Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jul 1960

Vol. 52 No. 20

Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1960—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. MacEntee)

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the extensions and improvements of our existing Social Insurance Scheme as forecast by the Taoiseach in statements on 4th July, 1959, and 11th December of last year. The Bill provides for the expansion of the scheme (i) to include old age (contributory) pensions as a further benefit, (ii) to continue to widows over age 70, whose deceased husbands had been contributors under the, widows and orphans insurance scheme, widows (contributory) pensions in lieu of the non-contributory old age pensions free of means test, and (iii) to pay to recipients of disability benefit, unemployment benefit or widows (contributory) pension who have more than two qualified children, an allowance in respect of each child in excess of that number, instead of limiting the payment to the first and second, as at present. In addition to these new features, the Bill also proposes to improve the scheme by providing for substantial increases in the basic rates of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity allowance, widows (contributory) pensions and orphans (contributory) allowance and in the rates of the allowances for adult dependants and the first two qualified children.

The Bill has been framed in accordance with the general principles enunciated by the Taoiseach that the foundations of a sound scheme should now be laid and then built upon as conditions permitted and that it should confer upon all former insured persons who are now beyond their labours a substantial improvement in their existing conditions. The old age (contributory) pension proposals have been based on existing services in order to simplify administration and keep administrative costs as low as possible. Therefore, the classes to he covered by the new pension scheme will be those who are insured for the main benefits under the Social Welfare Acts. As they are outside the ambit of the existing social insurance scheme, selfemployed persons will not be brought within the scope of the pension scheme. Similarly, persons who are at present compulsorily insurable only for the purposes of widows and orphans (contributory) pensions, for instance, permanent and pensionable civil servants, officers of local authorities, etc. will not be insurable for the new pension. The provision in the present scheme whereby persons under age 70 ceasing to be compulsorily insured, may, under certain conditions, preserve their insurance for widows and orphans (contributory) pensions by becoming voluntary contributors will be extended so that insurance for the new pensions may also be preserved. It is important, however, to note that the right to become a voluntary contributor for old age (contributory) pensions in addition to widows and orphans (contributory) pensions will be limited to persons whose compulsory insurance covered other benefits in addition to widows and orphans (contributory) pension.

The qualifying age for old age (contributory) pension will be 70 years for both men and women. A lower qualifying age would, apart from the question of the extra cost involved, virtually necessitate the imposition of a retirement condition, with a concomitant earnings rule, at least up to age 70. This would, in effect, be tantamount to the application of a means test, and would add considerably to the administrative complexity of the scheme. In all the circumstances it is considered that the provisions in the Bill represent the best approach to the problem.

The contribution conditions for old age (contributory) pensions as set out in Section 16 of the Bill are briefly—

(a) that the claimant has entered insurance before attaining the age of 60,

(b) that not less than 156 employment contributions have been paid since his entry into insurance, and

(c) that he has an average of 48 contributions paid or credited in each contribution year since his entry into insurance.

There is of course nothing extraordinary or unprecedented about these conditions. They follow logically from the underlying requirement that to be entitled to a long term benefit a person should have a reasonably long insurance life and a reasonable record of genuine insurable employment. Under the present social insurance scheme introduced in the 1952 Social Welfare Act, the conditions imposed for title to widows (contributory) pensions, marriage benefit and disability benefits of indefinite duration specifically require for the fundamental condition that the insured person shall have paid not less than 156 contributions in all. It is convenient I think to refer to this condition as the "156 contributions paid" test. For entitlement to disability benefit and unemployment benefit, the insured person must be in a position to show that not less than 48 contributions were either paid by him or credited to him in the governing contribution year.

The first stipulation that a person must have entered into insurance before attaining the age of 60 years will apply to all insured persons seeking the new pension. Persons who attain the age of 70 before 5th January, 1963, could not of course have entered into insurance under the Social Welfare Acts prior to the attainment of the age of 60 years as those Acts only commenced on 5th January, 1953. To meet this it is proposed in regulations to be made under Section 13 of the Bill, to which I will refer later, to treat entry into insurance under the former National Health Insurance Acts prior to the attainment of age 60 as effective for the purposes of the new pension and those regulations will also provide for the counting, where necessary, of contributions paid or credited under the National Health Insurance Acts towards satisfying the remaining two conditions for the new pension.

The first of these two conditions is that to qualify for an old age (contributory) pension the person concerned must have been an insured person and in that capacity must have paid not less than 156 employment contributions since his entry into insurance. The number of contributions thus required is the equivalent of three full years of insurable employment. These contributions —perhaps it may be necessary to emphasise this—must have been paid and only contributions which have been paid will be taken into account towards satisfying the condition.

On the other hand, in formulating the terms of the remaining condition which must be fulfilled in order to obtain a contributory pension, provision has been made to meet the case of an insured person who, because he is either ill or unemployed, is presumed not to be in a position to have contributions as an employed person paid in respect of him. This case which could otherwise involve hardship, is met, under Section 16 of the Bill. This section will enable the average of 48 contributions per contribution year to be calculated on the basis, not merely of the contributions actually paid, but on those paid contributions plus the notional contributions with which the insured person has been credited. The average will be calculated on the total of the paid contributions and the credited contributions, and an insured person who is either too ill to work and notifies the Department, or unemployed and signs the Unemployed Register is at present and will continue to be credited with a contribution for each week of such duly notified illness or proved unemployment.

Until the new rates of contribution proposed in the Bill have become payable, nobody will have paid any contribution containing an element in respect of the new pension. If title to pension were to be established only by the new contributions it would be some years before any pension would become payable and insured persons within a few years of the pensionable age and those now over that age, would never be able to qualify. It could of course be argued that those now over age 70 should not get any concessions for the reason that they have passed out of insurance, having derived therefrom in the course of their insurance life such insurance cover and benefits as they were entitled to on the basis of the contributions they had paid.

I hope the Seanad will agree with me that such persons should be given the opportunity of qualifying for the pension and, accordingly provision is being made in Section 13 of the Bill to enable contributions already paid under the Social Welfare code to be taken into account. The manner in which this will be done will be set out in detail in regulations to be made under the section.

As I have already mentioned earlier in relation to the conditions for the new pension, Section 13 also provides that the regulations made thereunder may modify the contribution conditions in the case of persons who entered insurance prior to 5th January, 1953, the date on which the co-ordinated social insurance scheme under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, came into operation. Comprehensive insurance records are available, however, only as from that date, and it is intended that the regulations will ensure that apparent shortages of contributions which are due to the absence of comprehensive records will not penalise a claimant for old age (contributory) pension.

As a result of this section, it is estimated that 23,000 persons who are now in receipt of non-contributory old age pensions, together with 7,000 adult persons who are dependent upon them, will qualify, respectively, for old age (contributory) pensions and the associated allowance in respect of dependent adults. A further 13,000 persons aged 70 or over in respect of whom the modified conditions to be prescribed under Section 13 have been fulfilled will become entitled to the old age (contributory) pension, notwithstanding the fact that hitherto they have been disqualified from getting any old age pension at all. In addition, about 6,000 allowances will become payable in respect of adult dependants. Thus when the old age (contributory) pensions become payable about 50,000 persons will obtain at once the substantial benefit of the new pension.

The rate of the new pension will be 40/- per week, and a supplement at the rate of 28/6d. per week will be payable where the pensioner has an adult dependant. A male old age (contributory) pensioner who is married, may receive the increase in respect of an adult dependant for his wife, if she is living with or being maintained by him. A female married old age (contributory) pensioner, however, will receive such an allowance for her husband only if she is maintaining him and he is incapable of self-support by reason of some physical or mental infirmity. If the pensioner dies, the amount of the increases in respect of adult dependency will continue to be payable to the survivor, unless he or she qualifies for a more favourable payment by way of benefit or assistance. If a husband and wife both qualify for the pension neither will be entitled to the increase in respect of a dependent spouse.

Under Section 10 of the Bill, regulations will be made providing for payment of the old age (contributory) pension at reduced rates where the average number of contributions paid or credited per contribution year is below 48. The reduction in the rate of pension, however, will not operate to reduce the allowance in respect of the adult dependant, that is to say, the adult dependant allowance will remain at 28/6d. per week. This is in line with existing procedure in relation to disability and unemployment benefit. A person receiving the new pension and his or her adult dependant, if any, will be debarred from the non-contributory old age pension scheme.

I come now to the extension of widows (contributory) pension. Under existing legislation a widow's (contributory) pension terminates when the widow reaches the age of 70, and she then becomes entitled to the ordinary old age pension, but—and this, of course, is very important—without the means or residence test. However, it is irrational to assume that the moment a widow passes her seventieth year that she will require something less for maintenance than when she was aged only 69 years and 364 days. Indeed, the contrary is the more general case. Accordingly it is proposed not to terminate the widow's (contributory) pension when she reaches the age of 70, but to provide that the widow's (contributory) pension will be payable in future without reference to age.

Widows' (contributory) pensions will, therefore, be paid to approximately 8,000 widows who are now over 70 and who were in receipt of such pensions prior to reaching that age or would have been if they had been widowed before attaining that age. A widow over 70 receiving such a pension will be debarred, of course, from receiving non-contributory old age pension and, if she is entitled to both old age (contributory) pension and widows' (contribtuory) pension she will, by regulations, be permitted to draw only one of these pensions.

