The whole question of physical and mildly mentally handicapped should be examined, not only in relation to the amount of money being made available but, more particularly, in relation to employment. The Parliamentary Secretary also referred to this matter in his speech. This may not appear relevant to the discussion on this Estimate and I will be brief. I believe it is relevant because for some time this country and the other member countries of the EEC—and this was underlined in the statement on social policy issued at the summit meeting of the six original countries some time ago—have been concerned not only with the payments to social welfare recipients but also with improving the quality of life for them.
If we can ensure employment for physically and mentally handicapped people, we are doing something for them that social payments in themselves cannot do. We are accepting them as worthwhile and useful citizens and are raising them in their own estimation to a point where their whole outlook towards life changes for the better and where they can reach a state of fulfilment that otherwise they could not have known. I know that some may be critical of me in making a statement that in circumstances where we give to the handicapped their rights we will be accepting them as worthwhile and useful citizens, but the cruel fact is that when we do not ensure their right to employment we are condemning them to believe that they are not capable of developing as they should and can develop.
I am aware that many handicapped people are employed and that voluntary organisations are doing exceptional work in this area but we should ensure by legislation that a reasonable number is employed. I have never met a handicapped person who was anxious that he be employed simply because of his disablement but I have met many handicapped people who believe they can make a worthwhile contribution to the development of their country in all its aspects and are anxious to be given an opportunity of doing so.
Therefore, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to the Minister, and through him to the Government, that we should not only make available cash payments to handicapped people but endeavour to ensure their right to work and to attain full maturity. I know I will have the full sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary in this. I do not wish to go into this matter in any great detail.
The disabilities of the blind, the deaf and the disabled are obvious. They are placed in a special category with need for treatment above the ordinary. One can imagine the fear of poverty that goes with the loss of sight in later life. This fear must be dispelled. The nearly blind person must be assured that he can live in reasonable comfort in the future. The needs of the blind and other physically handicapped people should be properly assessed, and here the help of voluntary organisations should be sought. This assessment should include not only the objective of helping the individual but also of helping his family to understand, for example, the effects of visual handicap and how to live with it successfully. Blind children and their parents require very special attention.
The introduction of the pay-related benefits scheme was a significant step forward in the development of our social insurance system. While we cannot hold that there was anything particularly new in the proposals which had already been a part, in one form or another, of schemes in operation in the EEC countries, nevertheless it constituted another move in the right direction in the evolution of our social security system. The scheme was devised to make adequate provision against loss of income by insured workers and their families during periods of illness and unemployment. While it is a fact that we had down through the years been making very considerable improvements in the flat-rate benefits, it was obvious that it was not possible within the system as it stood to adequately provide for people whose earnings differed widely, resulting in different levels of financial commitments. It is a fact that people tend to live up to the level of their own particular income.
They very often make plans related to that income without a thought of possible unemployment or ill health. In fact they very often have no alternative. They enter into mortgage arrangements in the knowledge that if they remain in good health and if they remain employed they will be able to meet their commitments. It is a very frightening experience when the breadwinner in the family, having entered into those commitments, suddenly finds his income reduced drastically. He is no longer able to meet his commitments. Not only does this affect his present position but very often its effects are carried over many years of his life because having been forced into debt, very often through no fault of his own, he finds that even when he returns to work he is unable for years to catch up with the backlog of debt. This has a very serious impact on himself and on his family and very often of itself it induces illhealth. For these reasons and for many others, the efforts in this scheme to improve the position by relating both benefits and contributions to earnings to some degree and to provide rates of benefit which will better enable people to maintain a standard of living during sickness and unemployment reasonably close to that to which they were accustomed is very welcome.
In introducing the pay-related benefits scheme it was clearly indicated that this was just a beginning in this particular field. In the Bill it was proposed to supplement unemployment benefit, disability benefit, maternity allowance and occupational injuries benefit. This was intended only as a beginning. The framework is there to extend the scope of the scheme quite considerably and close attention should be paid to the provision of means and methods by which it can be extended as soon as it gets under way in respect of its original specific provisions. I am referring here to complementary schemes of pay-related contributory pensions, retirement pensions, invalidity pensions, widows' pensions and so on. The Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned the question of the self-employed. This is a question which is of vital importance and I am glad to note that he proposes to operate some pilot schemes in relation to this matter.
One of the most traumatic experiences in the life of any human being is to be told at a relatively young age that he is no longer employable because of age. This is a time of very rapid change. Men and women are becoming redundant in their present jobs for a variety of reasons—the introduction of automation, the fact that the trades which they have are going out of date and so on. It is not so long ago since a person serving his time to a particular trade regarded this as training for life. That day is gone and it is reckoned that most people will have to train and retrain two or three times in their working lives. I am aware of the excellent work that is being done in this regard. However, many will not have the opportunity to retrain and even some of those who retrain may not procure new employment. I recognise that this is not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary but I want to make the point that many people find themselves at a relatively early age being told that they are too old when they apply for work and one of the reasons given is that the company concerned have a pension scheme and they say it would not be possible for administrative or financial reasons to include the person at, possibly, age of 40 in the pension scheme and that therefore they cannot employ him.
