The evolution of social welfare in this as in every other country has been progressive down through the years. In fact, not until after the last war did it begin to gain momentum in any country, even in the United States. In that respect our record of progress over those years compares favourably with that of any country in the world. Successive Ministers have expanded the code, improved the benefits, and there is still a good way to go.
We were pioneers in many fields. In 1933 when the State accepted responsibility for unemployed people, we were the only country in the world providing benefits for uninsured persons who were unemployed. When we introduced non-contributory widows' pensions I do not think there was any other country in the world paying such pensions at that time. I think we were a year ahead of any other country in introducing children's allowances. Sweden introduced them in the following year, if my memory serves me correctly. We are pioneers in many fields of social welfare.
Social welfare has improved as attitudes changed and as the public conscience became more perceptive to the needs of the weaker section and were prepared to accept that the redistribution of the national wealth was part of what should be an improving civilisation.
In relation to the resources available to us, we were well ahead of any other country in the expansion of our social welfare code down through the years. As I say, the first major step was in 1933 when we passed the Unemployment Assistance Act. Since then every Minister who has occupied the position of Minister for Social Welfare has to his credit some major improvement in social welfare and in spreading the net to bring in other necessitous people. At times it also became an auction of bidding between political parties as to who would do the most.
Coming up to the last election it was known that our membership of the EEC, to which we had just acceded, would place us in a position where we would not be required to provide in the budget £x million for agricultural subsidies. Each political party vied with the other as to how best we should apply it to social welfare. We spelled out our scheme well in advance of the elections and as a result the other two parties decided to form a Coalition.
At that time it was intended that that windfall would be a bonus for social welfare recipients. It was accepted by all that the basic rates they were then receiving were not adequate to give them a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed by the more fortunate in the community. That has not turned out to be as it should. The social welfare recipients got those extra benefits but, instead of them being a plus, they are merely helping them maintain the standard of living they enjoyed in 1973. The records published by the Central Statistics Office have borne this out. That is the position.
Spiralling increases have crippled the take home pay of every worker and social welfare recipient. That is the sad but true story of social welfare. If this Government think they can make propaganda out of the increases in social welfare there are two things they should bear in mind. Yesterday the Minister boasted about the increase in the amount now being paid in social welfare compared with what was paid in 1973 when we left office. The extended line of people drawing unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance has stretched social welfare payments and a very big increase is needed for these payments alone. The Minister boasted about the increase in the total amount paid by the Department of Social Welfare. Most of this increase is absorbed by the extended figures of unemployed for which, under the 1933 Act, he is responsible.
I have already referred to the other point, that is, that the money most individual recipients are receiving purchases the same amount as the 1973 social welfare payments. Inflation, unchecked, unbridled, with its consequential evils of unemployment and spiralling prices, has left us in that position. Nothing has been done to stabilise those increasing costs so that the social welfare recipient will get value for his £.
Take a pencil and paper and write down how much a widow gets every week. She is getting considerably more than she got in February, 1973 but calculate how much she must spend to keep body and soul together without buying any luxuries. She is fortunate if in any one week she does not have to buy a pair of shoes or an article of clothing which would take her entire pension. She must pay for fuel, electricity, gas, and every article that goes on her table. Why do we marvel at the increases we have given when we failed to stabilise the cost of living and give this money a purchasing value that would make this extra money a real bonanza for social welfare recipients?
Through the years every Minister for Social Welfare brought about some benefits. I had the pleasure of seeing some noted expansions to the social welfare code. I was always proud of the fact that I was Minister for Social Welfare when we gave free travel, free television licences and free electricity in certain cases. I challenge any Minister to match that record. I brought in the deserted wives' allowance. Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday, one would think that he had been responsible for it. I introduced the Occupational Injuries Act. I extended and amended the provision for widows. I extended for widows the dependants allowance to 21 years for the children who were still being educated or apprenticed. In our own way we all added to the social welfare code but, as the last speaker admitted, there are many gaps.
The public social conscience has changed dramatically in modern times, particularly in the second half of the century. We have seen fit to produce legislation covering sections of the people who, in the past, would not be worthy of assistance. Fortunately we now have a different outlook but there are still some loopholes. It is most surprising that this Government, who claim to have a social conscience, have resisted bringing in complete equality for women under the social welfare code.
The Minister for Finance ratted on the implementation of equal pay in the public service. Bearing this in mind, it is understandable that they have not brought social welfare payments completely into line. I should like to stress particularly the matter of post-marriage employment for insured women. I do this with a sincere appeal. In my time as Minister for Social Welfare it was necessary for a married woman to get at least 13 weeks, if not 26 weeks, work after marriage before she qualified—all other things being in order—for unemployment benefit.
