Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 26 Jul 1963

Vol. 56 No. 21

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1963 — Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

Tá sé de phríomh chuspóir ag an mBille seo na méadaithe ó'n gcéad lá de Shamhain seo chugainn i níocaíochtaí Chúnaimh Shóisialaigh agus na moltaí chun feabhsú na scéimeanna Árachais ó thosach Eanáir seo chugainn a fógraíodh sa Cháinaisnéis do chur i bhfeidhm. Tá roinnt feabhsanna eile ins an mBille freisin ar chúnamh sóisialach, árachas sóisialach, agus ar an scéim árachais fliuch-aimsire.

Forálann an Bille go méadófar ar na rátaí uilig pinsean sean-aoise agus daille neamh-ranníocach agus pinsean neamh-ranníocach baintrí atá ann do réir 2/6d. i naghaidh na seachtaine. Gheobhaidh faighteoir cúnaimh dífhostaíochta méadú do réir 2/6d. i naghaidh na seachtaine i n-a leith féin, agus méadú breise do réir 2/6d. i naghaidh na seachtaine i leith cleithiúnaí aosaithe. Tá feabhsanna móra dá ndéanamh maidir le liúntais faoi na hAchtanna Liúntas Leanaí. Tá liúntas nua do réir 10/- i naghaidh na míosa dá thabhairt isteach do'n chéad nó do leanbh aonair cáilithe i gclainn agus tá an liúntas atá ann do'n tríu agus do gach leanbh cáilithe eile dá méadú faoi 4/6d. i naghaidh na míosa. Gheobhaidh duine le triúr leanbh liúntais míosúla de 52/- i n-ionad 37/6d. faoi láthair agus gheobhaidh duine le cúigear leanbh liúntais do réir 105/- i n-ionad 81/6d.

Is iad seo na méadaithe a éiríonn de bhárr moltaí na cáinaisnéise ar an dtaobh cúnaimh shóisialaigh.

Ina theannta sin, tá feabhsanna eile dá ndéanamh maidir le cúnamh sóisialach. Tá ráta nua pinsin sean-aoise neamhranníocaigh dá bhunú do réir 5/- i naghaidh na seachtaine chomh maith le leathnú ar an dteorainn bliantúil acmhainne ó £130 15s. go £143 15s. Maidir le pinsean neamh-ranníocach baintrí, soláthraítear íocaíocht liúntais a íoctar i leith leanaí mar chuid de na pinsin sin do leanaí áirithe a thosnaíonn ar chónaí go rialta leis an mbaintrigh i ndiaidh bás a céile agus nach bhfuil an liúntas iníoctha leo faoi láthair. Táthar dá mholadh freisin go nathrófar an chaoi i n-a n-áirmhítear luach bliantúil caipitil ag breithniú acmhainn baintrí nó linbh le haghaidh forálacha pinsin neamhranníocaigh baintrí nó dílleachta.

Ar an dtaobh árachais soláthruíonn an Bille méadú do 5/- i naghaidh na seachtaine ar na rátaí bunaidh pearsanta de shochar míochumais agus dífhostaíochta, liúntas máithreachais, phinsean baintrí (ranníocach) agus phinsean sean-aoise (ranníocach), agus tá an ráta seachtainiúil speisialta sochair míchumais agus dífhostaíochta do mhná pósta agus do dhaoine faoi ocht mbliana déag d'aois á árdú do réir 4/-.

Soláthraítear freisin méadaithe ar na liúntais atá iníoctha leis na sochair sin i leith cleithiúnaí aosaithe. Tosnóidh na rátaí nua sa chéad sheachtain d'Eanáir, 1964. Tá rátaí nua ranníoca fostaíochta soláthraithe sa Bhille. Is é an méadú is mó 1/4d. i naghaidh na seachtaine, nó 8d. an duine do'n fhostóir agus do'n duine árachaithe.

Seachas na méadaithe ar rátaí, tá roinnt leasaithe eile ar an dlí dá dhéanamh ar thaobh an árachais, mar atá, sainmhíniú nua ar "sheirbhís tighis" dá thabhairt isteach agus múinteoirí i gColáistí Traenála Eolaíocht Teaghlaigh dá gcur ar aon bhonn le múinteorí eile i gcúrsaí árachais. Maidir leis an scéim pinsean ranníochach sean-aoise, soláthraítear go mbeidh teideal uathoibritheach ag baintrigh pinsinéara sean-aoise (ranníocach) do phinsean baintrí (ranníocach) i n-ionad sochair faoi leith a bhí iníoctha cheana do réir ráta níba lú agus a bhí gan liúntais dá leanaí má b'ann dóibh. Táthar freisin le rialacháin a dhéanamh chun go mbeifear i n-ann méadú i leith cleithiúnaí aosaithe ar phinsean sean-aoise (ranníocach) a íoc díreach leis an gcleithiúnaí i gcásanna áirithe Táthar freisin chun a sholáthar go mbeifear i n-ann liúntas linbh i gcás pinsin baintrí (ranníocach) a íoc i leith leanaí áirithe a thosnaíonn ar chónaí go rialta leis an mbaintrigh i ndiadh bás a céile díreach mar a dúirt mé cheanna maidir le pinsean baintrí neamhranníocach.

Soláthraíonn an Bille freisin mionathraithe sa scéim fliuch-aimsire. An chéad cheann díobh seo ligfidh sé do dhaoine a bhfuil 18 mbliana slánuithe acu (i n-ionad 21 mar atá) bheith mar oibrithe oilte nó neamh-oilte agus faoi na rátaí níos aoirde sochair agus ranníoca is cuí do'n dá aicme sin. Faoi'n dara athrú acu seo beidh sochar fliuch-aimsire iníoctha i leith leathuaire breise nuair a bhíonn leath-uair breise san áireamh i stad oibre a leanann ar feadh lae iomlán oibre.

As Senators will have seen from the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill, the Bill is primarily concerned with giving legislative effect to the increases in the rates of non-contributory, old age, blind and widows' pensions, children's allowances and unemployment assistance which were announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement on 23rd April last and also the increases in rates of social insurance benefits foreshadowed in that statement. In addition, the Bill proposes some further improvements in the social assistance and insurance codes and in the Intermittent Unemployment or Wet-Time Insurance Scheme.

For the convenience of Senators, I will deal first with the social assistance increases and improvements which are intended to come into operation on 1st November next. The increases proposed in the rates of non-contributory old age and blind pensions are 2/6d. a week which will bring the new rates of those pensions to 35/-, 30/-, 25/-, 20/-, 15/- and 10/-, according to the means of the pensioner as set out in the table to Section 2.

A recipient of unemployment assistance will get an increase of 2/6d. a week in respect of himself and a similar increase for an adult dependant, if he has one. This will make the maximum rate for a married man with a dependant wife but no dependant children 47/6d. a week in an urban area, and 39/6d. in a rural area. The rates of widows' non-contributory pension are also to be increased by 2/6d. a week and the proposed new rates are shown in the table in Section 4.

