Social Welfare Bill, 1970: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. Colley) (for the Minister for Social Welfare)

The three main purposes of the Bill are to extend the social insurance system by the introduction of new schemes of death grant, invalidity pension and retirement pension, to provide two new social assistance schemes of allowances for deserted wives and for incapacitated old people and to implement the proposals announced in the Budget for improvements in the existing social insurance and the social assistance scheme.

As is usual in relation to social welfare legislation, the Bill consists mainly of amendments of the existing legislation and may, therefore, appear obscure in places, but the very full explanatory memorandum which I have had circulated will, I trust, be of assistance to Senators in clarifying its provisions.

The Bill is divided into three parts. Part I deals with general matters common to the Bill as a whole. Part II with the new schemes of both social insurance and social assistance and Part III with the Budget improvements in both social insurance and social assistance schemes.

The first of the new schemes on the social insurance side in Part II of the Bill is the scheme of death grants. Under this scheme a grant of £25 will be payable on the death of an insured person or the husband, wife, widow or widower of an insured person, £15 on the death of an insured person's qualified child aged between five and 18 years, and £5 on the death of a younger qualified child. Only one grant will be paid on any one death, even though title could be established on two insurances—for example where a man and his wife are both insured and one of them dies.

Insurance for death grants will apply to all insured persons who are covered for disability benefit and old age (contributory) pensions at present. The scheme will commence on 1st October next and, being a completely new development in the social insurance system, only contributions paid after the scheme commences on 1st October next and which contain an element towards death grant will be accepted towards satisfying the basic contribution condition which requires 26 contributions to have been paid. Grants will therefore only be payable in respect of any deaths occurring after the end of March, 1971, when 26 weeks will have elapsed from the commencement of the scheme.

Invalidity pension is being provided from 1st October also under the second new social insurance scheme. This pension will be payable to insured persons who are or become permanently incapable of work and who can satisfy the contribution conditions. These conditions are that at least 156 contributions have been paid and at least 48 contributions have been paid or credited in the most recent contribution year. Insurance for invalidity pension will apply to all persons who are insured for disability benefit at present. Persons with the necessary insurance may under existing conditions continue to receive disability benefit for as long as they are incapable of work, but they are required to submit medical evidence periodically and they are paid by cheques issued from the head office of the Department. Under the invalidity pension scheme, it is intended to dispense with medical certification or examination except on rare occasions, and to pay pension at the post office of the pensioner's choice by weekly orders in pension order books.

The contribution conditions for the pension will be largely the same as those now required to qualify for disability benefit on a long duration basis while the rates of pension—£4 10s for the pensioner, £3 3s for an adult dependant, 18s for each of the first two qualified children and 13s for each additional qualified child—will be the same as the rates of disability benefit. As the pension scheme is a development of disability benefit it is intended that any insurance under the Social Welfare Acts since 1953 which counted for disability benefit purposes will count for invalidity pension. If that were not done it would be at least three years after the scheme commences before any person could have the 156 paid contributions necessary to satisfy the first condition for pension. Arrangements will be made to allow paid insurance under the former National Health Insurance Acts prior to 1953 to be used to qualify for invalidity pension where necessary.

Regulations which I will make will define what constitutes being permanently incapable of work and what I have in mind is that permanent incapacity would involve being totally incapable of work and the likelihood of being so incapable for a lengthy period and certainly for one of not less than twelve months.

The third new social insurance scheme is the retirement pension scheme, also to be effective from 1st October next. This will provide pensions for insured persons aged 65 and over who have retired and who have a sufficiently good record of social insurance to satisfy the contribution conditions. The conditions require that the person must have entered insurance before reaching age 55, must have paid at least 156 employment contributions and have been paid or been credited with an average of 48 contributions a year up to age 65. These conditions are similar to those for old age (contributory) pension but are applicable five years earlier. The rates of pension will be basically the same as the rates of unemployment benefit — personal rate £4 10s, and additional £3 3s for a wife or dependent husband, with 18s each for the first two qualified children and 13s for each subsequent child.