This may be a matter for another Department but I feel very strongly about it. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary, if it is his function, to look into it with a view to rectifying a deplorable situation. When a person becomes redundant or leaves his employment, in the vast majority of cases his pension contributions are handed back in the form of a lump sum which is a relatively small amount. Such contributions should be transferable to new employment so that he could have continuity of pension rights and that one stumbling block to his future employment would be removed. I came across this excuse for refusing to employ men as young as 40 years of age. Whether it is real in substance or whether it is only an excuse I cannot be certain, but I would like to see it removed as an excuse. I am not pretending this is a simple problem. The difficulties are there but they are not insurmountable. Apart altogether from the question of employment it is not right that a worker who has had the prospect for many years of getting a pension at the end of his active working life should see his hopes of this pension dashed for one reason or another over which he has no control.
In the course of his speech the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the need to inform citizens of their rights. I want again to put on the record that I am very strongly in favour of this. I differed from the Parliamentary Secretary about the manner in which it was being done; I expressed my views on it, which are not only my views but the views of others. Nevertheless, this is not to be taken as being opposed to ensuring that all those who are entitled to benefit under the social welfare code should have full information on this matter. I would like to see the format of the advertisements changed to eradicate any feeling there might be that there is any political content in them.
Voluntary organisations can be of very considerable help in disseminating this type of information. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could make use of the branch managers in the social welfare field. They could be asked to provide information centres in their offices to deal not only with unemployment benefit and assistance but also with other aspects of social welfare benefit. The information could be got across in this way because those people live in the smaller towns. They are well known to the people and even though they do not deal directly with other benefits or types of assistance they are very often asked to give that type of information. There could be a close liaison between the home assistance officers and the branch managers regarding the alleviation of hardship on the spot where hold-ups occur for technical reasons.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when replying to the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, said he thought the local pensions committees were not of much assistance. Whatever the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude in relation to these is I ask him at present at least to consider a change in the format of the document which is sent by the committees to applicants. This often states that the committee have awarded the applicant the pension and gives the amount, but underneath it is pointed out that the pension officer has appealed against the committee's decision. I ask for this change because the applicant does not usually read the small print and when he gets the document he is convinced that he has been awarded the pension. As the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate, his disappointment is great when in cases such as this he is later informed that he is not entitled to a pension or is entitled to a much lesser amount that he originally thought.
When dealing with the older people in our community we should try to avoid this type of thing. I was, for a considerable length of time a member of an old age pension committee. Our committee worked well but some committees do not. Our basic consideration must be the old people and, having examined the matter carefully, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will do whatever he thinks best in the circumstances.
No matter how near-perfect the social services made available by the State may have become and despite much progress made we are still far from having perfect services. The need for voluntary organisations in this field will always be there. The more the State enters into the social welfare sphere and the more complex the situations dealt with become, the more will be the need for voluntary organisations which can deal with certain types of problems which the State will never be able to attend to adequately. Voluntary organisations are close to the people. They are not inhibited by the varying degrees of red tape with which officials are bound, no matter how well disposed those officials may be. Voluntary organisations with a long tradition of social work have experience which is of great value and they can get to the heart of the social problem in a way in which it is difficult for the State services to do.
There are families who are overwhelmed by their many problems to such a degree that they are unable to give adequate care to their homes and their children. The parents may have deep-seated personality problems which make it difficult for them to establish satisfactory relations with others or to profit from the social welfare services generally available to the community. They need help if their families are to keep together and if the children are to be given a chance of developing satisfactorily. Voluntary organisations can be of exceptional help in such cases.
We are very fortunate in this country to have such a large number of voluntary organisations operating in the social welfare field. In some countries the idea of such organisations makes passions run high. Some people feel that Voluntary work, and even voluntary social services are an anomaly in modern society and that the unpaid labour which they associate with inferior work should be discouraged. On the contrary, I am convinced that in an ideal society we should all be doing our share of voluntary work. Such work helps to improve the standard of social services. This is also true of countries whose social services are developed to a greater degree that ours are.
I have no doubt that voluntary organisations, as I said earlier, will be called on to play a larger and not a smaller part in the coming years. It is well to remember that many of our present social services have resulted from the pioneer work of determined people who, having recognised the needs and problems, got down to doing something about them. It is well to remember, however, that one problem which consistently faces a voluntary organisation and limits their effectiveness is the shortage of money. The bulk of the money available to these organisations is received by them through voluntary contributions. The State and the local authorities should make a better allocation of money to these organisations and be much more flexible in their attitude towards the use of the money provided.