The children's allowances scheme is being extended by the payment of an allowance at the rate of 10/- a month in respect of the first child in a household. This will result not only in payment being made for the first child in each of the existing families in receipt of allowances — some 225,000 in all — but will provide allowances for an estimated 84,000 one-child families who are not at present receiving allowances. In addition, the rate of allowance for the third and each subsequent qualified child in a household is to be increased by 4/6d. a month from 22/- at present to 26/6d. The effect of these increased payments can, perhaps, best be shown by a few examples — the monthly allowance for a family of three children for instance will go up from £1 17s. 6d. to £2 12s. 0d. while for a family of five, the new rate will be £5 5s. 0d. as against £4 1s. 6d.

As I have mentioned, some other improvements on the Social Assistance side are also included in the Bill. The first of these relates to non-contributory old age and blind pensions and is, in fact, dealt with in Section 2 of the Bill. The increase of 2/6d. in each rate of pension would result in a new minimum pension rate of 10/-, which would be payable where the yearly means of the pensioner exceeded £117 15s. but did not exceed £130 15s. As the weekly rates of Old Age Pension vary, according to the means of the pensioner, by steps of 5/-, it has been decided to add a further step by introducing a rate of pension of 5/-weekly to be payable where the yearly means exceed £130 15s. but do not exceed £143 15s. This is in line with last year's Act under which two new rates were added at the bottom of the scale giving a new minimum rate of pension of 7/6d. which, under the present Bill, is to be increased to 10/-. The new step is included in the Table in Section 2.

A second improvement concerns widows' non-contributory pensions where at present an allowance as part of pension may be paid only in respect of a child who normally resides with a widow and who resided with her or her husband immediately before he died or who, being a child or step-child of the husband, became normally resident with the widow after his death. It is now proposed that this allowance should also be paid in respect of a grand-child of the widow or her late husband, a child or step-child of the widow or a child who is adopted by the widow after her husband's death— the basic qualification still being that the child is normally resident with the widow within the meaning of the rules made for that purpose under the Children's Allowances Acts.

The Bill also proposes to ease the method of calculating the value of capital or property invested or capable of investment for purposes of the non-contributory widows' or orphans' pension scheme. Since that scheme was introduced in 1935, the yearly value of such capital or property has been calculated by ignoring the first £25, taking 5 per cent of the next £375 and 10 per cent of any excess over £400. The same method has applied in relation to non-contributory old age pensions since 1919, where it can be justified on the basis that it gives a means assessment commensurate with the return that may be obtained by surrendering the capital for an annuity at age 70. It operates too severely in relation to widows under that age, especially those with children and I feel sure that Senators will agree that some concession is justified in the case of widows to assist them in making the serious economic adjustment with which the great majority of them are normally faced on the death of the husband and particularly in relation to the education of any children which they may have.

It is therefore proposed that for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes the amount of capital to be ignored should be increased from £25 to £100 in all cases, that a further sum of £100 should be ignored for each qualified child normally residing with a widow, and that any remaining balance should be assessed at 5 per cent. The revised method of assessment would for example allow a widow with two qualified children to qualify for a pension at minimum rate if she has capital amounting to £3,955 as against £2,040 at present.

The yearly cost of the proposed social assistance increases and improvements is estimated at £4,000,000, comprised of £761,000 in respect of non-contributory old age and blind pensions, £181,000 in respect of unemployment assistance, £178,000 in respect of non-contributory widows' pensions and £2,880,000 in respect of children's allowances, including £1,857,000 in respect of the new allowance for the first child. In the current financial year, the cost will be in the region of £1,688,000 since the increases take effect from the beginning of November next.

I now come to the provisions of the Bill relating to social insurance schemes. Section 15 of the Bill provides for an increase of 5/- weekly in the basic personal rates of disability and unemployment benefit, maternity allowance, widow's (contributory) pension and old age (contributory) pension for an increase of 4/- a week in the special weekly rate of disability and unemployment benefit for married women and persons under 18 years. Provision is also made to increase the allowances payable in respect of adult dependants by 5/- in the case of unemployment and disability benefit and 2/6d. in the case of old age (contributory) pension. The increased rates of disability and unemployment benefit and maternity allowance and of the associated dependants' allowances will come into effect on the 6th January, 1964. The new rates of widows' (contributory) pension and old age (contributory) pension and the allowances payable with them, will come into effect on 3rd January, 1964, the first normal payday in the New Year.

Senators will appreciate that these increased rates of benefit will heavily increase expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund and an increase in rates of contribution by employers and insured persons is, therefore, unavoidable. New rates of employment contributions are provided for in Section 14, while increases in rates of voluntary contribution are provided for in Section 8. The maximum increase in employment contribution is 1/4d. per week, or 8d. each for employer and insured person, in the case of those contributions which count for all benefits. Contributions which give title to limited number of benefits are being increased by an amount related to the cost of the increases in those benefits only. A table comparing the existing contribution rates with the new rates which will be effective from 6th January, 1964, is given in the Explanatory Memorandum circulated with the Bill.

It is estimated that the increased contributions by employers and workers will increase the income of the Social Insurance Fund by £1,718,000 a year. The increases and improvements in social insurance benefits provided in this Bill will cost the Social Insurance Fund an estimated additional £2,379,000. The additional excess of expenditure over income to be borne by the State will thus amount to £661,000 in a full year making the total State contribution to the Fund about £8,643,000 in a full year, some 36.5 per cent of the total income of the Fund.

The Bill also includes some provisions designed to clarify the law and effect some improvements in relation to social insurance. A reduced rate of employment contributions which does not count for unemployment benefit purposes is paid in respect of females employed in domestic service. The term "domestic service" as originally defined in the Social Welfare Act, 1952, was intended to confine the expression to domestic service given in the home. However, difficulties of interpretation have since arisen and provision is made in Section 7 to ensure that domestic service rendered mainly in relation to the students in a boarding school or college is not to be regarded as domestic service for insurance purposes. The opportunity is also being taken to bring the position in regard to insurability of pensionable teachers in Domestic Science Training Colleges into line with that of pensionable national, secondary and vocational teachers generally. Pensionable teachers in domestic science training colleges are at present compulsorily insurable for all benefits and pay contributions at the full rate. However, as they are pensionable, their position is no different to that of pensionable teachers in National, Secondary or Vocational schools, for whom contributions at reduced rates, which reckon only for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes, are payable and Section 9 of the Bill makes provision to enable them to be similarly treated for insurance purposes.

Some improvements are being effected in the old age (contributory) pension scheme. In the first place, the existing provision for continuation of payment of adult dependant's allowance to former adult dependants of deceased pensioners is being replaced by provision that the widow of a pensioner will automatically qualify for a widow's (contributory) pension which will be higher than the allowance and which will also attract additions for her children under age 16, if any. The allowance as a former adult dependant will continue to be payable to widowers of deceased female old age (contributory) pensioners but the rate will correspond with the rate of widow's contributory pension.