The final quite new feature in the Bill relates to the dependent children of recipients of disability benefit, unemployment benefit or widows' (contributory) pension. As the law stands an allowance at the rate of 8/- per week is payable in respect of each of the first two such children; nothing, however, is given in respect of any greater number of child dependants. Under the Bill, not only will the amount payable in respect of the first two children be increased by 25 per cent., that is, from 8/- to 10/-, but an allowance at the rate of 5/- per week will be paid in respect of each qualified child in excess of two. By reason of these increased payments, the lot of about 73,500 children and their parents should become somewhat easier when the Bill is brought into operation.

In addition to the new features I have outlined, the Bill also provides for increases in existing rates of benefit. The basic rates of disability benefit and unemployment benefit are being increased by 2/6 per week from 30/- to 32/6d. per week; the allowance for an adult dependant by 5/- per week from 15/- to 20/- per week and, as I have already indicated, the allowance for each of the first and second qualified children by 2/- per week to 10/- per week each. The rate of maternity allowance is being increased from 30/- to 35/- per week, that is by 5/- per week; the rate of widows' (contributory) pension also from 30/- by 5/- per week to 35/- per week, where, the widow has a qualified child, and by 2/6d. per week to 32/6d. where she has no qualified child. The rate of orphans (contributory) allowance will go up by 100 per cent., that is from 10/- per week to 20/- per week. Approximately 120,000 adults and 400 orphans will benefit by these increases.

The overall effect of the foregoing increases can best be illustrated by some examples. An insured man with a wife and five dependent children will receive 87/6d. per week when ill or unemployed as compared with 61/- at present. Similarly a widow in receipt of widow's (contributory) pension who has five dependent children will receive 70/- per week as compared with 46/- per week at present. A widow over 70 to whom a widows' (contributory) pension will be paid under the provisions of the Bill will receive an increase of income of 4/- per week, i.e., from 28/6d. to 32/6d., assuming that she has no qualified child. A guardian looking after a family of three orphans will receive an increase of 30/- per week to £3 per week. These increases are quite substantial and should appreciably improve the position of social welfare beneficiaries.

We have now to consider the all-important question of the cost of the extensions and improvements proposed in this Bill which will involve a considerable increase in expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund. It is impossible to forecast with any precision what the increase is likely to be because the cost of the new old age (contributory) pension cannot be estimated with any degree of firmness. There are no statistics to show how many persons now over the age of 70 were formerly insured and how many of these insured persons are now receiving the non-contributory old age pension. On the basis of broad estimation, it is reckoned that the yearly gross cost of the old age (contributory) pension scheme will be roughly £4,660,000. The yearly cost of the other extensions and improvements is estimated at approximately £2,300,000. The yearly cost of the provisions in the Bill will, therefore, amount to £6,960,000—let us say in the roundest of figures £7 million. Towards meeting this liability the increases in the rates of contributions are expected to yield £4,075,000 per annum. Thus the deficiency in contribution income which must be covered by the Exchequer is no less than £2,885,000.

It is estimated that savings to the extent of £2,550,000 will accrue on the Social Assistance Vote by the reduction in expenditure of non-contributory old age pensions. This reduction will be due to persons in receipt of non-contributory pension qualifying for the higher contributory pension or widows over age 70 qualifying for the higher widows' (contributory) pension. These savings will not be made at the expense of persons who continue to receive non-contributory pensions, none of whom will lose. The savings are, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, being diverted to help finance the expansion of the Social Insurance Scheme. Otherwise, it would not have been possible so to expand the scheme without an exorbitant increase in contributions.

This diversion of savings is logical as the persons who will receive contributory pensions in the first few years of the expanded scheme will in fact have contributed little or nothing towards the cost of those pensions and, in the majority of cases, would, but for the expansion of the scheme, have been receiving non-contributory pensions. In addition to the devoting of savings on non-contributory old age pensions towards meeting the deficiency in the income of the Social Insurance Fund referred to earlier, the Exchequer will have to meet the balance of that deficiency, £335,000 as well.

The present and the proposed rates of contribution for the different categories of insured workers are set out in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill, from which it will be seen that an increase of 3/6d. per week in joint contributions is the most that is required of employers and workers. In general, it may be said that the principle followed in deciding on the increases in each rate was that the rate should bear its due share of the cost of the increases in benefits to which it gives title. Thus the ordinary rate of contribution, which gives title to all benefits, must bear its proportion of the increased cost of all benefits, whereas the contribution in respect of civil servants, teachers, and others, which gives title only to widows and orphans (contributory) pensions will have to bear only that proportion of the overall increase of 3/6d. attributable to the increased cost of those pensions. In the case of agricultural workers and share-fishermen, and others coming within that category, the increases proposed are, however, much less than would be warranted by the strict application of the principle to which I have just referred.

In relation to the form of the Bill, which has been drafted largely by way of amendment of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, I should explain that while this procedure does make the Bill somewhat difficult to examine in that it has to be read by reference to the earlier Act, it has the overriding merit that it will enable the new benefits to be operated within the existing administrative machinery. This will obviate duplication of the statutory provisions required to deal with, for example, decisions on claims, appeals, payment of pensions, and so on, and simplify administration. Moreover when the time comes to codify and consolidate the whole Social Welfare and Social Assistance Schemes that operation will be facilitated by the form in which this Bill has been drafted. For the rest, I trust that the explanatory memorandum and the information I have now given will enable Senators to form a clear picture of the new scheme of old age (contributory) pensions and of the improvements to be made in the existing schemes.

Under the Bill as it stands, the new or extended social insurance benefits will improve the lot of more than 200,000 of our aged population and our less fortunate men, women and children to the extent of close on £7 million a year. Of that sum, over £4 million in round figures will be met by employers and their employees, but the balance of close on £3 million must be provided, through taxation, by the community at large.

The proposals in this Bill are intended to be a further step in the development of our social insurance code. These proposals are the best that can be made in existing circumstances but there is no reason why, if our economic progress continues, a more comprehensive and liberal scheme should not be devised.

Dr. O'Donovan

Did I understand the Minister correctly to state that there would be an increased cost to the State of £3,000,000? Is that increased cost to be linked with £2½ million of savings, and does the net increase mean the difference between the two?

Mr. MacEntee

No. I said that, in addition, the State would have to cover the deficiency to the extent of £335,000.

Dr. O'Donovan

I heard all that. Could I repeat my question?

Mr. MacEntee

It is not usual to cross-examine a Minister in the course of a debate.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is just a single question.

An Cathaoirleach

Does the Senator propose to speak?

Dr. O'Donovan

Yes, but before I speak, I want to get what the Minister said clear.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the point might be raised in the debate.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is a common thing in either House to ask a single question. The Minister did not answer my question. He introduced another thing altogether. Might I ask him now if I understand correctly that the State will put up an additional sum of £3,000,000, or whether savings will be credited against that £3 million so that the net sum which will be put up by the State is £500,000? That is a simple question, but the Minister does not want to answer it.

Mr. MacEntee

I have not said so. I am quite willing to give the Senator all the information he requires, but I was at some pains to emphasise that it would not be possible to submit this scheme to the Oireachtas if the Minister for Finance had not agreed to forgo savings to the extent of £2½ million arising on the Social Assistance Vote, but that in addition to the diversion of this sum of £2,500,000 to the Social Insurance fund the Exchequer was also coming in to the extent of a further £335,000. I said that, and the Senator could have heard me.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister has now made it clear that the State is coming in only to the tune of £335,000. Technically, it seems to me that the Bill is quite all right. It is a bit involved, and for myself, I object strongly to this kind of constructive legislation. It would be quite as easy to produce an original Bill setting out the new situation—just as easy as all these constructive efforts, reading paragraphs and phrases into other legislation; but the lawyers like it this way and I suspect the managers also like it very much this way, because they can always put somebody on the wrong foot by saying: "You misconstrued it" or "You did not give enough attention to it but we can give it all our attention".

However, subject to that criticism as to the form of the Bill, it seems to me that it is all right technically. The Minister laid great emphasis on the increased benefits that will accrue from this Bill—it will improve the lot of 100,000 persons, and so on. Could I say this about it—it has all the imprint of an old man's Bill, who does not have to look forward 25 or 30 years to the time when people will be paying for these increased benefits, that he need look out only for whatever period of a few years ahead he desires to look?

The Minister talked about improvements in old age contributory pensions, and substantial increases to other persons, and said that certain people will be entitled to futher long term benefits. So keen is the Minister to bring this into operation immediately that he gets himself into technical difficulties about the fact that this Bill amends an Act which came into operation only seven years ago, and he wishes people to pay ten years' contributions before they will be entitled to benefit. The Minister gets over that in Section 13.

The Minister tells us that so many people will benefit immediately— 23,000 old age pensioners, 7,000 dependants, so many widows and orphans and so on. The question one asks immediately if one sees an expenditure of £7,000,000 towards which increased contributions are £4,000,000 and a transfer of £2,500,000 from the State is: how is this brought about? Of course it is brought about by making the future pay for the present. It is, shall I use the word, tempting, to talk about leaving debts behind one, and I take it that it is "commitments", that more moderate word, that was subsequently used—a commitment to posterity, unless posterity, which I take it they will not be willing to do, should agree to eliminate the system.

The Minister says that it is impossible to forecast how many old age pensioners will qualify under the terms of the Bill. I appreciate why that is so, but I think that is an accounting and statistical answer, because any person who did some sociological study of the matter could come to quite an accurate answer, if he wished. For example, figures were published some years ago showing that the great bulk of the old age pensioners were living in the counties of Kerry and Mayo, and therefore along the west coast. Probably if you drew a line from Derry to Bandon straight down you would get the great bulk of them west of that line.