I recognise the difficulty of dealing with numerous organisations and I accept, from my own experience, that each individual organisation, consisting of highly dedicated people, finds it difficult to appreciate that the money available to a Department has many calls on it and that worthy though its particular calls may be, all the money it needs cannot be made available as there are many other equally worthy causes also requiring help. Where these organisations, retaining their own individual identities, come together to form a community council, with all the aims and aspirations of community councils, to create a better society and improve the quality of living of the people among whom they work, then I think that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should get down to discussions with such councils, listen to their views, take cognisance of their aims and see in what way financial and other assistance can be made available to them for the purpose of furthering the excellent work presently being done by them.
One aspect of this work to which particular attention should be paid is the training of voluntary workers. This is something which has come to be recognised as essential. If we are to pay proper attention to this crucial matter of training this, in turn, leads to a greater selectivity in choosing the right workers for the job. As a consequence of the developments of training and selection procedures not only will the quality of service be improved but the damage caused by well-intentioned but unsuitable and ill-equipped individuals, who have been, I may say, the target of much criticism, will be rectified. However well-disposed these people may be, if they are not the persons for the job and if they have no training, the damage they can do in a very delicate area can reach quite serious proportions.
It should be remembered that voluntary organisations are not simply concerned with the material side of things; they are equally concerned with helping people over the severe emotional strains which face them. It is not difficult for those who have an understanding of a problem to appreciate the severe emotional stress experienced by a woman on the death of her husband. The breadwinner has been taken away and the family feels alone and isolated from the community. Neighbours very often help and the State helps but, as I said earlier, the widows' association, whose members have been through it all, can really be more helpful, not only in explaining to the widow the rights she has but in being able to identify with her emotional state and being in a position to help her to adjust to her new circumstances. Only those who have experienced such a situation can appreciate what this kind of help means. There are other instances in which such help can be of the greatest possible benefit.
In Drogheda there is a community council and a community centre. It is in a sense an amalgam of the various organisations in the town, statutory and voluntary, each maintaining its own particular identify but working in much closer co-operation than they did hitherto and in this way making the best possible use of the skills and experience of each organisation since each organisation is made fully cognisant of the work done by the others. As a result, efforts are channelled in such a way as to obtain the greatest possible beneficial results. While the scope of the work of community councils goes outside the scope of this Estimate, nevertheless, much of the work done by them concerns this Estimate in that such councils endeavour, through the various organisations, not alone to supplement the income of social welfare recipients in need of help but also doing what I believe should be our aim, namely, running parallel with better financial benefits from the State and local authority sources, that of improving the quality of life of those in social welfare categories. This is done by employing trained social workers and by training voluntary workers who give of their expertise in helping others to overcome emotional problems and to cope with the strains and stresses of modern life. In an affluent society there are of course many problems affecting people's lives detrimentally. Many of the problems are the products of the affluent society. The most important aspect is, of course, the fact that these organisations show that the community as a community cares for its individual members.
In a practical way the community centre makes valuable information available regarding social welfare services generally, particularly in relation to benefits, entitlements, eligibility and so on. These are of special importance to those suddenly faced with the need for such services. Above all, people know where to turn for advice. Despite the efforts made by the Department in the past and at present there are still people who may not be aware of their entitlement. Despite efforts by public representatives and so on to ensure that people know their rights there are people who may not have that information. Where the community centre is concerned they now have some place where they can get the information.
The centre also concerns itself with pensioners and their problems, with those with marital problems, with the problems facing the deserted wife or the deserted husband, with the problems of the unmarried mother and so on. The financial assistance from the State from the point of view of the very useful work done by the centre is, to say the least of it, very meagre. If the work is to continue it is essential that full recognition must be given to it in the form of a worthwhile financial subsidy. I am convinced that the work done at local level by bodies like these is irreplaceable and I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to do his utmost to help.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the European Economic Community. It is only natural that we should concern ourselves with social welfare trends in the other member States. We have much to learn. It is also true to say that they have quite an amount to learn form us. It is difficult to make comparisons between our social security system and the systems operating in other Community countries. All have different systems and so far there has been no harmonisation of the systems. The differences are understandable because the systems grew up independently. They were developed to serve the needs of different situations. Even from the point of view of the percentage of GNP devoted in each country to social welfare generally, it is difficult to make comparisons. The total amounts in each case are concerned with different aspects. Sometimes the totals include salaries and wages. In other cases they are concerned solely with the actual money made available to people for social security purposes. Therefore, unless one were to spend a very considerable time on research, one could not, with any degree of accuracy point to one system as being vastly better than another.