The Bill also includes a provision whereby regulations may be made under which the allowance for a wife or dependent husband as part of old age (contributory) pension may, in certain circumstances, be paid to the dependant. Under existing law the pension, including the allowance, must be paid in full to the pensioner. This can result in hardship or serious inconvenience where the husband and wife, due to circumstances outside their control, live at different addresses, for example, where both are in need of nursing and are taken in by different relations, or where the husband fails in his obligation to maintain his wife. In this connection I might mention that if the wife is over 70 she is disqualified for receiving a non-contributory old age pension where her husband qualifies for a dependant's allowance in respect of her as part of his contributory old age pension.

Finally, in relation to social insurance, provision is made in Section 12 to enable payment of an allowance for a child as part of widow's (contributory) pension to be made for a child, grand-child, step-child or adopted child of the widow or her husband who comes to live with the widow after her husband's death. I dealt with a similar concession in relation to non-contributory widow's pension earlier.

Turning now to the wet-time insurance scheme, Senators will recall that this is a scheme of insurance which provides for payment of benefit to workers in the building, civil engineering and painting trades, when wages are lost due to stoppages of work caused by bad weather. Two changes in the scheme, which require legislation, are provided for in this Bill. There are three classes of insured persons covered by the scheme—skilled workers, unskilled workers and young persons, each class paying different contributions and receiving different rates of benefit. At present, a person may not be regarded as a skilled or unskilled worker until the beginning of the insurance year following that in which he attains the age of twenty-one. It is now proposed to reduce this age to eighteen, having regard to conditions generally in the building industry and the fact that the full rates of benefit are payable to male workers under the Social Insurance Scheme from the age of eighteen.

Again, wet-time insurance benefit is at present not payable for periods of less than an hour included in any period of a stoppage of work. Arising out of the introduction of the five-day week in the Dublin area, an 8½ hour day is in operation in that area for half of the year and a 7½ hour day for the remainder of the year. It is proposed therefore to pay wet-time insurance benefit in respect of a fraction of an hour, which is not less than half an hour, where the working day contains such a fraction of an hour and the stoppage of work extends over the full working day. The rate of payment proposed is half the appropriate hourly rate.

In conclusion, it may be helpful to summarise the cost to the Exchequer of the various proposals which I have outlined. In relation to Social Assistance, the total costs are estimated to amount to £4 million in a full year and to £1,688,000 in the current financial year. The cost to the Exchequer of the social insurance proposals is £661,000 in a full year and £250,000 in the current year. The overall cost to the Exchequer will therefore be £4,661,000 in a full year and £1,938,000 in the present year.

As a result of all the proposals in this Bill recipients of social welfare payments will benefit to the extent of approximately £6,380,000 in a full year. It gives me great pleasure to recommend this measure to Seanad Éireann.

Mr. L'Estrange

The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the decision of the Government as announced in the Budget Statement of 23rd April to increase social assistance benefits from 1st November next and other social welfare benefits from 6th January, 1964. In discussing this Bill, we must take into consideration the entire budgetary proposals of the Government. Everybody agrees that an increase in social welfare benefits is necessary, even if we did not have the Budget proposals, because the cost of living has increased over the past year and we know that the old age pensioners and social welfare recipients were promised in the Budget of 1962 a further increase of 2/6 a week this year. Therefore, I believe the present increase is not adequate to meet the existing circumstances of the people who receive them, even without waiting for the full impact of the recent Budget, especially the turnover tax.

It is a well-known fact that this turnover tax, this iniquitous tax on bread, butter, flour, tea, sugar, meat and clothing, will increase the cost of living and therefore I believe the increases being given to the different categories under the Social Welfare Acts will not compensate them. The Bill is supposed to mitigate the hardships which the continued upward trend of prices over the past few years, especially since the subsidies were removed, has caused to many hapless people and to cushion them against the inevitable further increase in the cost of living that will occur when the turnover tax comes into operation.

Many of these people are incapable of serious work. Many of the old age pensioners gave good service in their day and helped to build up the State. They retired when circumstances were easier, when the cost of living was much lower and they looked forward to comfort and security in their old age. It cannot be denied that hardship does exist among the social welfare categories in our large towns and cities. In some cases, these hardships are very severe. Were it not for the St. Vincent de Paul Society and other charitable organisations, we would have severe malnutrition in many large families. This turnover tax will place a further heavy burden on those unfortunate people and also on the different charitable organisations doing such valuable work.

It was admitted by the Minister for Finance in the Dáil that the Finance Bill will increase the cost of food, fuel and clothing of the people by roughly £7½ million pounds per annum. There will be a further increase of £3 million charged to the other ordinary purchases of the public. There is very little being done in this Bill to give these unfortunate people justice or fair-play in their old age, in their sickness or in their less happy times.

If we compare the 35/- a week the old age pensioners will receive on 1st November with the pre-war value of money, the new rate is the equivalent of 11/8d. in terms of 1939 money. Therefore, since 1939, 24 years ago, we have increased the real value of the old age pensions by only 1/8d. per week. So we can all criticise this Bill on the ground that the increases are meagre, especially when compared with the increases given to the judges last year. Speaking in the Dáil on that matter the Taoiseach said that we should give them a salary sufficient to put them in a position in which they would be immune from improper influences of any kind. It is a pity he did not say that the social welfare categories should get benefits that would put them in a position in which they would be immune from hardship of any kind.

Many people pay lip service to the 1916 Proclamation. I take one paragraph from that Proclamation and I quote:

The Republic guarantees equal rights and opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing the children of the nation equally.

Can anyone claim that the Government are living up to the 1916 Proclamation in regard to equal rights and opportunities or cherishing all the children of the nation equally by giving a meagre increase of 2/6d. a week to old age pensioners and £14 a week to a High Court judge who already had £100 a week? There is a very big difference between £114 a week and £1 15s. a week—as a matter of fact there is a difference of £112 5s. Therefore nobody can claim that the Government are living up to the ideal of the 1916 Proclamation of equal opportunities for all and of cherishing all the children of the nation equally. I do not want to say that because a judge gets £114, old age pensioners or the recipients of social welfare should get the same, but if we thought it right to give those people an increase of £14 a week to cushion them against the cost of living, certainly old age pensioners and widows and orphans are entitled to much more than 2/6d. a week.

We should remember that social welfare recipients have mouths to feed, families to clothe and the cost of living hits them harder than any other section because they have to live on bread, butter and tea three or four times a day. I am surprised at a Government, who talk so much about moving to the left treating these people as they are treating them. The Government by abolishing food subsidies, and now for the first time in our history taxing the necessaries of life and increasing the cost of living, ought to face up to the fact that——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I think, Sir, you should ask the Senator to come to the Bill now. He is putting this propaganda across on every Bill. We all heard it before and I am tired of it.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Government should face up to the fact that what they are giving with one hand they are taking away with the other. That is what is being done in this Bill. A policy of taking from the shoulders of those who can afford it and putting it on to the shoulders of the poor is a revolting social concept. If it is the Fianna Fáil 20th century moving to the left and economic efficiency, it certainly does not represent social justice for those classes of people.