We all know that not one person in fifty west of that line has been paying insurance contributions: therefore they would not come into the picture at all. We also know that the great bulk of the contributors are in the industrial towns and cities, and that they do not tend in big numbers to live to the age of 70 or very much beyond it. We cannot get away from the fact that when the Minister has finished his litany of benefits, he had to come back to the reality of this scheme. He glossed over the extra amounts that will have to be paid. It will be 3/6 a week by employer and employee, that is, 1/9 for the employee.

I take it that the employer and businesses in general will within the whole system have to adjust themselves to the changed position, but unless the employee is to ask for a further increase in wages, he will have to put up 1/9 per week. That, of course, again to employ a phrase used by the Minister on a number of occasions this afternoon, is tantamount to an increase in the cost of living. There is no question about it. The Minister is an expert on increasing the cost of living. He is probably the most expert person in this whole country on the question of increasing the cost of living, and so he is at it again. He has increased the cost of living. In other words, for one person who benefits there are to be eight for whom the cost of living is increased, for whom the Minister is going to increase the cost of living by 1/9 per week.

Strictly speaking, if the State wants to institute a scheme of this sort and if the Minister were really social welfare minded, he would charge it up to the State. He has not charged it up to the State, but to the contributors. He is charging it up to the employers and employees. In other words, instead of the fund increasing to meet greater commitments in future, the fund is to be depleted. It will never increase. Looking at it from a reasonably long term point of view, even four or five years, the only part of the community the Minister will benefit is the Government.

They are accepting a liability in theory but they are shifting off an equivalent liability. It is roughly an equivalent liability. There is no question about that. The total cost of this scheme will be £7 million a year. It will come, as to £4 million, from the employers and from the employees. It will come, as to £2½ million, from saving on existing non-contributory schemes and it will come as to well under £1 million, at any rate, from the Exchequer.

Let me say this about it: at least it has one merit. The Minister is now economically-minded—much more effectively economically-minded on this Bill—than he was some years ago or his colleagues are today. This Bill is not going to throw nearly so heavy a burden on the Exchequer, if any, by comparison with the burdens put on the Exchequer in recent years by his colleague, the Minister for Finance. The Minister says that the savings are not at the expense of those receiving non-contributory pensions. Of course, they are not, but they are at the expense of the community as a whole and they are at the expense of the people who will be working for 20 or 30 years to come.

It reminds me of the very first social welfare system in the world in modern times—the system originated by Prince Bismarck, whose reputation in this country is different from his real reputation which is in fact, built much more on his social activities and organisational activities in his own country. The system of social insurance that he established in Germany nearly 100 years ago has been commented on as "a system of making the poor pay for the poor". There certainly is a great deal of that in this Bill—a great deal of the system of making the poor pay for the poor, a system which ends up by making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The working class poor will pay for the poor who cannot work.

The workers among the poorer sections of the community and, indeed, other people also, but in particular the workers, will pay on the double. The worker who makes his contribution will pay an increased contribution of 1/9d. and will also pay whatever amount comes upon the cost of living otherwise in relation to the manner in which the employers must recoup themselves for their end of the outgoings. Therefore, the person who works, who actually contributes with his labour to the community and who is among the social insurance classes, that is to say, the person with an income of under £800 a year, as I think it is to-day, will pay on the double. Other people may pay once and a small part of the population will benefit, indeed, and benefit in the early years (which I take to be the Minister's political purpose in this Bill) to a much greater extent than is warranted by the position.

It is all very fine for the Minister to come in with a great flourish about the Bill. When one analyses it, one sees that the essence of the Bill is in Section 14. That is the section which deals with the increased contributions. They are to be very much greater. These contributions are much greater on the existing workers, younger people, than they should be. But the benefits are too great for the Fund to be built up as it should be. If the Fund is to be solvent through time, then some day somebody may have to take other measures to make it solvent.

The Minister wins on both feet. He kicks a goal with the left foot and the right foot. So far as giving the old age pensioners an increase, is concerned, it is a matter that will be justified having regard to the fact that although the general standard of living of this community is supposed to have gone up by 30 per cent. since before the war, the real value of the old age pension at present is hardly equal to what it was pre-war. Even when the famous 1/- was taken off the old age pension making it 9/-, I would be prepared to say that 9/- was worth more then the present old age pension.

Therefore, the underlying idea of increasing the old age pension to 40/- for a certain number of old age pensioners is to be commended. There is no question about that. Everybody will feel that it really gives the older people, who have made their contribution to our community, their share of the improved position in which the community finds itself after a lapse of 20 years. That is one aspect.

I do not see why our community as a whole should not be able to pay for it, were it not for the extravagant increase in expenditure brought about under the aegis of the Minister for Health, when he was Minister for Finance and when expenditure, the ordinary Estimates, went up by £40 million in three and a half years, and under the aegis of his successor when the expenditure has gone up by £20 million in a similar period.

That, of course, means that the State is now tight for money to meet current expenditure and it cannot give to the old age pensioners, on account of increases in expenditure which are unjustified by the national income, what everybody would like to see them getting, that is, their part of the total increase in the national wealth. In fact, the Minister has adopted this method of giving some of them that increase by making, as I say, the poor pay for the poor, that is, he is imposing a burden on the existing workers in their youth and middle years, who in the main will not benefit by the scheme for a long time to come. I take it that he is assuming the maximum of credit to himself for having given something to the old age pensioners.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Fáiltím-se Ó chroí roimh an mBille seo mar 'sé mo thuairim gur Bille tairbheach é do na h-aicmí atá luaite ann. Sean-daoine go mbeidh 70 bliain bainte amach acu agus a bhí fé árachas le linn dóibh bheith ag obair, baintreacha go raibh a bhfir chéile fé árachas, daoine a bheidh ar ceal oibre agus daoine ná fuil ar a gcumas obair a dhéanamh de dheasca tinnis nó easláinte, cuirfidh an Bille Sóisialach so feabhas mór ar a mbeatha san. Beidh níos mó cabhrach le fáil acu ón Stáit in am an ghátair.

Anois do'n chéad uair beidh dhá phúnt sa tseachtain le fáil ag an lucht sean-aoise go mbeidh 70 bliain sroiste acu iad san atá nó a bheidh páirteach san scéim árachais agus ní h-amháin san ach go mbeidh 28/6d. sa tseachtain le fáil chó-maith ag éinne a bheidh ag brath ar na sean-daoine sin le h-aghaidh cothuíochta.

Go deimhin is mór an chéim ar aghaidh é sin agus 'sé mo thuairim go mbeidh a lán sean-daoine agus daoine nach iad buíoch den Aire mar gheall ar an mBille seo—baintreacha, dílleachtaithe agus daoine atá nó a bheidh ar ceal oibre agus na daoine nach féidir leo obair a dhéanamh mar gheall ar easláinte. Dár ndó, ní beag a mbeidh á chaitheamh againn ar na seirbhísí sóisialacha anois breis is 27 milliún púnt. Nuair a bheidh an Bille seo rite beidh isteach is amach le 7 milliún púnt sa bhreis. Is cruthanas é sin ná fuil faillighe a dhéanamh ag an Rialtas ins na h-aicmí daoine seo nach acmhainn dóibh seasamh ar a gcosa féin.

Mar a dúirt cheana cuirim fáilte is fiche roimh an mBille seo agus traosluím leis an Aire i dtaobh an bheartais atá curtha roimis aige sa Bhille seo.

I followed the remarks of the previous speaker. Senator O'Donovan, and while he went to great pains to detract from the merits of the Bill, I think it is true to say that he made a very poor case against it. First of all, he seemed to fall into the error into which certain speakers in the Dáil fell when they tried to persuade themselves and others that the State was making a very meagre contribution towards the scheme. However, as the Minister pointed out, out of the £7 million, roughly, which the scheme is calculated to cost, the taxpayers will be asked to bear no less an amount than roughly £3 million. Whatever argument the Senator or anybody else may endeavour to put forward to deny that fact, the figure is there, the calculation is there and there is no going beyond that.

In my opinion, this is one of the most important measures of its kind to be introduced in the Oireachtas for a number of years. I would say that it is going to be a very beneficial measure for the classes of people covered by it and to whom the provisions will apply. It is of course based on the concept of social insurance and that is as it should be. That should be the guiding principle for measures of this kind in the future. This is an amending Bill and it is purely an administrative Bill and what is of most concern to the classes of people to be catered for is how much they will get from it. There is no doubt about that. There are many classes who will benefit from it. This Bill is another important step on the part of the Minister and the Government in coming to the assistance of the most needy sections of our community. It is just another proof, if proof were needed, of the Government's concern for the needy sections of the community.

Before I proceed to deal with the Bill generally I should like to refer to some other remarks made by Senator O'Donovan on the Bill. He said that the people in the west of Ireland would not benefit from its provisions. I wonder does he believe that or does he know——

Dr. O'Donovan

I said that very few of the old age pensioners in the west of Ireland would benefit from it.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

——or does he know anything at all about the conditions existing in the west and southwest of Ireland? Of course there are many people in the west and southwest who will benefit from the provisions of this Bill—agricultural workers, shop assistants, road workers and so on. All these will come within the ambit of this scheme and benefit from it as the occasion arises. It is wrong therefore to say that it will be of no benefit to the people living in the western and south-western parts of the country. He also said that this Bill was designed to make the poor pay for the poor.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear!

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I want to point out to the Senator that people earning from £12 to £20 a week will benefit under this Bill, and they cannot be described as poor people. There is no agricultural worker in the country today earning less than £5 per week, so to say that this is a Bill which will compel the poor to pay for the poor is quite wrong.