Retirement pension, will to a large extent replace disability and unemployment benefit for insured persons in the age group 65 to 70. It will be payable by means of a book of pension orders cashable weekly at a post office without the necessity of attending at an employment exchange to sign the unemployed register and without the necessity of submitting medical evidence of unfitness for work. Insurance for the new pension will apply to those persons who are insured for old age (contributory) pension, and contributions under the Social Welfare Acts since 1953 which count for the purposes of the latter pension will be taken into account for the purposes of the new pension. This will enable retirement pensions to be payable immediately the scheme commences to persons who have retired. Regulations will define what is meant by retired and broadly the intention is that the definition will require a person to show that he has ceased permanently to be employed in insurable employment of work which, if not insurable, is of that nature, and that he does not intend to resume such employment. It will of course be open to a person to surrender his pension if he should wish to resume employment at any time between 65 and 70.

There are a few general points I should like to mention in connection with these new schemes. First, they are contributory or insurance schemes requiring the satisfaction of contribution conditions by insured persons before title can arise. In view of the value of the benefits payable these conditions are the minimum necessary and they are in line with contribution conditions for the existing contributory schemes and for such schemes in other countries generally. Secondly, persons drawing invalidity or retirement pension will be credited with contributions which will count for the purposes of the other social insurance benefits Finally, arrangements will ensure that there will be no duplication of payment of pensions either as between the new pensions or with the existing pensions— a person may draw invalidity pension up to age 65 and may then draw either invalidity or retirement pension but not both. At age 70, a person must choose between old age (contributory) pension and whichever of the other pensions has been in payment.

Turning now to the new social assistance schemes, the first of these in Part II of the Bill is the old age (care) allowance scheme. This will extend to persons who are not pensioners under the schemes administered by the Department of Social Welfare the arrangement whereby £2 15s a week is paid in addition to pension to an incapacitated old age or widow pensioner, aged 70 years and over, who require full-time care and attention by a prescribed female relative and who would otherwise be living alone. The new scheme is designed to cover persons aged 70 and over who are similarly situated but whose means although too high to permit them to qualify for non-contributory old age pension are less than £299 15s a year. Means will be assessed for the purpose of this limit in the same way as for non-contributory old age pension. The conditions of the new scheme generally will be the same as those applicable in the existing schemes and like them will be set out in regulations. The definition of a female relative for this purpose was broadened last year to cover not only daughters and step-daughters but also sisters, half-sisters, granddaughters, daughters-in-law and nieces.

The other new social assistance scheme provides for payment of weekly allowances to certain married women who have been deserted by their husbands. The problem of deserted wives is a problem which has aroused much interest generally during the past few years and the aspect of it which the Department of Social Welfare is attempting to deal with in this Bill is that of the long-term hardship caused to the wife and children where the husband has abandoned them for a considerable period and has failed to contribute to their maintenance. At present, cases of hardship may be taken care of by the home assistance authorities but it is felt that when the situation is long-term it should be dealt with on a more permanent basis. The new scheme of allowances proposes broadly to treat deserted wives as if they were widows claiming non-contributory pension. The same conditions as to the rates of payment, the calculation of means, the conditions of qualification of children, the methods of claiming and paying, will apply. This means that the maximum rate of allowance payable to a wife with no assessable means will be £4 5s a week plus 15s for each of her first two qualified children and 10s for each subsequent qualified child up to 18 years of age.

The allowance scheme will differ from the widow's pension scheme in that the allowance will not be paid if the deserted wife is under the age of fifty years and has no qualified children. It was originally intended that the allowance would cover only mothers of families which had been deserted, but it has been broadened to cover elderly deserted wives aged over 50 years who have no dependent children or whose dependent children have grown up and who may find it difficult because of their age and other factors to obtain employment.

The circumstances in which a woman will be regarded as deserted will be specified by regulation. I recognise that the framing of these regulations will present many difficulties in attempting to arrive at a definition that will be precise enough to prevent collusion between husband and wife to obtain the allowance and at the same time broad enough to include all genuine cases.