Miss Davidson

In so far as this Bill may give some increases to the needy sections of the community, we should support it. When increases are granted in the Budget to the sick, the aged and widows and orphans and others who rely on social welfare benefits for their maintenance, there is generally a feeling of satisfaction, even though such increases mean an increase in taxation on the general public. The amounts to be paid to the various social welfare categories under this Bill are insufficient to maintain them in even the most frugal manner. I should like very much to have been in a position to congratulate the Minister for the increases in this Bill but I would feel something of a hypocrite were I to do so because I do not think they go any distance towards meeting our obligations to our aged citizens. Even if the 2/6d. increase were to be given in full, it would scarcely meet the increases in prices which have taken place since the last adequate increase. They certainly will not place the people receiving them in a position of comfort and bearing in mind, as has already been said, that the turnover tax will take back a good share of their small increases, there are no grounds for congratulation.

As was pointed out when the tax was under discussion, persons drawing social welfare benefits must buy their requirements for small amounts, in shillings and halfcrowns, so they will be forced to pay the turnover tax on their food, clothing and other necessaries at a rate much in excess of the 2½ per cent. I should have liked to see the Minister taking his courage in his hands by giving decent benefits to the sick, the aged and the other social welfare classes. With the turnover tax likely to produce something in the neighbourhood of £11 million it would not have taken a great deal of courage to have asked for the setting aside of a much larger sum than usual to enable these people to meet the increased charges which they soon will have to meet for every item of food and clothing and which at least would place them in a position of reasonable comfort. The increase in the benefits payable to insured persons is roughly 5/- per week which, if analysed, is really very small, having regard to the fact that insurance contributions will be increased and those concerned will pay a good slice of the increase by way of the turnover tax.

The Minister for Finance, replying to the debate on the Finance Bill, said that the Labour Party always opposed taxation while always looking for increases. I am not quoting the Minister's exact words. He said that in 1957 the Labour Party opposed all taxation. I cannot see any evidence to substantiate that statement. Senator Yeats, without any knowledge at all, echoed the Minister's words, parrotwise. No doubt the Labour Party opposed the 1957 Budget but this was because it worsened, to a considerable degree, the conditions of the workers and the lower income groups. The completion of the withdrawal of the food subsidies was under the 1957 Budget and there followed immediately a steep rise in prices, the details of which are so well known that I need not go over them again.

By this time, it was also clear to the public that the Prices Advisory Body was doomed to abolition. Speaking in the Dáil on the Budget debate of that year, the Leader of the Labour Party said that the Budget was entitled to take its place with its brazen relation, the 1952 Budget, by which the main food subsidies were withdrawn. It is true that the Labour Party have opposed the raising of taxation where such taxation is placed on the shoulders of those least fitted to bear it. They have consistently sought to have the burden shifted to where it ought rest.

I find in the Labour Party general election programme for 1957 a paragraph dealing with income tax which reads:

The Party will urge the new Dáil to undertake a review of the income tax code so as to secure an equitable distribution of the tax burden in relation to the buying capacity of the different sections of the community and in particular to give greater relief in respect of personal and dependants' allowances for persons in the lower and middle income groups.

In the Budget Debate of 1958, the Leader of the Labour Party said, as reported in columns 626 to 627 of the Official Report of 23rd April, 1958:

One felt that the Minister might have done something to relieve some part of increased taxes for a large number of persons. Single men and single women whose lower rate of pay before the war did not make them liable for income tax — although their purchasing power today is no greater than it was in 1938-39 — are now being compelled to pay income tax on rates of wages which have no greater purchasing power than their rates of wages in 1938-39. The Minister might have found some opportunity of providing relief for these classes, especially when he reflected on the excessively generous manner in which he acted towards the master bakers during the year which has just left us.

That reference to the master bakers concerns a subsidy gift of about £250,000. That is not "opposing taxation" and, speaking against the background of the withdrawal of the food subsidies, increased health charges, the certainty of the abolition of the Prices Advisory Body — it was abolished in July, 1958, when prices were still rising steeply — it was a reasonable and restrained approach. The Party did not oppose taxation. It merely opposed the manner of applying taxation and reminded the Minister for Finance that there were stronger shoulders to bear, and better-filled purses to meet taxation that was necessary to give him the money he required for the national house-keep-ing.

The Minister must realise the wisdom in the Labour Party attitude to taxation. It is bad business to take too much from those who have little thus condemning them to malnutrition, as Senator Jessop told us is the situation when he spoke on the Finance Bill, while, at the same time, taking too little from those who have much and who in many cases are in a position to retain their high incomes, no matter what taxation is imposed, by tax evasions.

I am glad the Minister has made an improvement by easing to some degree the means test and I hope, as time goes on, he or his successors in office will continue to make improvements in regard to the means which recipients of old age pensions, and so on, may be permitted to hold. It always did seem to me to be rather a bad principle that a person who was thrifty and saved against old age or ill-health should be penalised by being refused an old age or other pension when no longer able to work to maintain himself.

A point arises on which I should like some information. Much dissatisfaction exists because of the fact that the under 18s pay the full adult unemployment contribution but receive only a reduced rate of benefit. One of the unions with a large juvenile membership asked me to raise the matter and to ask why this difference is made particularly when even the full rate of unemployment benefit falls short of the cost of maintenance when unemployment comes along. Could the Minister say anything on that point?

Mr. Yeats

I should like very briefly to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. Indeed, I think our congratulations should be extended a bit. I should like to congratulate him on coming here for I think the fifth year in succession with a Bill of this kind. I was interested to hear Senator Miss Davidson suggest that this year we might have given a larger increase than usual. I was interested to hear her perhaps unconscious admission that under the Fianna Fáil Government, it is an annual affair or at least it has come to be expected that it will be an annual affair to bring forward in Bills of this kind to increase the social services.

Mr. L'Estrange

So has the cost of living.

Mr. Yeats

Under the Coalition Government, the cost of living went up by 71/2 per cent. In a moment, I shall deal with that position. I think everyone in this House would like to see larger social services, better benefits of all kinds, but it is a matter of what the people can afford. It is unfortunately true that there is only one Party in this House that will ever be prepared to come in here and support the taxation needed for increasing benefits of this kind. It is absolutely no use for Senator Miss Davidson to suggest that the Labour Party would in fact support any taxation that may be needed for these kinds of purposes. It is perfectly correct to say that they have voted against every form of taxation——

Miss Davidson

Do not talk rot.

Mr. L'Estrange

Nonsense.

Mr. Yeats

I think they must have misheard the Minister. Senator Miss Davidson looked up the 1957 Budget. I think she should have looked up the 1952 Budget and seen how they voted on an increase in income tax. Every year that an increase in tax may be necessary the Labour Party say they cannot vote for the tax, that they would vote for some other tax but not for the one the Government are bringing in or perhaps they say they will vote for a certain tax if the Government will bring in something else.

Whatever the excuses may be, the fact remains that the Labour Party will not support Fianna Fáil in the necessary taxation for increased expenditure of this kind.

Miss Davidson

That is not true.

Mr. Yeats

Not only that, but when they are in office they will not raise the taxation themselves to increase the social services.

Miss Davidson

Nonsense.