Dr. O'Donovan

We have no poor people then in the country?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

We have not. The people of this country are very well catered for at the present time under our social welfare code, and when this Bill is enacted, they will be much better catered for and will get further and better benefits from our social welfare code. There is no doubt that, as the Minister pointed out, some 200,000 people will benefit under this Bill. Old age pensioners, their dependants, widows and orphans, unemployed persons, sick persons. people in receipt of maternity benefits, and so on, will all benefit under this measure, and I think Senator O'Donovan will have to admit that.

Senator O'Donovan also referred to an increase in expenditure. There has been no great increase in expenditure since this Government took office, and if the previous Government balanced their Budget and made provision for all their commitments, there would be very little difference between the sum they would have presented to the Irish people and the sum presented by the Minister for Finance this year.

As I have said, many classes of the community will benefit under this important measure. This is the first time that old age pensioners and people who have been in insurable employment in their working careers on reaching the age of 70 will have been brought into this contributory scheme of social insurance. They will now be in receipt of £2 a week, which is a very substantial increase over what an old age pensioner gets at the present time. There is a good difference between 28/6d. a week and 40/- a week. As well as the old age pensioner getting £2 a week, if he has an adult dependant, that adult dependant will get 28/6d. a week.

That is a very important provision, and a very important benefit for both the old age pensioner and the adult dependant, and I think the Minister is to be complimented on having introduced a provision in this Bill whereby old age pensioners who have been, who are, and who will be, in insurable employment during their working careers will get £2 a week, and 28/6d. a week for an adult dependant. That is a provision which is not to be sneered at. It is a good provision and a generous one, I must say.

The second class of persons to which I wish to refer are widows in receipt of contributory pensions. Their pensions are to be increased substantially, and as well as that, when they reach the age of 70 years, they can retain their widows' contributory pension and they will not, as has been the case, be compelled to abandon that contributory pension and accept an old age pension at a lesser rate. I must say I always thought it was quite wrong, in principle, to compel a widow whose husband was in insurable employment and made the necessary contributions towards the national social insurance fund, to abandon her widow's contributory pension and accept a lesser pension when she reached old age pension age. If the Bill contained no other provision than that, it would still have to be commended.

As well as all that, people in receipt of unemployment benefit or disability benefit will get a very substantial increase in their basic allowance, and as the Minister pointed out, for the first time the third and subsequent children will be brought within, the scope of the social insurance code. They will be eligible for the allowance. The allowance for the first and second child, as the Minister pointed out, will be increased by 25 per cent. from 8/- to 10/-, and each child after the second will qualify for an allowance of 5/- a week. I submit that again is a very generous provision on which the Minister is to be complimented.

There are other classes, of course, who will benefit under this Bill. Orphans and persons in receipt of maternity benefits will derive much advantage from this measure when it becomes law. I am sure the people of the country generally, even those who will not directly benefit themselves, will acclaim this measure as being one of the best, if not the best, social measure that ever came before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am glad to be able to compliment the Minister on introducing it here today.

Senator O'Donovan also complained about the increase in the contribution rates, but I do not think there is any cause for complaint there. After all, the increase is not very much. An increase of 1/9d. on a working man is not very great. It is the price of a small packet of cigarettes and a box of matches. That is the increase per week that the insured worker is called upon to pay, and when one considers the many benefits that such a person stands to get from the Bill, I think no one will cavil at that very small increase. Of course, there is also an increase in the contribution, the employer has to pay, but no one seems to lay any emphasis on that, and I shall not deal with it It is not a very great increase either, considering the merits of the Bill and its many generous provisions. I am sure it will be welcomed by the people as a whole as well as by the beneficaries.

I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this measure. It is progressive and well thought out. It is equitable in the distribution of benefits, in the amounts contributors will have to pay and as it affects all classes of the community.

Mr. Murphy

This is a rather complicated Bill. We are indebted to the Minister and his Department for the explanatory memorandum which makes it a little more intelligible. On behalf of the Labour group, I would give a general welcome to it.

I welcome the increased benefits for insured workers and the old age contributory pension. We should not exaggerate the old age contributory benefit. We will change from the inadequate old age pension, subject to a means test, to a less inadequate pension without a means test for which a contribution has to be paid. That will apply to only a limited proportion of the population. It will apply to a limited proportion of people who attain 70 years of age. It will apply only to those who have been in insurable employment and who have complied with the regulations in regard to maintaining their benefit. It will not apply to that other section of the community who attain 70 years of age, that is, those who have not been in insurable employment. I have no idea as to the proportion. I suppose one would be expected to regard the people in insurable employment as a substantial and an important section of the community but we have no information to show the proportion of people attaining 70 years of age who will be entitled to the contributory old age pension and the proportion for whom this Bill provides no benefit whatever.

Senator Ó Ciosáin was very enthusiastic about this Bill. Towards the conclusion of his speech, he said the new rates of contribution are equitable. If he were paying into an insurance fund and his rates of contribution were increased by 63 per cent. and his benefits were increased from about 8? per cent. to about 33? per cent., would Senator Ó Ciosáin regard that as equitable?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

That is not correct.

Mr. Murphy

I want to make a comparison between the increase in contributions being provided for and the increase in benefits. These new contributions will carry a benefit which was not previously provided to the extent that we now have the old age contributory pension. It should be borne in mind that this old age contributory pension will increasingly replace, at least for insured workers, the existing pension which is subject to a means test.

In looking at this question of pension, we should bear in mind also that only a fraction of the workers who throughout their working life will be required to pay for the benefit will reach the age at which it will be paid. I was interested to see in Table 15 of the Statistical Abstract the expectation of life. In the urban areas, the expectation of life for a man joining insurance at 21 years of age is a little over 46 years. According to the Tables, he has not an expectation of life sufficiently long to draw the benefit at 70 years of age.

I accept that these increased rates of contribution carry a benefit which was not previously provided for. I hope I am putting it into proper focus in relation to the new benefit. According to the same Table a man would have to survive, paying insurance in the meantime, to 47 years of age before he would have a life expectation to bring him up to 70 years. At 47, according to the Tables, he would have a life expectation of 23.04 years. In other words, he will expect to live .04 of a year past 70 years of age.

Mr. MacEntee

What is the date of the Table?

Mr. Murphy

The 1959Statistical Abstract. It is as up-to-date as I could get it. In spite of the improvements the Minister has made in his capacity of Minister for Health unfortunately these are the facts of life which affect all of us. I do not know what .04 of a year represents. I do not imagine it would be very expensive in regard to the old age pension provided for under this Bill.

However, and here I shall give the Minister a point, a female at that stage, at 47 years of age, has a much longer expectation of life; and indeed at 21, a female has an expectation of nearly 50 years, so that a female would have an expectation of living to draw the old age pension. Females may sometimes complain that they have not equal rights, but at least statistically they seem to have greater expectations.

I should not be regarded as objecting to this new provision, but I am trying to put it into proper focus and to show the real value of this benefit which has been provided and for which the insured worker will have to pay. From what I have said I am entitled to suggest to the Minister that at the earliest opportunity consideration should be given to the qualifying age, that 70 years of age is too late, and that even if people do survive into their sixties, they are not, especially when they are engaged in manual labour, in a position to work for very much longer until they could qualify for this old age benefit.

I am therefore urging on the Minister—and I hope his experience will enable him to do so—to reduce the qualifying age from 70, and if he cannot make it 65, which is generally regarded as the retirement age, that he should make it somewhere about 67.

I referred to the rates of contribution, and I should like to make some comparison, though, again, it cannot be very exact because these new rates of contribution are providing for a benefit which was not previously provided in this form. The rates of contribution for the ordinary worker are being increased by two-thirds. It is all right for Senator Ó Ciosáin to say that they are being increased by only 1/9 per week, but in a matter like this, we must have regard to proportions, and the exact increase is 63 per cent., which is nearly two-thirds.

Then when we come to look at the increased benefits being provided, we find the first benefit being increased according to my calculation by 8.3 per cent., the second and third the same. The provision for adult dependants is to go up from 15/- to 20/-, and this is a bit better, being an increase of 33? per cent.; but, again, it is only half the increase in respect of contributions. The increase in a case of a qualified child or each of two qualified children is 25 per cent., and there are other increases. The biggest increase, which I welcome, is the increase for an orphan's contributory allowance, which is from 10/- to 20/-, an increase of 100 per cent. All in all, it is not possible to be exact, but I am entitled to draw the conclusion and to draw the attention of the Seanad to the fact that the increased rates of contribution are much higher than the corresponding increase in benefits being provided under this Bill.

In this respect, I would like the Minister to consider the position of young workers, the people starting in employment, serving their apprenticeship. I suggest that to a young worker in receipt of a £1, 30/-, £2 or £3 a week, the sum of 4/6 a week is in the nature of a poll tax. It is too heavy at that rate of pay. Even though this point was put to the Minister in the Dáil and he would not accept it, I would again urge that he look at that problem and consider whether it would not be possible to provide for some smaller rate of contribution from an insured worker at that stage, when he is young and in receipt of very little wages. Remember that at that stage there is no great point in trying to tell a worker that in paying this contribution, he is also providing for an old age pension at 70, because statistically at 21, he has a life expectation of 46 years which of course will not bring him to 70 years of age; and that sort of argument, statistically or in any other way, will not carry much weight with a young person. I therefore urge on the Minister that he should, if at all possible, make provision for a smaller rate of contribution from that type of worker.