There are some basic factors which must be borne in mind when dealing with this question. The first of these is that, as the allowance scheme is in effect a pension scheme, the governing consideration, that is, desertion, should be firmly established and be more or less permanent as, for example, widowhood is in the case of widow's pension. Secondly, the allowance scheme must never even appear to be a possible factor inhibiting a reconciliation between husband and wife. For that reason, I feel that before title to the allowance could arise, the wife should have availed in so far as is practicable for her, of whatever legal or other processes are open to her, to effect a reconciliation or to oblige the husband to meet his responsibilities to support her and the family. I do not think that there can be desertion in the sense we are seeking to deal with if the husband is in any way regularly contributing towards the maintenance of the family.

There are no easy solutions to any of the problems involved but it is necessary at this stage to adopt a pragmatic approach so as to get a reasonable scheme into operation as soon as possible. Accordingly, the legislation has been framed to give a certain flexibility to the scheme and allow it to be readily modified, where necessary, to effect improvements which experience may show are desirable.

Part III of the Bill deals mainly with the improvements in the existing schemes of social insurance and social assistance announced in the Budget Statement on 22nd April, 1970. These increases will give an extra 10s a week to all existing non-contributory old age and blind pensioners making the maximum personal rate of old age and blind pension £4 5s a week. The increase of 11s 6d in the weekly rate of widows non-contributory pension will eliminate the existing differential between that pension and the non-contributory old age pension thus making the maximum personal rate of widow's pension £4 5s a week also. Orphan's non-contributory pension will be increased by 7s 6d to £2 5s a week. The increases in the maximum rates of these pensions will enable the scale of means and rates of pension to be extended in each case so as to give additional rates at the bottom of the scales and thus make pensions payable to persons whose means are at present outside the limit for pension.

The rates of unemployment assistance for persons in urban and rural areas are being increased by 10s 6d a week for the recipient. The maximum rate will be £3 12s for a single person and £6 8s for a married couple in an urban area and £3 6s for a single person and £6 for a married couple elsewhere. These increases of unemployment assistance at the maximum will automatically extend the means limit for qualification for unemployment assistance.

The upper age limit for orphans and qualified children under the social assistance schemes which I have mentioned is being raised to 18 years. The rates of payment for qualified children are also being increased by 2s 6d in each case making the overall payment 15s for each of the first and second child and 10s for each additional child. These improvements will all come into operation on the first pay day for the particular scheme next August.

Under the Budget proposals also the rate of children's allowance for the third and each subsequent qualified child in each family under the general scheme of children's allowance will be increased from £2 to £2 5s a month with effect from October next.

The Budget improvements in the various social insurance benefits and pensions will come into operation at the beginning of October also. They will provide an extra 17s 6d a week for recipients of old age contributory pension thus making the maximum rate £5 a week for a pensioner personally £8 10s in all for a married couple. Recipients of disability benefit and unemployment benefit will get an additional 15s a week making the new rates £4 10s a week for a single person and £7 13s for a married couple. The rate of maternity allowance is also being brought up to £4 10s a week. The basic rate of widow's contributory pension will be increased to £4 10s a week also whether or not the widow has any qualified children. The orphan's contributory allowance is being raised to £3. The rates of payment in respect of qualified children are being increased by 2s 6d a week in each case while the upper age limit for orphans and qualified children is being raised to 18 years.

Certain rates of unemployment benefit which are payable where unemployment continues for more than 156 days are linked with the maximum rates of unemployment assistance in urban areas and are being increased from the beginning of August next. To meet the extra expenditure on the increased rates of benefit and pensions and the cost of new social insurance schemes dealt with in Part II of the Bill, the social insurance contributions payable by employers and employees are being increased from the beginning of October next. The increase proposed is 5s 5d where all the insurance benefits including the new schemes are covered, with lesser increases where the benefits covered are restricted. The various rates of contribution are also shown in decimal currency terms to be effective from 15th February, 1971. The overall weekly employment contribution payable in respect of men in ordinary industrial or commercial employment from October will be 33s 8d made up of 30s 6d in respect of social insurance, 2s 2d in respect of occupational injuries insurance and 1s in respect of redundancy payments. In the case of women in such employment, the overall weekly contribution will be 31s 5d made up of 29s 1d for social insurance, 1s 7d for occupational injuries insurance and 9d for redundancy. A table showing the present and proposed rates of contribution appears in the explanatory memorandum.