Mr. Yeats

Senator Miss Davidson quoted the Leader of the Labour Party who asked for increases in social services, and so on. Our memories are not so short that we cannot remember that our Minister for Social Welfare from 1954 to 1957 was the person who is now Leader of the Labour Party. It is no harm to mention briefly the record of the last few years with regard to the main social services.

Take 1957, under Fianna Fáil. There have been a series of what Senator Miss Davidson describes as annual increases in the old age pension.

Miss Davidson

There always have been.

Mr. Yeats

After the passing of this Bill, there will be an increase of 11/-in the old age pension since 1957. From 1954 to 1957, at a time when the cost of living rose by approximately 7½ per cent, the old age pension increased by 2/6. Unemployment assistance has increased in urban areas by I think 9/6d. since 1957 for a single man. For a man with a wife and four children, the total increase is 21/-. Under the Labour Minister for Social Welfare, in the three years he was in office, in a time of rising cost of living, there was no increase whatever, not one penny, in unemployment assistance.

Mr. L'Estrange

When?

Mr. Yeats

Unemployment benefit has increased under Fianna Fáil since 1957 by 12/6 for a single man and by 48/6 for a man with a wife and four dependent children. Under the Labour Minister for Social Welfare, in three years of rising cost of living, there was no increase whatever—not one 1d. Widows' pensions, contributory pensions, increased by 12/6d. a week under Fianna Fáil or 41/- where she has four dependent children. I need hardly add, again, that no increase whatever was given in the three years of Coaliton Government between 1954 and 1957.

Mr. L'Estrange

On what?

Mr. Yeats

Widows' non-contributory pensions have increased by 11/-or by 27/- where there are four dependent children. Here an increase was given by the last Coalition Government of 2/6d. Disability benefit has increased by 12/6d. in the case of a single man and 48/6d. where there is a wife and four children. There was no increase whatever under the last Government. Children's allowances have increased, where there are four children, by 32/6 a month. There was no increase under the former Government. That is the record. There is no use in talking as Senators have been talking in this debate. It is perfectly obvious that, while we would all like to see higher benefits, on the record, not only of the past seven years but of the past 30 years, the only Party prepared to act and bring in increases in social benefits are Fianna Fáil and, where necessary, provide taxation for them.

Mr. L'Estrange

What is the use when you give with one hand and then take back with two?

Professor Jessop

I welcome the Bill. We would all like to see the increases being more substantial. As they are, they are inadequate. We cannot really discuss the amount of money needed by people who are poor, elderly or perhaps chronically ill, to meet their various difficulties unless we think about the overall provision made for these circumstances. In a different type of circumstance, in a different type of State set-up for dealing with these situations, money means different things.

In Britain, there is a comprehensive social insurance plan and provision is made for difficult circumstances in various ways so that the amounts of money paid directly as cash benefits to different types of people are therefore supplements rather than intended to meet their circumstances entirely. Here, as we know, we have not comprehensive social insurance. We tend rather to leave it to charitable organisations to take on a great deal of the work that is done by the State where there is the more comprehensive system. These charitable organisations are excellent but everybody who has to deal with poor people particularly, realises that voluntary organisations, whether operating in charitable, educational or other fields, tend to leave gaps unprovided for. One organisation has a special interest in one aspect of the problem; another in a different aspect; and perhaps between these there are people who do not come properly into either. They, therefore, tend to suffer hardships that are unprovided for.

It is in that regard I think we must look at the provision we are making here for the difficult circumstances of poor people. We have not home helps, health visitors, not the meals and wheels provision that is made in other countries for people who are house-bound and cannot look after themselves or have anybody to help them shopping. When you are in circumstances in which the only thing you have to meet your difficulties is a sum of money that comes in each week, then I think the sum of money is not enough. In the case of the elderly, for instance, it is 35/- from the State, but they are allowed to have £1 a week of their own so that the total amount they have to live on is, I think, 55/-. I do not believe an elderly person living alone can manage on that amount of money in these days.

So, while I welcome the Bill, I must express the opinion that the increases are insufficient. I do not think they would even be sufficient if there had not been a turnover tax and the repercussions it will have on the cost of living. I strongly suggest to the Minister that when he is bringing in the next Bill — Senator Yeats has told us that these things come every year and so we might expect another next year — he will take into account what I have said. This is the only thing we do in this country for this section of the community. We have none of the overall provisions which the more comprehensive systems provide.

Mr. McAuliffe

As a member of an old age pension committee since 1945, I have a fair idea of what is involved in this Bill. The Minister has done quite a bit of tidying up of the Social Welfare Acts in what he has now introduced. Anybody who is aware of the trouble one had to go to in connection with appeals and so on will agree that an amount of good has been done by this measure. Relaxation of the means test is something I have long looked forward to and I think the Minister has done fairly well in that regard. Recently, even before this Bill, it was much easier to get through with an appeal. I congratulate the Minister on doing that.

It has been the policy of the Labour Party to support social welfare increases at all times. When our leader was Minister for Social Welfare, he gave increases in benefits in spite of what Senator Yeats has said. When Fianna Fáil left office in 1948, the basic rate of old age pension was 10/-a week——

Mr. Yeats

What did Fine Gael give?

Mr. L'Estrange

They gave 5/-.

Mr. Yeats

They took off one shilling.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Senators know what that was to pay for.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathoirleach

Senators will cease interrupting. Let us have Senator McAuliffe on the Bill.

Mr. McAuliffe

I am sorry I started this argument. I understand that about £11.5 million is being collected as a result of the turnover tax and I notice that the amount required to meet increases in social welfare works out at about £4 million, less £780,000 increase in contributions. I hold that is the smallest increase ever given in social welfare as a result of increased taxation. I am definitely disappointed that the old age pensioners have been given an increase of only 2/6 a week. Many people do not come under the means test and just because the new Social Welfare Act was introduced a few years ago, they now find themselves in a very happy position. Quite a number of those on pension qualified because they were contributors and they are much better off on pension today than they were when working. A county council ganger or overseer, for instance, if he has full service, will get £7 13s. 4d. pension and will get £4 7s. 6d. for his wife, while he worked for £11 10s. People who get a pension according to their means, such as a person who never worked or just did some casual work for hire and had no stamps, have to carry on with £1 a week less than those who are contributory. We have always stood for increases in social welfare. We also believe that there are categories which have not been fairly treated. I cite as an example the old age pensioners.

Now, it is an extraordinary thing that last winter, when many farm labourers had to stay at home because of the weather, they actually earned more by being idle than they would have earned had they been at work. A friend of mine with a fairly large family found himself at home with £6 17s. 6d. a week as against £6 1s. a week which would have been his wage, had he been working. Naturally, he had no desire at all to go back to work.

The Minister responsible for social welfare and the Minister responsible for wages should get together and ensure that wages are such that there will be no desire on the part of any man to draw social welfare benefits. I have no objection to social welfare for the sick being as great as the wages earned. In most of the county councils, a sick pay scheme operates for the purpose of giving a man as much when he is ill as when he is working. There is sound logic in that. Employers who operate a sick pay scheme ensure that their employees are not at a loss financially should they fall ill. I approve of sick pay schemes.