We are being told that in the new rates of contribution, we are providing for the old age pension at 70 which will not be subject to the objectionable means test, but it is the experience of trade unionists that good employers— and I am glad to say there are many good employers in this State—already provide retirement benefits for their workers, and in many cases they require only a nominal rate of contribution from the workers. They do not regard as sacrosanct the principle which the Minister and the Government generally regard as sacrosanct now, that in the social benefits there should be the same rate of contribution from the worker as from the employer. If good employers can do this, if they see to it that they pay far more than 50 per cent. towards retirement pensions at 65, why should the State in this measure provide that the employers who are not already providing pensions should pay only the same rate of contribution as the workers?

Again, having regard to the fact that the rate we are requiring the worker to pay is being increased in a far greater proportion than the benefits, particularly to the younger and lower paid people, it will be a very heavy burden.

The Minister may argue that the costs of social services are very heavy, but according to calculations I have seen, they generally run at about £26,000,000 per annum. That seems a very big sum, but on the other hand, it only equals the tax collected on tobacco. In other words, the cigarette and tobacco smokers contribute in taxes roughly the same amount as the State has to meet for the various social benefits. Allowing for the increased expenditure on social welfare in the current year, the bill will be only 28 per cent. of the total Government expenditure. Again, that seems a big proportion, but if you look back over the expenditure of previous years, you will see that it has virtually remained unchanged for the past four years. There is no great change in the proportion of Government expenditure allocated to social welfare generally.

I should like at this stage to ask the Minister to look at a particular group—it is a small group—involved in this Bill. I refer to the people who contribute only in respect of widows' and orphans' benefit. I wonder would it be possible, would it be desirable or practicable to allow such people, if they so wish, to contribute for the old age contributory pension? I make that suggestion because it is my experience that even though such people have superannuation provided for them at retirement at 65 years of age, owing to the change in the value of money, if they live, as some of them do, to 70 years of age, they get poorer and poorer. The value of the superannuation for which they have contributed throughout their working life, unfortunately, tends to decrease. We find that such people become inevitably poorer and less well able to provide for themselves.

If that is not possible, I would ask the Minister, again in relation to that section of the workers, to look at their position in respect of widows' and orphans' benefit. As I understand the position, their cards are stamped or they stamp them themselves while they are working but when they come to retire at 65 years of age, they must then, in order to retain their entitlement to this benefit, purchase stamps themselves. In other words, they have to purchase stamps at the rate of 2/- per week or, under this Bill, at the rate of 2/6d. per week at a time when they are out on pension and when obviously they can ill-afford to have to pay out for these weekly stamps.

If they do not do that, they lose their entitlement, their cover for widows' and orphans' benefit. Where that applies, I always advise these people it is prudent that they should maintain the insurance but at that stage some of them, after leaving employment, find it hard to understand these things. They have no experience of stamping cards or maintaining insurance. Too often, I think they drop out of insurance. The Minister may say they can, as an alternative, save the 2/- per week or attend at the local employment exchange and have their cards stamped or have credits allowed instead of purchasing the 2/- or the 2/6 stamp. Again, I think they can have credit given them by sending in a medical certificate that they are unfit for work.

I think the Minister will see my point in this. These sort of people are reluctant to make these purchases. Instead of going along to an employment exchange, instead of sending in medical certificates that they are unfit for work, they prefer, if they do maintain their insurance, to stamp their own cards. These people were stamping the cards while they were in employment. I would urge the Minister sympathetically to consider their position, having regard to the fact that they are not working because they have reached the retirement age. They have been retired because it is a normal feature of their employment to retire them at 65. They have to go and because of that, I would suggest that the Minister should allow their retirement to stand without having to purchase stamps or, on the other hand, without having to go along to an employment exchange and register there and have their cards stamped there. They have retired on pension and I think the Minister in those circumstances could allow their entitlement to continue and not drop because they have not continued stamping cards.

There is another point again in relation to this limited section of workers. I should like to hear from the Minister if anything could be done about a certain group who should be voluntary contributors for widows' and orphans' benefits. The position there is that, when they go over the limit of £800 per year, they have then to contribute the cost of the stamp themselves in order to maintain benefit. I am not objecting to the fact that they would have to meet the 2/6 themselves. What I am concerned about is the time limit they are given in order to continue on as voluntary contributors. As I understand the position, when they reach £800, they are no longer compulsorily insured for widows' and orphans' benefit. They are then given some time in which they can opt to become voluntary contributors. If they do not do so within that time, they cannot change their minds.

Mr. MacEntee

They are given 12 months.

Mr. Murphy

Yes. Some of these people go out of insurance because they may change their employment. They may get a new job carrying a salary of over £800 per annum. I cannot imagine that the Exchequer would be at any loss if those people were allowed to come back into voluntary insurance, to provide cover for their widows and orphans. I am not advocating, nor would I attempt to advocate, that they should be in any better position than the people who have exercised the option within the 12 months and stamped their cards.

I do not know whether many people are involved or would want to do so. I think, if they want to, they should be allowed to come back into insurance by purchasing stamps for all the time they were out, with the permission of the Department. They could come back into insurance that way.

I do not think there would be any cost to the Exchequer in providing that sort of cover for them. It would be a voluntary effort and I think the Minister would be with me in this, that where people want to provide this insurance on a voluntary basis, they should be encouraged to do so.

I mentioned earlier the new cost of the stamp contributions. As I am on the question of widows and orphans and the people who are insured only for that purpose, I think I could pertinently remark that the increased contribution amounts to an increase of 25 per cent. They are not by reason of this increased contribution providing for an old age pension at 70 years of age. That is not part of their stamp at all. So we cannot say that this new rate is providing for a new benefit. In fact, it is not in that respect.

There is an increase of 25 per cent. in the benefits which are being provided; an increase for a widow of 16? per cent. and where a widow is not so qualified, an increase of 8? per cent. But again, as I said earlier, there is an increase of 100 per cent for orphan's contributory allowance. I cannot imagine that there is very much in that in the sense that there would not be many involved. It seems to me that the increased rate of contribution is out of line with the new benefits which are being provided or rather, I would say it the other way, that the new rates of benefit are not up to the level of the increase being provided in the rates of contribution. I hope, however, that the Minister will be back to us next year providing for increased pensions for all these types of workers. Might I end on the note on which I started and say that the Bill is a step in the right direction? I may feel that it does not go far enough in the right direction, but I welcome it and I hope the Minister will be back again soon to make improvements, both in regard to pensions and also in regard to reducing the qualifying age for the new old age pension.

Miss Davidson

Any measure which seeks to improve the existing social welfare schemes must receive our approval and therefore I also welcome the introduction of this measure which will undoubtedly improve certain social welfare benefits. The new and perhaps the most important thing which the Bill will do is to provide contributory old age pensions, which is a most desirable provision long overdue. No person could quarrel with giving our aged people a statutory right to receive a pension but I think it comes too late in the lives of the recipients to give them a reward towards the end of their days or to provide a feeling of warm security. At 70 years of age, as we have already been told, the road of life is very short. In most progressive countries, retirement pensions have become a commonplace and generally speaking, the pension comes much earlier than is proposed in this Bill. It comes around the 65 mark. I think the Minister might have aimed at giving ageing workers a better deal by giving them their pensions at 65 for men and perhaps 60 for women.

I would hesitate to say that women work twice as hard as men but I think most will agree that they work twice as much as their menfolk. Very often a woman's work differs very little from that of her male colleague, although it is very rarely she receives as high a wage as he does; but while the man's work, in the general run of things, ends when he leaves his place of employment, the woman continues to work as she generally has to cope with at least some portion of the domestic work in the home. Therefore I think that the few years earlier payment that I claim on behalf of women is easily justified.

Another aspect of the situation which I should like the Minister to consider is the availability of work to men and women beyond the age of 60 and 65. A man of 65 who has paid insurance for the greater part of his working life might lose his job around the 65 mark and would in today's circumstances find it exceedingly difficult to obtain employment and would not have the means to become a voluntary contributor. Industry today is highly mechanised and is becoming more so. In elderly persons, eyesight is impaired, reactions are slower and such persons are more accident prone. Employers therefore seek young, active employees who are quick and easy to train. They consider elderly employees a bad investment from a production point of view and a bad risk from the accident point of view.

These arguments apply both to men and women. There is a big population of women workers who operate power machines and many who are employed in light engineering occupations, all of which require good eyesight, nimble fingers and quick reactions. I cannot see an employer welcoming a woman between 65 and 70 years of age for such occupations-Other employments which absorb very large numbers of women workers are the hotel and catering industry and shop work. It is a fact that ageing waitresses and women shop assistants will just not be employed. How is it intended that these people will fill the gap of five or ten years between 60 or 65 and 70 in order to receive the full 40/- old age pension for which many of them will have subscribed in some measure through their insurance contributions?

These people are not ill and, therefore, they cannot draw sickness benefits and thus obtain credits. They have become unemployed mainly because their faculties are impaired. Surely we cannot condemn these aged people to trudge around the employment exchanges after they have exhausted their benefits, so as to claim credits by registering for jobs which they know are not there. That surely is false pretences and we should not place our industrious aged workers in such a position. I know of course that if these old people cannot fulfil the conditions for obtaining the new benefit and are able to exist until they are 70, they may qualify for a pension at a lower rate, or for the lower existing non-contributory old age pension with its means test and other distasteful conditions, but that is not a fair way, to my mind, to treat these people.