The present Minister or Parliamentary Secretary changed that and it was a step in the right direction about which we have not heard a word said in praise on the opposite side of the House. I am saying it but with this qualification: he has provided in one of the social welfare amendment Bills passed since he came into power—we have had one or two Social Welfare Bills every year, I think, over the last 20 or 30 years—that it was not necessary for a woman to get post-marriage employment to qualify for post-marriage benefits. I have yet to find one woman qualifying under that scheme. Time and again I am told by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary that some do qualify but I must say in all honesty—I do not know the experience of Deputies on the opposite side of the House—that all the Deputies on these benches agree with me when I say that in hundreds of cases brought to our notice where a newly married woman applies for social welfare benefit she is turned down on every occasion by both the deciding officer and the appeals officer with absolute discrimination in most of the cases of which I am personally aware.
A woman is working; she has a job in an office or she is a receptionist or waitress in a hotel and marries the partner of her choice. She goes to live 40 miles from where she was working. She is ready and available for work. She applies for unemployment assistance when she cannot find work. She does not get it. If she has a baby she is immediately disqualified. Obviously, the consideration activating the mind of the appeals officer and the deciding officer is that her duty is to stay at home and look after the child and that she is not available because the child must be looked after. At the same time, we are told all sorts of provision must be made to allow married women to work.
I could enumerate specific cases for hours if time permitted. I saw young married women crying because they could not get the benefit of 15 years contributions which they had made before marriage. I hope that Fianna Fáil in office will, as a first priority, adopt a more lenient approach in that regard. The operation of that practice I have described would alone justify the motion we have put down here. I know a case of a girl who worked in an office in Donegal and married somebody near Fintown. She went back to work where she got temporary work after being married and eight or ten weeks after her first baby was born, although her mother-in-law lives in the house actually taking care of the child when she applied for unemployment benefit she was told she could not get it on the grounds that she was not available for work. She did not have a motor car to drive 30 miles every day to where she had previously worked and where they would be glad to have her. That is only one of many examples.
The 1933 Social Welfare Act provides that to qualify for unemployment assistance one must be capable of, available for and genuinely seeking work, having regard to age, physique, education, normal occupation and piace of residence. These are certainly sufficient reasons to justify qualifying people because of the suitability of the work they might get having regard to their normal occupations and yet our appeals officers do not see fit to grant them assistance or benefit. This is a disgrace and it is an area that should be examined immediately. Abolishing the requirement for post-marital employment was a futile exercise if the benefits are not made operative.
We must not blame appeals officers. I was long enough in Social Welfare to know, in relation to both doctors and appeals officers that they are the finest of men but it is the prevailing attitude in the Department that governs the decisions taken from time to time. Just now the claims of people and people already in receipt of benefit are being knocked by the hundred. Genuine cases of claimants and recipients are being knocked because there is a percentage of malingerers as there always has been. I do not know what is the position of a woman—I have a question down about it—whose doctor warns her that she must not work. She says she must live, that she can get no money and he says : "You are endangering your life; you may drop dead if you work". The social welfare doctor says she is fit to work and they cannot pay her. This is a case where doctors differ.
Let us not be too naïve and not admit that there are times when attitudes are different and the approach of officials is more lax than on other occasions. These periods of strict supervision seem to coincide with periods of stringency and difficult financial positions. That is not as it should be. I am sick talking about the attitude of social welfare investigation officers. I met a woman five days ago whose husband lost his pension while she was working as assistant housekeeper in the county home, St. Joseph's. When she became ill and had to go to hospital the pension was restored but the investigation officer called twice— once at 8.30 in the evening—to see if she had gone back to work. I presume that had she returned to work her husband's pension would have been cut again. The officer called in the evening because he suspected she was on the night shift. That is going a little too far and is not in keeping with a Department whose function it is to give benefits to people who are entitled to them. I am not attacking the individual who was carrying out his duty.
The amount of money being spent on social welfare at present is very big but the Department are getting a greater percentage from the contributions of employers and employees. The contribution rate was approximately one-third from the State, one-third from the employee and one-third from the employer. It was weighted in favour of the employee in that the employer was made to pay a little more but often when the fund fell short of the annual requirement the State contribution was raised to 35 per cent. That is being phased out now and much of the money the Government are boasting about is money that is being taken from the people in the form of insurance stamps. Allowing for the increase in the contributions and the millions extra being taken from the employers and employees by way of contribution the extra amount given has been eroded by way of unchecked inflation and the amount extra that is being paid as a result of 116,000 being unemployed. That is the position with regard to social welfare. They are the bare facts of the situation. There is very little left to boast about but I hope the spirit of the motion will not be lost on Members on the Government side and that they will see fit to support it particularly when there is such a clamour for equal rights. This is one area where there should be a complete elimination of any discrimination against one sex compared with another. I hope the terms of the motion will not fall on deaf ears and that Government Deputies will support it.