It is wrong that farm labourers, county council workers, Land Commission workers, Board of Works employees, Forestry workers, Bord na Móna workers and others should get more by staying at home than they would earn working. Such a system is very bad for the country. I do not believe it happens in any other country. No farm worker, unless he is specialised, gets more than £6 1s. a week. A man with five children will get £6 17s. 6d. a week if he is unemployed. This is an aspect of social welfare that should be considered.

The Labour Party tried to do something about the wages of farm workers. Deputy Tully introduced a motion in the Dáil. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael voted against it. They said the present machinery was good enough to deal with the problems of farm labourers. When the farm labourers went before that body for an increase in their wages they were told: "We have a White Paper. We have a pay pause. Go home and wait until November." The present wage is not an encouragement to work. The basic wages of workers should be dealt with at the same time that social welfare is being dealt with and the basic rate should be higher than the benefits or assistance a man may get under social welfare should he become unemployed.

Another matter that arises is the question of redundancy. Because of the weather, and no one has any control over it, men are being laid off work with Bord na Móna already. It is an all-time record to have men dropped in the month of July.

Mr. Boland

I have nothing to do with Bord na Móna.

Mr. McAuliffe

Next week, those men will be on social welfare. Some of them will find themselves earning a good deal more under social welfare than they were earning with Bord na Móna. That is wrong. That is a position that cries for remedy. Basic rates should be pushed up so that men would have an incentive to work. I shall never rest content until basic rates are pushed up. If wages are high enough there is always an incentive to a man to work.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Senator L'Estrange said we are not cherishing all the children of the nation equally. This is, I think, actually the first occasion on which we can say we are. For the first time, an allowance of 10/- a month is being given for the first child. Ten shillings a month is £6 per year. It is 240 sixpences of the turnover tax, which is 6d. in the £. We are cherishing all the children of the nation reasonably equally, now that we are giving the first child 10/-a month, or £6 a year. A family with five children will now get five guineas a month instead of £4 1s. 6d. These allowances appear to me a magnificent step forward in social services, but we will never reach the stage of course, of giving them judges' salaries.

Mr. MacDonald

I should like to ask the Minister to expedite the decision on old age pension appeals. Two or three months ago, I spoke to him about a specific case. He received me very well. I was deeply indebted to him, but no decision has been arrived at since, I should be glad if these appeals did not take quite so long.

Senator Yeats emphasised the increases in the rates. I believe he is at variance with the Minister because the Minister described the increases as compensation for the increase in the cost of living as a result of the 2½ per cent turnover tax. If Senator L'Estrange spoke on those lines, Fianna Fáil members would accuse him of playing a record. Both sides of that record should be knocked out of this discussion.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The record should be thrown into the dustbin. It is nauseating to hear the Fine Gael Party weeping over the inadequacy of the social welfare increases. It is also nauseating to hear Labour speakers on the same subject. For the record, I should like to emphasise the point to which Senator Yeats referred. In 1948, the then Leader of the Labour Party became Minister for Social Welfare in a Coalition Government. He left office in 1951 without having done anything whatsoever——

Mr. L'Estrange

That is completely wrong.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

——to implement the promise he made to introduce an up-to-date social welfare scheme. In 1954, the present Leader of the Labour Party came into office, and he left office in 1957 without having added one jot or one iota to the social services.

Miss Davidson

What about workmen's compensation?

Mr. L'Estrange

That is completely wrong.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is nice to hear them talking about social welfare when not one of them did anything to improve it in either period. For the record, we must all remember that in 1922 when the British left this part of Ireland, they handed over one service which might have been described as a social service, that was, the old age pension. That was all they gave us after a legacy of neglect lasting for centuries. In 1932, when the people, under the leadership of Fianna Fáil, threw the Fine Gael Party into the dustbin, not one single social service had been added to the one the British handed over to us. In ten years, the only thing the Fine Gael Government had done in regard to social services was a cut of 1/- in the paltry old age pension.

Mr. L'Estrange

It was returned. It was still 10/- in 1948.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

In 1928, under pressure from Fianna Fáil, they were compelled to restore part of that cut. In 1932, when a Fianna Fáil Government came into office, they proceeded to begin the great programme of the institution of the social services which we have today. It is due solely and only to Fianna Fáil Governments that we have the social services which we have today.

Mr. L'Estrange

That was when you cut the salaries of the teachers and civil servants.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

No other Party contributed to that, and no other Party have any thanks coming for the social welfare system we have. Let me remind Senators that unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions, the Conditions of Employment Act, disablement allowances, children's allowances, holidays with pay, wet-time insurance, and the contributory old age pensions——

Mr. L'Estrange

And the new tax on food.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

——were all brought in by Fianna Fáil Governments, who were the only Governments who concerned themselves with the interests of the working people.

Mr. L'Estrange

They certainly made them poor.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

In the years during which the Labour Party participated in the Coalition Governments, they were in a position, as they said at the time, to enforce their domination over the Fine Gael section of the Government. They were in a position to get for the working people of this country the justice which had been denied them. They were in a position to bring into operation a social welfare scheme which would have helped to advance our code, and give us progressive steps towards the ideal at which we were all aiming. Although they dominated part of the Government— and by reason of their five votes the first time they were able to get what ever they wanted — the Labour Party had not the courage to put the screws on Fine Gael, with the result that they were merely the lickspittles in the Government, and allowed Fine Gael——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The term "lickspittle" is unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Other unparliamentary expressions were used during the past 48 hours, and no one was asked to withdraw them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am asking Senator Ó Maoláin to withdraw the term "lickspittle" as it is unparliamentary. He must withdraw it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not see any point in withdrawing it when others who used much more objectionable expressions were not asked to withdraw them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is only one expression under consideration at the moment, that is, the word "lickspittle", and it is not parliamentary.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I did not apply it to any individual, but to a group.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It was used in this House and it must be withdrawn. It is unparliamentary.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I have no intention whatever of withdrawing a word which, in my opinion, describes the attitude of the Labour group towards Fine Gael during the period of the Coalition Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Senator has no regard for the Chair.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Senator L'Estrange is the last man in the world to talk about respect for the Chair. He refuses to respect the Chair, and has consistently done so.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator L'Estrange will keep silent. The Leader of the House is not helping towards the establishment of order when he refuses to withdraw the word "lickspittle" which the Chair has ruled as unparliamentary. He will make a contribution to order if he withdraws it and proceeds with his speech.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

As an example to the ignorant attitude adopted by Senators on the other side of the House, with one notable example, I am prepared to withdraw the word as I have respect for order.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Senator will get it across some other way.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

As I was saying, during the whole period of the two Coalition Governments, the Labour group, had they any real interest in a system of social services could have insisted on one which would have been a credit to the country, but they failed to do anything. Now we find them moaning and groaning over the alleged inadequacy of the provisions in this Bill.