Surely, having gone so far in this scheme, the Minister will stretch his generosity a bit more to preserve the dignity of our ageing citizens. I know that under the Bill it is not necessary to retire to qualify for the new pension but does the Minister really think there will be so many to whom the Act will apply who will be able to remain in employment after reaching the age of 70? Even if he does think they will, would it not be a better bargain for this country, with its deep pool of unemployment, to make the pension a little higher with the qualification of retirement and the qualifying age a little lower so as to make employment openings available to younger people and keep them off the emigrant ship?

The fact that the self-employed man is outside the scheme is a shortcoming. Many a skilled worker with contributions to his credit in the insurance fund, finding himself without a job and with a young family, has feared the consequences to them if he emigrated. By sacrifice and hard work, he has built up a business for himself at home. It should not be outside the ability of the Department of Social Welfare to devise a scheme to extend the contributory old age pension scheme to such a person who, having kept his skill and his family in the country, is entitled to a reward for doing so.

I turn now to the conditions for the old age pensions which the Bill says are:—

(a) that the claimant has entered insurance before attaining the age of sixty,

(b) that not less than one hundred and fifty-six employment contributions have been paid in respect of the claimant since his entry into insurance, and

(c) that the average per contribution year of the contributions paid in respect of or credited to the claimant in respect of the period beginning at the beginning of the contribution year in which the claimant's entry into insurance occurred and ending at the end of the last complete contribution year before the date of his attaining pensionable age is not less than forty-eight.

Conditions (a) and (b) seem to be quite reasonable but (c) appears to be capable of disqualifying a large number of workers from any hope of receiving the contributory pension of £2 per week.

I am aware that, in explaining the conditions of receipt, the Minister stated at column 1183, volume 182, No. 9, of the Dáil Debates:

It is proposed, however, in regulations to be made under Section 13 of the Bill ... to treat an entry into insurance under the former National Health Insurance Acts prior to the attainment of age 60 as effective for the purposes of the new pension and those regulations will also provide for the counting, where necessary, of contributions paid or credited under the National Health Insurance Acts towards satisfying the remaining two conditions for the new pension.

These regulations, when they are made available to us, may allay our fears, but as the Bill stands, I have a feeling of great anxiety that very many persons who entered insurance some 30 or 40 years ago may find themselves—due to long periods of unemployment during which they have wandered far and wide in search of work, and during which they could not "sign on" and so obtain credits—without the contributions or the credits to fulfil the stipulations at paragraph (c): that they have an average of 48 contributions paid or credited in each contribution year since their entry into insurance.

The same thing applies to a person who, when young, first entered insurance in a temporary job and then decided that such a job held no prospects, gave it up, studied for something better, got odd spells of temporary employment or perhaps emigrated for a period before finding permanent employment. It seems possible that such a person, on reaching the age of 70, may find his contributions and credits leave him short of the necessary number to qualify with an average of 48 contributions in each contribution year since his entry into insurance. As the value of credits is only now manifesting itself, I think the Minister should ease the qualification at paragraph (c) as many contributors seeking employment outside their home district did not register at the employment exchange, and so did not get credits. I should like the Minister to consider the points I have raised and perhaps he could give me some more information on the application of paragraph (c) of the qualifications.

In saying what I have said, I should not like it to be thought that I am attempting in any way to disparage the efforts of the Minister in what he is doing in this measure. I appreciate that the proposed new old age pension of 40/-, with its allowances for dependants for those who can qualify, is a very great advance on the old noncontributory pension of 27/6d. It means that a worker who is lucky can look forward to it, but I still think that the amount is rather on the low side measured against to-day's costs of living. As I have already said, it comes too late to be of real benefit to the aged and, so far as I can see, the Bill will bring disappointment to a great many old people who thought they would be able to qualify for this new pension of £2 per week.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to support the various pleas made by Senator Miss Davidson and Senator Murphy for an amendment—I shall not say a modification but rather an extension—of the provisions of this Bill, if not now, when presumably it is too late to have our recommendations accepted, at any rate early in the next session.

I feel that the Minister is entitled to some praise for this Bill, and I think that Senator Ó Ciosáin, though perhaps he exaggerated in the terms he used, was justified in saying that this is a piece of legislation which takes quite an important place in the history of social welfare legislation in this country, principally by reason of this provision for a contributory old age pension without a means test. That is a very pronounced forward step, and I think the Minister is entitled to take legitimate pride in introducing the Bill for that reason.

I am rather tempted to think of the Minister here as having invited us, as it were, to come to see foundations which have been laid at his direction, and then asking us to admire the beautiful palace he has built when, in fact, what we are looking at are still merely the foundations. I think many of us, and perhaps the Minister himself, will continue to look on this kind of Bill as merely laying the foundations. In a sense, the Minister made that point himself, in referring to the Taoiseach's aim in relation to social welfare, and suggesting that this is the structure or pattern within which fresh legislation can be evolved and in that spirit I welcome the Bill.

I think the principle of the Bill in many of its provisions is good, but I would say that the practice is still very grudging. I do not think the type of benefit that is mentioned can really be boasted about and I think many of the people who are excluded from its benefits for one reason or another will have to live in harsh conditions. I feel that many of those who will benefit under this Bill will be deriving benefits not anything like the benefits to which they are entitled to lead an ordinary life.

The Minister quoted a figure—I hope I have it right—that a widow with five dependent children—I think he selected his example fairly generously to himself as it were—instead of getting 61/- will get 70/-. That is the kind of thing I have in mind when I say that I feel that this cannot be said to be generous. I accept the Minister's example that a widow with five dependent children will have to live—or is it suggested that there is something open to her——

Mr. MacEntee

She does not have to live on the 70/-. There is no means test.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

There is no means test, and it is hoped that this will, in a sense, supplement what she has otherwise. I feel that this type of pension is entirely inadequate and, in fact, I am strengthened in that view by the State's recognition of the fact that in order to compensate an institution for keeping a child, the State authorises a payment to that institution of 45/- a week, which, heaven knows, is not a large sum of money. If an institution has to keep two children, they will be granted a weekly payment of 90/- for the two children, but the widow who has to struggle to keep five children will be given 70/-.

The Minister may say: "She can go out and work", and so on. I am not satisfied that the State, as yet, is doing what the State could do. The Minister will plead that we are a poor country, that our national income is low, and so on. There are other levels on which comparisons of that kind are not usually made. I have never heard people in this country say: "I cannot buy such and such a make of expensive car simply on the grounds that our national income is low. You can afford that in the neighbouring country but over here, we have to be content with the more modest car." I have never heard anybody in this country argue that he could not buy the big expensive car solely on the grounds that we must be content with a lower standard of living.

I feel the argument there is not entirely genuine. The principle of the Bill is good. In particular, the principle of Section 21 is very good—the Minister rightly pointed to it with pride. While the general structure, principle and foundations are good, we still have a long way to go before we can admire the building which we can look forward to seeing arise one day on such foundations, a building in which the people now drawing what I would call absolutely minimum benefits will get what they would be entitled to if they were to be considered worthy of a decent, ordinary, human standard of living all round and not just for a few.

Mr. Carter

On the whole, the Bill and the Minister who introduced it have got a fair reception. Every Senator will agree that the Bill is an advance in our social welfare system. Various arguments have been advanced in regard to the rate of contribution, and so on. Certain Senators even went out of their way to deprecate the Bill. Senator O'Donovan found a number of faults with it on the ground that it represents legislation such as the Iron Chancellor would have implemented. The Iron Chancellor did not devote 26 per cent. of his revenue to social welfare. In those days, Governments were not held to account for social welfare. Therefore, that comparison is worth about a fistful of sawdust.

Fault was also found with the Bill because the Minister did not shift the whole burden on to the taxpayers. In the next breath, it was stated that the measure would result in a further increase in the cost of living. Such arguments make for confusion and are no help in considering legislation of this character. A contributory old age pension scheme is a considerable step forward even allowing for the fact that we are devoting £27,000,000 odd towards helping the poor and the distressed in our community. All reasonably-minded people will agree that an insurance Bill such as this one affords relief to certain sections of the population.

This Bill was mooted about the time of the Budget. Last December, the Taoiseach said it was proposed to lay the foundations of a contributory old age pension scheme and to build on that scheme as circumstances permitted. It is a reasonable proposition. Having regard to the strength of the insurance fund at present, it is reasonable to proceed with a certain amount of caution. We should all like a contributory old age pension scheme which would cover not merely people reaching 70 but people reaching 65 years of age. We should all very much like to see people retire at 65. Indeed, it would be necessary in our present circumstances. However, we must ask ourselves if we can afford it. If we proceeded in that manner, the Senators who found fault with the present measure would be very quick to find fault with the Government and the Minister for what they would call the savage taxation imposed on the community to meet the commitments.

The underlying feature of the Bill is the contributory old age pension scheme which will be worked on the lines of the existing insurance scheme. I think that is wise. The clauses are very much the same as the qualifying clauses for unemployment benefit and sickness benefit. That also is a good thing. It will make for simplified procedure and will keep costs low.

Certain people will benefit considerably from the Bill. Even though contributors will have to make an increased contribution, the stamp carries many compensations as well as the old age pension.

We must also recognise that under the 1952 Social Welfare Act when the various benefits and contributions were consolidated, it carried the right to unemployment and sickness benefit as well. Let us not lose sight of these facts when we come to consider legislation such as this.

It was wise to keep within the existing framework, for the start at any rate. It is understandable that self-employed persons could not readily be brought within the scope of the Bill, simply for the reason that they are not contributing anything towards it It is also quite understandable that we could not very well introduce a retirement clause in it, because should that be the case, then it would amount, as the Minister stated, to a means test and would be taking away from the benefits of the Bill as well as making for more complicated procedure.

