situation. These groups are anxious particularly to have established preschool centres and day-nurseries so that parents can be involved with their children at the most important and effective time—while the children are very young—to a degree that was regarded previously as not being possible. Where this has been tried it has been found that in cases where parents failed on their own initiative to understand their children or where they did not appreciate the need for such understanding, they were delighted with the new circumstances and the children were assured of the love and security that are so essential for their well-being, both physical and mental.
While I recognise that the school situation is not the direct responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare, nevertheless there should be close liaison between the Departments in this very important sphere of child care and the Department should provide finance to assist community care centres to develop the excellent work being done by them in this field.
There is the problem also of the deserted husband. The father of a young family whose wife deserts him is in a very difficult position. One of his main problems is that of continuing to go to work while at the same time attending to the needs of the children. Part of the solution to this problem might be the provision of home help. Here again voluntary organisations can be of vital assistance, but from my experience of these community councils I am aware that they cannot operate as effectively as they would wish unless they have further financial assistance. The amount of money available to them from the State and from local authority funds is very little. Much greater financial help must be allotted to them if we are to endeavour as best we can to deal with this problem of desertion. Apart from the provision of financial assistance we must endeavour also to eradicate the root causes of desertion.
In the course of his speech the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the question of poverty research. I commend this development because any scheme which will tend to throw light on the special problems of poverty is worthwhile. However let me repeat what I have said already in my budget speech—that I would hope that this investigation of poverty areas would not be used as an excuse to overlook the very obvious poverty areas in our society or to put on the long finger any effort to overcome these problems. I mention this because of the raging inflation that we are experiencing, inflation caused partly by Government policy and for which the Government must accept responsibility. Most of those who are in receipt of social welfare payments are in a poverty situation. It is well to remember that shortly after the budget statement regarding social welfare provisions there was an increase in the price of butter, that the price of margarine increased phenomenally, that there were increases also in the prices of cooking fats and oils, that the price of milk increased and that bottled gas increased in price to an exceptional degree. All of these are commodities which are used to a considerable extent by those on lower incomes. Therefore in the announcements of price increases on one day the standard of living of people in the categories to which I am referring was reduced significantly.
The first problem is to define what constitutes poverty and to get agreement on that definition. This is essential if we are to make any progress towards the elimination of poverty. Without such a definition the phrase "elimination of poverty" can become a political catchcry, sounding well to the public ear but doing little to achieve the expressed aim.
In order to eliminate poverty we must eliminate discrimination and in so far as possible ensure that equal opportunities are available to all. Perhaps, then, it would be better if we referred to the elimination of poverties rather than to the elimination of poverty because there are many sources of poverty. There is the poverty that arises from unemployment. This is a very real poverty area and its elimination can be effected only by the development of our economic resources so as to provide increasing employment not only for those leaving school but for those who are on the unemployment register. We must also probe deeply into the mental attitudes of people who have been out of employment for so long that they have given up the struggle and to whom even the offer of a job is not the solution.
There is also territorial poverty, that is, poverty arising from the area in which people live. For example, the position of people in the West of Ireland creates a particular problem because of lack of resources. The question arises as to whether poverty in the West of Ireland means the same as poverty in so far as people in Dublin are concerned. The question arises also whether we can treat in the same way the poverty situations that I have mentioned. For instance, when we are allocating money for projects designed to assist in the elimination of poverty we would need to be careful in regard to making available money on the basis of density of population alone. If the moneys were to be allocated on a population basis we could have, say, a situation in which £300,000 would be allocated to Dublin while only £3,000 might be allocated to Donegal. While the amount of money allocated to Dublin might be sufficient to make some headway towards achieving the desired aim, the amount allotted to Donegal might be insufficient to make any progress in this direction. For example, if we were concerned with health centres the amount of money allocated to Dublin might be very helpful while the amount allocated to Donegal might be useless.
There is also the poverty of illness and of insurmountable physical and mental handicaps. There is the poverty of the aged and the poverty which very often is associated with large families. There is also poverty of isolation — the many people, particularly those living alone with no social support and who lack information and, therefore, are unable to make use of the facilities available to them. There is, too, education poverty. It is a foregone conclusion that if a person is labelled as being disadvantaged or dependant, he will be left behind by the main stream of society. The extent and influence of this cultural gap is highly individualised. No set programme can hope to close this gap in a short space of time. One component, given our present social structure and future social expectations, holds the key. In my view the greatest single structure which could be classified as a social equaliser giving freedom and responsibility to respond to the social needs is education. This is generally accepted.