It must be remembered that during the past ten or 15 years, social services have been gradually and steadily improving. They are not ideal. In my opinion we have a long way to go. My ideal would be to bring our social welfare system into a position where it would be proportionately as good as the social welfare provisions that exist in civilised countries like the German Federal Republic, Holland and Great Britain. We have a long way to go. We are a small country, and we have not got an unlimited amount of money at our disposal. Year by year according as the Government saw how far they could go with the resources at their disposal, they have done their best to improve the rate of benefits under the various social welfare schemes. That has been, and will be, the policy of Fianna Fáil, and quotations from the Proclamation of the Republic by those who do not understand what the word "Republic" means have no value——

Mr. L'Estrange

It was a dictionary Republic to Fianna Fáil.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

——when they are not backed up by action. The only Party in the Dáil and Seanad who have tried to implement the social provisions of the Proclamation of the Republic, and the democratic programme of the First Dáil, are the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. L'Estrange

Go bhfoiridh Dia orainn.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

This Bill is a great advance. It is a step in the right direction but it is only a step. Many more steps will be necessary according as the country increases in prosperity as a consequence of the Budget of 1963. As a consequence of the extra money the turnover tax will put at the disposal of the Government, we will be seeing more, and better improvements in the social services and better payments of benefits to the beneficiaries thereof. It is a good thing we have a Minister for Social Welfare who takes the matter seriously and who does not, like the Labour Minister for Social Welfare in the two Coalition Governments, sleep on it and allow some other Party to dominate his thinking.

Mr. Boland

I do not know whether I would be wise in attempting to reply to the type of speech that was made here by Senator L'Estrange. I have the feeling that the Seanad has heard that same speech or a different arrangement of it many times in the past few days and, to my mind, in the past few years. Certainly it has a familiar ring to me and all that the Senator said has been adequately answered in the other House and, I am sure, also here. Some other Senators also took the same line.

I should make it clear that these increases in the rates of all of the social welfare schemes are not being introduced merely to compensate for increases in the cost of living that would be expected to arise as a result of the turnover tax. What is happening here is a continuation of the process that has been going on, certainly since this Government took office in 1957, ensuring that social welfare recipients generally will get their due share of the increase in national income that has followed from that change of Government.

Senator L'Estrange went back to 1939 to try and say there had only been a marginal improvement in the conditions of old age pensioners in that period. It was not really a great distance further for Senator Ó Maoláin to go back to about ten or 11 years prior to that when that disgraceful occurrence of the reduction in the old age pension took place. However, I agree with Senators who objected to the Senator going back that far. There is not much point in going back such long distances and I propose to refer back merely as far as the time when the present system of compiling the consumer price index was initiated, when the consumer price index was fixed at 100 at mid-August, 1947. To that base of 100 in 1947 the price index is now 159, that is, an increase of 59 per cent. In the same period the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension has increased by 133? per cent. It does not matter what date is taken. It can be shown that the increase in all the different social welfare schemes has been considerably greater than the increase in the cost of living. I can go back to other dates if Senators wish but it is the same thing no matter what date is taken. Certainly since the cost of living has been indicated on this basis that is the position and that is largely because of the different increases in all these schemes that were made under Fianna Fáil Governments, as Senator Yeats pointed out.

It is noteworthy that practically the only scheme that was referred to here — and the same occurs in the Dáil — was the non-contributory old age pension scheme. Even in that, the record of the alternative Government to Fianna Fáil, the Coalition of Fine Gael and Labour, is very bad compared with Fianna Fáil's but in regard to practically all the other social welfare schemes the Coalition Government have no record at all. They did not seem to have adverted to the fact that there were other classes in need of assistance from the State. Therefore we had not only to take care of the situation as it developed under our own administration but also to make up for the neglect of Coalition Governments in this regard, certainly, in regard to all the other schemes. As I say, that position of 59 per cent increase since 1947 in the cost of living and 133? per cent in non-contributory old age pension rates is paralleled in all the other schemes now, as a result of all that has been done by the Fianna Fáil Government in that regard.

These increases, as I said, were not granted to compensate for any expected increase in the cost of living as a result of the turnover tax. It is rather that the turnover tax is imposed for the purpose of collecting from the people who have gained as a result of the economic expansion that has been taking place some of what they have gained in order that it may be given to the people who, through no fault of their own, are not in a position to benefit from the general improvement.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister for Finance told us the very opposite.

Mr. Boland

He told you it more than compensated them for any conceivable effects of the turnover tax but it does more than that. It certainly does compensate them for that but it does more. In relation to that, it was mentioned that, apart from the turnover tax, there has been an increase in the cost of living since the Budget was introduced last year, and that is so. There has been a slight increase from 154 in mid-February, 1962, to 159 at present and that is an increase of 3.2 per cent. Therefore, even if the full effect of the 2½ per cent turnover tax were to fall on all the expenditure of social welfare recipients, then the maximum amount they would need to be compensated for would be 3.2 per cent plus 2.5 per cent, that is, 5.7 per cent.

Of course, we know, the turnover tax will not fall on all expenditure. It is estimated it will fall on approximately 75 per cent and that would reduce the amount of compensation that would be necessary to 5 per cent in every single one of these social welfare schemes, both on the assistance side and the insurance side. In the case of every category, male or female, married or single, with or without children, the increases, that are being granted in relation to the Social Welfare Bill go a long way beyond an increase of 5 per cent. Therefore, the fact is that this year, as last year and as in every previous year of this Government's term of office, a further step is being taken towards improving the position of social welfare recipients relative to the cost of living. In other words, we are doing more than keeping pace with the cost of living which has been increasing. We are effecting a relative improvement in the position of every social welfare recipient and this year we are taking a further step along that road. I, like Senator Jessop would like to see a significant improvement being made. However, it is an unfortunate fact that we can do these things only gradually. This Government have been working on these problems over the years and every year since they took office, in spite of the opposition of the combined Parties who formed the Coalition, practically every year a further step has been taken to effect this re-distribution of income in favour of those who are in need. This will be proceeded with until we reach a stage where we can all feel reasonably certain that the worst-off sections of the community, the unemployed, the sick and the old people are adequately catered for.

On this occasion, if the strength of the opposition to the proposals for the collection of money from the productive sections of the community, in order to distribute it to Social Welfare recipients is to be taken as an indication of the capacity of the people in general to provide for those who are in need we are very nearly at the stage where that aim is achieved. As I have said, we have been effecting a relative increase every year in benefits to the more needy sections and it is our policy to continue that, in spite of the combined opposition of all the elements of the former Coalition Government.

I do not know whether there are any details to which I should refer. Senator Miss Davidson raised the question of workers under the age of 18 receiving a lower rate of unemployment benefit than those over that age, even though they pay the same contribution. That is a fact, but of course their contribution to social insurance covers many benefits other than unemployment. It should not, therefore, be assumed that, because their rate of unemployment benefit is lower, they should pay a significantly smaller contribution. It would not be impossible to work out a scale of smaller contribution for workers under the age of 18 years; but if we started on refinements of that sort, there is no length to which we might not be asked to go. It is an integral part of a social insurance scheme that the good risks help to pay for the bad risks, and if we start to introduce a grading of contributions we will be faced with the position that one section of workers in which there is a low incidence of unemployment will want to know why they should pay the same rate of contribution as a group of workers where the employment is of an intermittent and uncertain character.