One of the most important sections of the Bill is Section 16, which states the qualifications. It does not make any radical change in the existing arrangement and there is nothing very stiff about the conditions. As a matter of fact, the proposals issued in the White Paper of 1949 visualised a retirement condition, and at that time, although it never saw the light of day in the sense that it did not become legislation, it visualised more or less a means test. Attached to it, there is also a relaxing clause whereby persons who entered insurance prior to 5th January, 1953, will be allowed to share in the benefits of the scheme; and when we speak of contribution either by young or old, we must remember that this is going to extend certain benefits to those people. Certainly they could not qualify on any other basis, and for that reason we could make the point that in that regard it is quite equitable. It is likewise regarding shortages in records. Assuming that a person cannot prove a record of stamps, then there is a relaxation in that respect.

We have, as I say, a scheme designed to work, a scheme not purely based on means tests. It is quite straight and clear, and every individual who stands to benefit under it will know what he or she is entitled to.

Section 13 is of considerable importance. Roughly 23,000 persons, as the Minister stated, together with 7,000 adult dependants, will benefit. That in itself is a considerable advance on the social insurance scheme of the past. Other modifications which can be brought about under Section 13 provide that roughly 13,000 people aged 70 will come within the terms to be prescribed under the section. Assuming that they can prove title, they will also qualify for contributory pensions, plus a further category of dependants. This part of Section 13 also covers a completely new class of claimants who previously did not qualify for pensions at all. Therefore, I take it that roughly 50,000 people will benefit under the section. We know that the rate is £2, plus 27/6d. for an adult dependant, and that as well as that, in the case of the death of a pensioner, the increase in respect of an adult dependant will be payable to the survivor, unless he or she qualifies for a higher award in some other way.

Section 10 is also of importance in that it provides cover at reduced rates for those who have not an average number of contributions. That is fair and equitable also. The extension in favour of widows is to be welcomed. Hitherto it was a hardship on a widow that she had to forgo her pension when she came to 70 years of age and revert to the old age pension. It is to be welcomed that now she can continue to draw the contributory pension.

People who criticise a measure such as this oftentimes have no advertence to the facts. It is all very well to advocate ad lib benefits for all, but it is a different thing when you come to provide the benefits and to levy taxes on the people who have to pay for them. When the Government are under pressure to find money to grant reliefs to other sections of the community, then it is not so easy to indulge in a bout of indiscriminate taxation in order to extend social welfare benefits.

As I said at the outset, it was wise procedure, to say the least of it, to proceed on the basis of the existing insurance scheme. It will provide against the risk element at any rate, and I assume that the Minister, or whatever Minister is responsible for the Department of Social Welfare in the future, will gain experience from the basis now being laid in this Bill and that as time goes on, as was visualised, we shall be able to build better legislation on the basis of a Bill such as this.

Mr. P. Crowley

The general principle on which the Bill is based is welcomed, and rightly so, from both sides of the House. As far as the trade unions are concerned, it must be said that, generally speaking, they look at this Bill with somewhat mixed feelings. I am aware that some of them look at the Bill with a certain amount of misgiving. I do not have to point to the fact that the Bill imposes very substantial increases on the contributions payable both by the workers and their employers. These increases represent quite a heavy additional charge on industry in general. That additional charge could very well create other more serious problems for the working people generally. We in the trade unions find that the working people generally are pressing the question in many cases as to whether, in fact, they are getting full value for these impositions.

I think the scope of the Bill could and should be extended very much further in order to allow its benefits to be availed of by a much wider category of our people. By bringing more people within the scope of the measure, the overall cost could be reduced very substantially. I do not think there is any necessity to go into detail on these points because I think an excellent case was made both by Senator Murphy and Senator Miss Davidson to show that, in fact, the Bill has many defects as far as its application to workers generally is concerned.

However, I want to repeat that the general criticism within the trade unions is that the Bill, in its scope and in the provision of the range of benefits, is far too restrictive. It is not generous enough to attract any sort of widespread support or any great desire—and this is a most important point—on the part of any large body of people who are still kept outside the scope of the measure to participate in the benefits. I want to support Senator Sheehy Skeffington in urging the Minister to address himself to these aspects of the Bill, if not in the present session, then at least in the next session.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I welcome this Bill which will benefit the working classes. I am sure it will be very well received. It will be of great benefit especially in the rural districts because a person receiving a contributory pension is allowed to work to supplement the pension by any means he likes. It will be of great advantage in the country and to the economy in general.

There is one class of pensioner to whom I should like to direct the Minister's attention. I refer to people who have reached the age of 80 years. I think some provision should be made in their favour. There are many milestones between 70 years and 80 years. Those who have reached 80 years of age are very much in need and would probably require more for their upkeep and support than people of 70 years of age.

I would suggest that the Minister might strike a special rate of pension for those who reach 80 years of age. The cost to the Exchequer would be very little. We must remember that very few of those people would have the contributory pension because when they were 60 years of age, comparatively very few of them were insured. I think very few who reach 80 years of age would qualify for the contributory pension.

The people to whom I refer will have worked harder in their time than the younger generation. They worked in those days from morning until night and the work was very hard. The rate of pay was very miserable, indeed. The fact that they survived all that hardship and reared their families is a tribute to them. It would be a very gracious act if the leaders of our people today would remember those people and make the remaining few years of their lives somewhat happier by increasing the rate of pension. I suggest that the Minister should consider giving a pension of £3 a week to those who reach 80 years of age.

Mr. Burke

This Bill in some ways meets a want, particularly in the type of economy we have. There are many persons working in small industries. These small industries find difficulty in providing some form of a pension for persons who, for one reason or another, have to retire from their employment. In many cases, these smaller industries such as creameries, which Senator O'Dwyer would represent, and many of the smaller type of industries we have in this rather small economy find that their employees, if they wish to retire at 70 years of age, will certainly get a better pension than would have been provided under the Old Age Pensions Acts.

I am inclined to agree with many of the Labour speakers that if these suggestions had been issued in the form of a White Paper, we would have got a better Bill than by bringing in the provisions and being told to take them or leave them. There is no doubt whatever that it will add another overhead and another deterrent to industry. Those of us who are engaged in industry find that every month the Government have passed another buck over to us. We had P.A.Y.E. a couple of months ago. The Minister for Finance got that and now the Minister for Social Welfare is going to ask industry to provide further moneys in order to help to form this insurance fund.

It was suggested that this can be passed on to the public. Anyone who suggests that any form of waste or overhead can be passed on to other than part of the public is very unaware of the situation. Often in Dublin we hear people talking about trade not being good. Often trade is not good because commodities are too dear. All these little additions tend to make commodities too dear. Anyone with any experience of industry or commerce knows that costs, overheads generally, have to be shared. It has been well said years ago that prosperity is indivisible. If you have a rich next-door neighbour, he is going to help you and it is equally true, I suppose, that if you have a poor nextdoor neighbour, that will be a disadvantage.

All these burdens are like sugarcoated pills. You get them one at a time and you do not notice them but the effect, in the long run, must be that the exporting sections of our industry find themselves less competitive. The Minister for Finance comes in and requires industry to act as tax gatherers. Now the Minister for Social Welfare asks industry to help him run what is akin to a superannuation scheme for insured workers, but I wonder do all these people who are putting these little burdens on us ever meet together to see what is the cumulative effect of all the things they are imposing on industry. I do not want to widen this debate further than this point.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think the Senator is in order.

Mr. Burke

I may be in order if I do not develop it further. It is like the grocer's bill. It is not pounds that make the difficulty at all but the shillings and pence when all are totted up. I suggest that representatives of all State Departments should meet and ask themselves whether the cumulative effect of all the shillings and pence they are asking the community to carry is not too much. I believe that it just does not happen and that is why we find ourselves with this colossal bill of taxation, £150 million a year on three million people. I hope that the Taoiseach will see his way to resist the various Ministers who are adding up these small amounts.

I am very glad that Senator Crowley who can speak on behalf of some of the trade unions said they were perturbed about this position. It is the Government responsible who should be perturbed in the first instance, but it is a desirable development that the trade unions, a group who influence public opinion in large measure, should be perturbed.

These are all the objections I have to the Bill. It can have advantages, but if we do get an improvement in social welfare conditions such as this Bill brings before us today, we must see that we do not interfere with or impede the people who, in the final analysis, are going to provide the money by their industry, work and labour. I was glad to hear today a number of people entitled to speak for labour express much the same views on this as the employer. If labour and employers can get the same view—it is like truth and truth is at the bottom of a well—we shall make progress in this country. It should be easy with co-operation between employers and trade unions to get the Government to see common sense and ensure that the load is equal to the capacity of the people to carry it.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. MacEntee)

The Opposition speaker who opened the debate—I do not know whether he was for or against the Bill—saw fit to describe it as "an old man's Bill," but I do not know whether his jibe was directed against the old age pensioners who are to benefit so substantially under the Bill or against the somewhat elderly statesman who has been responsible for introducing it. It is an old man's Bill in the sense I have pointed out: that a considerable number of elderly people who are past their years of useful work will, for the first time in this country, be able to retire, if they so please, with some provision for their old age which does not depend upon the fact that they are living just above subsistence level; that is to say, they will be able to enjoy this old age pension without having to satisfy any test in regard to means.

I think it is a good thing that the younger generation in this country who have lived to enjoy what the older generation in large measure have won for them should be asked to meet certain obligations to their elders. I am anxious to bring this Bill into operation. It is a measure which we in Fianna Fáil have long envisaged but unfortunately the economic conditions of the country were not such that it was practical to introduce a measure such as this until this last year and a half, until it seemed reasonably clear that we had created the conditions for an expanding economy in the country.