One thing we can say is that our own system, in scope, compares favourably with any of the other systems. Basically, what is needed is more money for recipients of social welfare and for the development of the system in all its aspects including more than purely material aspects. It is wrong to constantly decry and disparage our own efforts in this field. While ensuring that we avoid complacency, we should accept that the framework is good but must be greatly developed.
We should remember that this State pioneered the children's allowance scheme and that we had widows' pensions here before many of the countries which would be regarded as advanced nations. While continuing to develop our services to suit our own needs we can, of course, learn much from the countries which are now our partners in the European Economic Community. Let me repeat that, in relation to the various groupings benefiting under our social welfare code, there are few areas now being catered for in other countries in the community which are not being catered for here. We need to study the additional or supplementary benefits which are available in some of those countries and which are provided for the very needy, and also the extension of the scope of social security to other classes not included, for example, the self-employed, a matter which was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the social policy in the EEC. He referred to the Paris summit meeting in October, 1972. Its most marked and decisive feature for the future of Europe is the fact that the Heads of State, or Heads of Government, emphasised that they attach as much importance to vigorous action in the social field as to achievements in the economic and monetary union. This is very important. The solemn recognition of the importance of the development of a coherent social policy for the Community is accompanied by an indication of the means to be used which will help to integrate the social aspects into the general body of Community policies.
I also noted that much the same statement as the Parliamentary Secretary made is in the preamble of the declaration of the summit conference. It states:
Economic expansion is not an end in itself. Its first aim should be to enable disparities or living conditions to be reduced. It must take place with the participation of all the social partners and should result in the improvement in the quality of life as well as in standards of living.
We should act vigorously towards the achievement of that aim, that is, an improvement in the quality of life of those who are dependent on the State for sustenance. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary when he states that the situation in respect of the European fund is unsatisfactory. I have no doubt that he is pressing the Community for change in that respect.
While I am my party's spokesman on social welfare it will always be my endeavour not to play narrow party politics with the plight of the less favoured members of society. On the wider plane, however, as I said earlier, I could not let the occasion pass without referring to the serious situation relating to the inflationary trends which are with us at present and will be with us for quite a considerable time. It is absolutely essential that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister should take another look at the situation and ensure that those who are dependent on social welfare will be able to live in relative comfort.
Social welfare is not merely the concern of the Department of Social Welfare. It is the concern of all the social Departments, Health, Education, Local Government, Labour, as well as Social Welfare. As an instance of what I have in mind I will refer to the Department of Education because it is one of the Departments I know most about. The tremendous changes which have taken place in the whole education, field, particularly during the past decade, apart from anything else, will ensure that we will be turning out our young people with a basic knowledge and training which will so equip them so that they will, in every increasing and, in that sense, fully employed and, in that sense, they will be contributors to our society rather than being a burden on it as they might be if they were not properly trained.
In this matter of social welfare we should accept, on the one hand, that the State has a duty to provide adequately for those who, for one reason or another, are unable to provide for themselves. On the other hand, we should not let ourselves lose sight of the fact that the dignity of the person is very much enhanced through his being able to provide fully for himself. We have a very special obligation in the field of social welfare to those whom I would describe as our senior citizens. They have contributed much to the nation and they deserve well of it in the latter years of their lives.
Let us remember that the State cannot supplant the voluntary organisations engaged in social work. By all means let the State gives the maximum assistance to such bodies, but let us not for one moment lose sight of the fact that voluntary work in the social welfare field enriches and ennobles the lives of those engaged in it, and shows the beneficiaries that there are people in the community who are concerned with their plight. The State in its administration of the social services must, of necessity, play an impersonal role for the most part. On the other hand, the voluntary social worker is largely in direct personal contact with the people who are benefiting from his efforts.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those unselfish people who contribute so much towards the welfare of their less fortunate brethren. I should also like to thank the civil servants in the Department of Social Welfare for their courtesy to me. This does not mean, of course, that I will accept for example delays in payment of benefits. Nevertheless, I should like to make it clear that I appreciate their courtesy.
I found when researching our social welfare system that there appears to be far too great a diversification of responsibility between Departments of State dealing with community care generally. I remember nothing this when I was Minister for Education in relation to care of the mentally handicapped. Their education was my responsibility; their care and maintenance was the responsibility of the Department of Health.
Speaking on this Estimate I find myself forced to deal with the whole question of care in the community in a very restricted manner because I constantly find the need to move into the preserves of the Departments of Health, Local Government and Education. When speaking in relation to benefits, health, housing for the aged, and care of the handicapped one must necessarily refer to other Departments and for this reason any discussion on these matters would be deemed out of order in a debate on this Estimate. It is difficult to have as wide-ranging a discussion as one would like to have so as to enable us to tackle in a full and comprehensive manner the needs of the community.
The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to agree, to some extent with this. I would like to see the Parliamentary Secretary further examine this situation with a view to necessary re-organisation which would result in much greater efficiency and a better social code.