In line with the improvements in the social insurance system generally in the Bill, the occupational injuries benefits scheme is also being improved by increasing the rates of the main weekly benefits and allowances and the raising of the age limit for qualified children to 18 years. These changes will not involve any charge on the Exchequer as all these benefits are met out of the occupational injuries fund which is financed by contributions paid by employers only. A minor adjustment of the contribution necessary on conversation of the contribution to decimal currency terms in February, 1971, is all that is required to meet the extra cost of the improvements.

Improved facilities for printing insurance stamps and pension order books make it possible this year to bring the improvements in the social insurance schemes into operation from the beginning of October, which is three months earlier than in previous years. The time-lag between the increases in rates of payment on the social assistance and social insurance sides is, therefore, reduced to two months—August and September. During that period, however, cases will still arise where non-contributory pension would temporarily be more favourable than the corresponding contributory pension. There is a provision in the Bill therefore to prevent a person switching from contributory to non-contributory pension during the two months period in cases where the advantage would be a temporary one only. The right of a pensioner to switch where the advantage would be permanent will not be affected.

Finally, the Bill includes a provision to make a minor modification of the means test for non-contributory old age and widows' pensions to permit the value of a labourer's cottage to be disregarded where it is being purchased by way of an annuity. At present a person who is paying rent for such a cottage is not assessed with any means from the cottage for pension purposes, whereas a person who is purchasing such a cottage by way of payment of an annuity has the value of the cottage assessed against him although the annuity may be the same amount as the yearly rent.

I will be moving an amendment on Committee Stage to meet a point raised in the Dáil in regard to section 36 which deals with this provision.

The total cost of the proposals in the Bill on the social assistance side will be £6,409,000 in a full year, all of which will fall on the Exchequer. The gross cost to the social insurance fund of the proposals on the social insurance side will be £9,815,000 in a full year, of which increased contributions will bring in £7,698,000 to the fund, leaving £2,117,000 to be borne by the Exchequer in a full year.

These are very substantial amounts but the improvements which they make possible in the services administered by my Department are also very substantial. I have much pleasure, therefore, in recommending the Bill to Seanad Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Dr. Belton

I realise that the Minister for Finance is taking the place of the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Brennan, who, unfortunately, has had a bereavement in his family. I think I am speaking for the House in general when I suggest that you, Sir, would convey to Deputy Brennan and to his family our sympathy on the death of his daughter.

In his statement the Minister stated "A table showing the present and proposed rates of contribution appears in the explanatory memorandum". I do not recall having received this explanatory memorandum.

Mr. Colley

It should have been circulated with the Bill.

Dr. Belton

At the outset I wish to say that we give this Bill only limited assent because we are not entirely satisfied with all its provisions. First I want to talk about means tests generally. These tests are applied by the Department of Social Welfare, but they are also applied by the Department of Health and the Department of Local Government. They are a great irritant to people who are due various benefits under the social welfare, housing and health codes, because so many investigators appear in their houses asking similar questions. I suggest that there should be one investigator who would cover all the questions and that there should be a central office— perhaps in the Department of Social Welfare—through which all the necessary information obtained by one investigator could be processed. From that office all the information necessary to assess the eligibility of a person for these benefits could be obtained. This would prevent irritation to people in an area like Cabra where people are due several benefits. A multiplicity of investigators is an annoyance. I do not believe that the means test itself is the real annoyance. The real annoyance is the number of means tests for the different benefits. All of us, no matter what the state of our finances, understand means tests and nobody could cavil at one means test. No one could object to a lesser number of means tests. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take note of this and to see whether there could be liaison between the Departments of Health, Social Welfare and Local Government in this regard.

We do not intend to oppose the Bill, but we are not happy at the extent of it. It only nibbles at the problem. The Bill may be divided into two parts— the new benefits which people will get and the extension of the old ones. The death grant, the invalidity pension, the retirement pension and also the old age care allowance and deserted wives' allowances are new.