It has been said that we are asking the future to pay for the present as far as the benefits are concerned which this Bill proposes to confer upon a very large number of our people, I think to the number of 200,000 at least. That is not true. We are merely asking the present to pay for the present. The increase in the contributions now being asked will not meet the increased cost of the new extended and increased benefits. In spite of the saving which can be made on the Social Assistance Vote, we shall nevertheless have to meet the cost by no less a sum than £335,000.

It is true that as time goes on and the charge on the Social Assistance Vote tends to diminish, owing to the increased transfer of old age pensioners from the non-contributory to the contributory sector, it is very possible, bearing in mind that the contribution from the Exchequer will remain fixed, that there will be an increase in benefits. As the years go on, those who are coming into the insurance scheme now as young people will live to derive very substantial benefits from the contributions they are paying now.

I could not quite appreciate the point made again by the opening speaker from the Opposition side of the House when he said we were laying certain burdens on those engaged in industry on both sides, whether employer or employee. What are we to deduce from that? Is it that the Senator who made that point is opposed to any extension of social insurance in this country or that he wishes that the whole burden should be laid upon the taxpayer?

The right way to proceed is by accepting that so far as it can be applied, the principle of insurance should govern and shape all schemes of social assistance and social welfare which this country may seek to organise and to maintain. It is a fair principle that those who are to benefit specifically should contribute towards the benefits which in time they will enjoy. On the contrary, I think that it is not a fair principle that the community on the whole should be taxed in order to provide benefits for certain specific classes, particularly for those classes which are not in such absolute need as to justify the extension to them of public charity.

There is a degree of inconsistency running through this speech to which I am now referring because I understood that in relation to the very important question of the provision of medical attention for the members of the community, the Fine Gael Party had taken a firm stand upon the principle of insurance and that, in fact, their opposition to the Health Acts of 1947 and 1953 was based on the fact that powers were taken under those Acts to provide medical services for persons who could not pay for them and even for persons who, though they might have been able to pay for them to some degree, nevertheless were not being insured to cover themselves against the risk, or the contingency, that at one time or another they might have to avail of the health services. I find that that insurance principle has been thrown over, perhaps temporarily, in order to find some ground for criticising this Bill.

It was alleged also—and in this connection I could refer to the speeches made by Senator Crowley and Senator Burke—that this Bill was going to impose a heavy burden upon industry, a burden so heavy that, Senator Crowley suggested, ultimately it might involve an increase in unemployment in so far as workers might be put out of employment because the employers would not be able to pay the increase in the contribution and to maintain their industries in an efficient and competitive position. I think that is an argument in respect of which we must ask ourselves the question which I asked in relation to the speech of Senator O'Donovan: what does that mean? It either means that we cannot afford these social welfare schemes, these social insurance schemes, and therefore we should not have them, or else we should not accept the insurance principle at all. I think that the most enlightened and realistic trade union opinion takes the view that it would prefer that the insurance principle would be given effect to.

There is a good reason for that because after all if a person insures himself against a certain contingency and the contingency happens to materialise, whatever benefits he will enjoy he will enjoy as of right and not as a concession given by his fellows in the community. It is a very good thing to know that whatever benefits and whatever advantages you may enjoy in life are yours by right and not, as I say, by concession or by charity. It seems to me that the argument which is based on the fact that there is going to be a charge on industry is an argument directed against the very existence, not to speak of the expansion of any system of social insurance, of any system of social assistance at all. I do not think that that was in the mind of Senator Crowley and I do not believe either, to be quite candid, that it was in the mind of Senator O'Donovan.

Let us see what is the imposition this Bill will make upon the average employer. I think that it is a fair attribution of the cost of a product to say that in general, in any efficient industry, the labour cost will not exceed one-third of the total cost of the product. In fact we know in certain cases it is something below that. The average earnings per worker—again I am taking a round figure, without having recourse to any statistical tables—it would not be unfair to say, taking workers by and large in any industry, are not less than £9 per week. Some of them, as has been pointed out, earn a great deal more, but £9 is not an unfair figure to take. The sum of 1/9d. in respect of a worker who costs him £9 represents one-third of the employer's labour costs so that we have the position that a worker who is earning 2,160 pence carries with him, or attaches to his employer, a liability of 21 pence. That is to say that represents 1 per cent. of the weekly wage earnings of that employee and the weekly earnings of that employee represent one-third the cost of the product. Therefore, we are in this situation, that the total charge which this Bill would impose in general on industry or any particular part of industry would be about one-third of 1 per cent.

In present circumstances, I do not think that is going to constitute any burden on any industry. Therefore, there is no justification for the argument which is made here. Of course, it is the sort of stock argument which is always trotted out by reactionaries whenever there is any proposal for the betterment of the workers. But suppose we did not proceed on this basis and suppose we desired to make some sort of provision for our old people when they come to the age when they should retire, or at least be put in the position when they might retire, what are we to do?

Are we to put the whole cost of the Bill directly on the taxpayers and indeed upon some of those people about whom Senator O'Donovan professed to be concerned? Are we to bring in the west of Ireland where people do not see £9 a week coming into their homes and ask them to pay some part of these costs? Mind you, they will pay under this Bill. Make no mistake about it, every person in the country will have to contribute. Almost 37 per cent. of the cost of this whole scheme will be paid, one way or the other, in taxation. Are they to pay in addition to that 37 per cent., the other 63 per cent.?

When we come down to the arguments and criticisms that have been used against this Bill that, in the first place, it imposes too heavy a charge on the employer and, secondly, that it imposes too heavy a charge on the employee, the only logical conclusion we can reach is that those who use that criticism desire that the whole cost should fall upon the community as a whole. Of course if that happens, it will fall upon those who are less able to pay any additional charges.

Senator Murphy had a number of things to say about the Bill in his very reasonable and informative speech. One of the points he argued just is not possible in present circumstances and it would not be possible to accept it because the principle involved is not a sound one. He devoted quite an amount of his speech to the position of those who are insured only for the purpose of the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. In that regard, he made the point that those who had been insured for the purposes of that scheme, and for one reason or another went out of insurance, should be put in the favoured position that they could, at a certain period of their lives, elect to come in as voluntary contributors and, in that capacity, be entitled to pay in one lump sum, at one time, all the arrears of contributions which would have accrued over the years.

That, of course, is not a sound principle of insurance. The whole basis of insurance is that people carry risks. A person carries the risk of having to pay a premium for a longer period than he anticipated. The insurer, on the other hand, takes the risk of the contingency against which the premium policy-holder is insured, maturing earlier than it normally would. The whole idea is that the insurer, or the company carrying the policy, will have the use and benefit of the premiums which are paid in respect of any long term insurance proposition.

It is the same with the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. That scheme was originally devised as an insurance scheme—perhaps the insurance basis is not as marked as it used to be, but the actuarial principle must be kept definitely in mind. It is still the basis of the scheme, and the whole character of the scheme, that it is an insurance scheme based on insurance principles. Therefore, the State, which in this case carries the risk, should have the benefit and advantage of the insured person's money from the payments, from the beginning.

It would not be of very much use or advantage to the voluntary contributor if at the time when he elected to join as a voluntary contributor, he had to pay not merely the total contributions but also all the accrued interest. He would not be very much better off than he is at the present time. I do not think there is any possibility of any Minister coming to the Oireachtas and suggesting that a person should be entitled to join this scheme as a voluntary contributor at whatever date he might elect to do so.

I do not regard this point as of any great moment but I think it should be made clear. Senator Murphy said a small percentage of the population attained the age of 70 years. Estimates have been made with regard to this matter which show that between 4,000 and 5,000 insured persons attain the age of 70 years every year. That is not a very small proportion of the number of people of 70 years and over in the country.

Another point made by Senator Murphy was a comparison between the percentage increase in the rates of contribution and the rates of benefit. Of the total cost of £6,960,000 under this Bill, a sum of £4,660,000 is for the new benefits—for old age pensions and the other increases in contributions in general—but the Senator ignores the extension of widows' and orphans' pensions after they reach the age of 70 years, and the new allowances and increases in respect of children, and in respect of children in excess of two. These all have to be paid for and they represent, in general, a further £2,300,000.

Senator Miss Davidson referred to the third contribution condition. Under Section 13 of the Bill, regulations will be made which will enable persons who do not find it possible to fulfil that condition to receive reduced benefits. Of course, there is a point at which their entitlement to reduced benefits ceases, but there will be provision by regulations made under this Bill which will allow reduced benefits to be paid to persons who have not succeeded in fulfilling the third condition. Again, self-employed persons, as such, are not excluded. In the case which Senator Miss Davidson cited of the skilled worker becoming self-employed, he can become a voluntary contributor. Once he was in employment insurable for all purposes, he can become a voluntary contributor for the contributory old age pension.

I do not think any other point arose in the course of the debate which calls for any further encroachment on, the time of the Seanad. I want to say this is an experimental Bill. As I said at the outset, I believe when starting a new enterprise that we should approach it with a certain degree of caution. My own estimate is reasonably conservative, but I do not think it is unduly pessimistic. I think it will be found that the Bill will work out very much as we anticipate. It is a beginning, and no doubt the matters which have been argued here today will arise for consideration at a later stage. The main thing is to launch this scheme, to see how it works and, as time goes on, to see how much we shall be able to improve it, having regard to the economic circumstances of the time.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.