I do not see why we should get into that situation. A person who is lucky enough to have a steady job and therefore contributes towards unemployment benefit for those who have not, should be considered to be fortunate. It is a good principle and one we should try to maintain. Therefore, I do not think there is any case for a reduction of contribution in the case of people under 18 years. After all, they will not be under 18 for long. If the person under 18 happens to be married, as some are, unemployment benefit is at the same rate as for a married man over 18.

Senator McAuliffe adverted to the fact that a lower paid unemployed man with a large family can actually get a greater amount of payment from unemployment benefits than if he were working. He argued there should be a system of Government compulsory raising of wages all over the entire economy to meet such a case. I think the moral in this case is that we have probably gone far enough in giving increases in the personal adult rate, and in the child dependant rate and that in future, because that has the effect of a man with a large family getting more in unemployment benefit than if he were working, in regard to the child dependant rate, we should aim at giving the increases under the children's allowances scheme so that we will give the benefit to the man who is working as well as to the unemployed man. I say that because the system of wages in employment generally in this country does not take any account of the circumstances of the individual, so the State finds it necessary to assist by means of children's allowances.

The only other specific point raised was that in relation to appeals by old age pensioners to which Senator McDonald referred. I am not aware such appeals are taking an excessively long time to decide. A year ago, there was some delay, due to an accumulation of arrears, but that has been got over and appeals are now being dealt with expeditiously.

This Bill effectively arranges that the taxation proposals of the Government this year will be adjusted so that practically all the extra taxation will be paid only by people best equipped to do so. The problems of all recipients of social welfare benefits are adequately covered. A relative improvement has been effected in their position. In the case of those with smaller wages who have young families they will get full compensation through increases in children's allowances. The result is that only those who have reasonable incomes or who have no families will be affected by the turnover tax.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. L'Estrange

This section deals with old age pensions and we feel the sum being granted is not sufficient to meet the increased cost of living brought about by the turnover tax which means higher prices for the necessaries of life. It was interesting to listen to Senator Yeats' contribution to the Appropriation Bill but I would remind him that since 1957, the cost of living has increased by 25 points and that since 1948, the increase has been 40 points. What the Government are giving with one hand, they are taking back from these unfortunate people with two hands. I want to nail the lie we have been told that the Fine Gael Party reduced the old age pension.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Is the word "lie" permitted, a Leas-Chathaoirleach?

Mr. L'Estrange

I shall withdraw the word "lie".

Mr. Yeats

Is what happened in 1957 in this Bill?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Things that happened in 1908 are in it.

Mr. L'Estrange

I want to nail the untruth——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must confine himself to the section.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is in the section because I am dealing with the old age pension and the increases that have been given. In 1924 Cumann na nGaedheal reduced the old age pension to pay for the Civil War.

Mr. Yeats

On a point of order whatever about the Act of 1908 being in this Bill, the only reference to any other Act is the Act of 1952. I would urge that all this is entirely out of order.

Mr. L'Estrange

We were told that the inter-Party Government gave no increases, that all the increases under these headings were given by Fianna Fáil alone. The old age pension was restored to 10/- in 1928 and remained at that until 1941, when Fianna Fáil gave a food voucher increase of 2/6, and it remained at that until 1947. In all, the food vouchers increased the old age pension to 12/6 in rural areas and 15/- in urban areas. The inter-Party Government increased the old age pension to 17/6 in all areas. That was an increase of 7/6 in rural areas and 5/- in urban areas. In 1951, they gave another increase of 2/6, which brought the old age pension up to 20/-.

In the following year, we had the Budget and £11 million was taken away in food subsidies. There was an increase of 1/6d. given. There was a change of Government in the year after that, and despite the fact that the cost of living did not rise, Deputy Sweetman in 1955 gave a further increase of 2/6d. The point I want to make is that these increases were given when the cost of living was being kept relatively low. Now, with the cost of living going sky high, especially the cost of the essentials of life, you are giving with one hand and taking it back with two.

Mr. Boland

I did not really expect to convince Senator L'Estrange by anything I said. He argued that the increase of 2/6 is too small. It is smaller than I would like to give, but however small it is, it is being given in spite of the most bitter and most unscrupulous opposition from all sections of those who are opposing this Government. They went to every possible extreme to try to defeat the Government. When they saw it could not be done by Parliamentary methods, they resorted to the expedient of cooperating with vested interests, concerned only with the maintenance of their own profits, in an attempt to intimidate and coerce Independent Deputies into voting against these increases. That was to prevent the collection of the money necessary to give these increases which are deemed to be too small. We cannot help wondering to what extent they might have gone if we had proposed to collect sufficient money to give the larger increases Senator L'Estrange appears to call for.

I presume I am entitled to reply to the version Senator L'Estrange has given of the increases in the old age pension. I say the increase in the old age pension given in 1948, if you want to describe it quickly in the same way in which old age pension increases are normally described, was 2/6. While the basic rate of old age pension was 10/-, there were cash supplements of 5/- in the case of urban areas, 2/6 in rural areas and, in the case of people with dependants, there were cash supplements of 7/6. As a result of the introduction of an overall rate of 17/6 in 1948, some people got an increase of 5/-, some got an increase of 2/6 and some got no increase at all. The fairest way to describe it seems to me to be an increase of 2/6. If you want to go into greater detail, you can explain the actual position but that was the average increase.

Senator L'Estrange claimed that an increase of 2/6 was given by the Coalition Government in 1951. That increase of 2/6 was given in the same way as these increases are being given — in a Social Welfare Bill introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1951. It is true they were mentioned in the election Budget of 1951, but whether the money to give them was provided is another matter. The money to give this increase of 2/6 in 1951 was provided in the Budget of 1952. The decision to bring in the Social Welfare Bill providing these increases in 1951 was a decision the Fianna Fáil Government had to make. They had to decide whether they were going to honour the reckless election promises made in 1951 but not provided for. They decided that this had been promised, although the money had not been provided for, and they decided that they would give it and raise the money in 1952. Fianna Fáil gave that increase of 2/6. In 1952, in addition to rectifying the state of the economy that had been so damaged by the Coalition Government, they also provided this money for that old age pension increase. I have no hesitation in claiming that 2/6 increase in 1951 as a Fianna Fáil increase.

In 1952, the Fianna Fáil Government, in addition to providing the money for that, gave a further increase in old age pensions of 1/6. In 1955, the Coalition Government were back and gave an increase of 2/6. That is the sum total of their efforts in regard to increasing the old age pension — 2/6 in 1948 and 2/6 in 1955. Since then, all the increases were given by Fianna Fáil, and were as follows: in 1957, 1/-; in 1959, 2/6; in 1960, 1/-; in 1961, 1/6; in 1962, 2/6; and in 1963, a further 2/6.

No other social welfare schemes were mentioned. They could not be mentioned on this section, but they were not mentioned in the debate on Second Reading, either. Perhaps on some future occasion Senators on the opposite side might like to direct their attention to some of the other social welfare schemes as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 31st July, 1963.