The death grant is welcome. What happens in a case where the deceased had a system whereby he contributed to funeral expenses? Those contributions towards funeral expenses could have accumulated over the years. Is the £25 death grant still paid? In dire poverty the local health authority bear some of the expenses of burial. Is that amount taken out of the £25 grant? Is the health authority recouped out of the grant for its expenditure? The amount of £25 is typical of the Bill. One could not get a grave dug and closed for £25. With all the other incidental expenses attached to a funeral, I do not see to what extent this goes to meet the expenses of burying a person.

There are other pensions like those in respect of incapacity, invalidity and inability. They all mean practically the same thing. Perhaps there is a slight technical difference between the words. The introduction of the invalidity pension is welcome but it does not go far enough. The Minister in his statement referred to people drawing invalidity pensions. He said:

Secondly, persons drawing invalidity or retirement pension will be credited with contributions which will count for the purposes of the other social insurance benefits.

This is only right. When a person draws invalidity or retirement pension he must be credited with stamps. He must be credited with contributions for the purpose of other social benefits.

The Bill refers to care of relatives, something which usually falls on a daughter. This is a serious problem. A daughter may stay at home to care for an aged relative. She cannot take up employment outside the home. It is only right that she should be given some allowance or benefit. There is more involved in this than a money benefit. There was a report in an English paper recently about the number of girls who because they are looking after relations are unable to get married. This cannot be measured in money values. It happens in Ireland also. Many people are spinsters simply because they must look after old relations. Under the new Health Bill there may be some provision for domiciliary nursing treatment which may get over the difficulties to some extent. I hope it will, because every girl of a marriageable age should be able to meet people and should not be confined to the care of an old person for all her marriageable life.

I am very glad to see the introduction of some benefits for deserted wives. The Minister has pointed out that there are dangers inherent here. There is the great danger of collusion. For example, a husband may go to England, stay away for a long time, but send £4 or £5 a week which would not be declared. In such a case the supposedly deserted wife would receive benefit under this Bill. Generally, however, one has to accept this risk of collusion in order to provide the benefits of the Bill by operating it correctly.

It is, of course, a very welcome innovation that deserted wives should be treated just as widows are treated. It is probably correct, too, that a deserted wife who has no children and is under 50 will not be eligible because she probably would have some means of earning a living herself. I agree in general with the Minister's idea, but perhaps it may be too rigid. The likelihood is that a person over 40 years of age with no children deserted by her husband can get employment, but is the Minister being too rigid? I do not know whether it would be worthwhile putting down an amendment to this on Committee Stage. It is not too easy for a woman over 40 to get employment, especially a married woman deserted by her husband. She is not as agile as people in their twenties or even their thirties and would not obtain employment as easily. This is a question I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into and see if it is desirable to reduce this 50-year limit to something less, say, 40 or 45.

As I said, I agree with the Minister that we must go ahead with this even though there are inherent dangers. A second danger is that it may inhibit a reconciliation of the husband and wife. I can see that danger, but I am afraid we will have to take a chance there just as we have to take a chance on collusion. Those who will benefit under the Bill will far outnumber those who seek to take unfair advantage.

Generally, the increases in social welfare benefits are not high enough. In his introductory statement the Minister said:

I do not know how one breaks down £5 a week, even for a pensioner of 70 years of age, when he has to eat, house, clothe and fuel himself and probably buy some tobacco and maybe travel. Of course, he gets free travel, usually in the buses, but there may be occasions when he has to pay for travel. I do not see that £5 a week goes far enough in this. Yesterday, Senator Dermot Honan, when dealing with the Housing Bill, said we have to cut our cloth according to our measure. Maybe we have. It depends on the resources available at the time. Still I think it is rather a poor show that a person should have to live on £5 a week at the present time. I do not see how it can be done. The increases are necessary, but they do not go far enough.

We are not opposing this Bill but we are not entirely satisfied with it.

Taxes were imposed in the Budget this year to provide for these social benefits. These taxes came into force the day after the Budget but some of the benefits do not come into force until March, 1971, and others, such as retirement pension, until after a term of three years. You start the contributions on 1st October, 1970, and you must have at least 156 contributions. For the death grant there must be 26 contributions. Since the first contribution counts from 1st October, 1970, the benefit will not be effective until 1st April, 1971, because you cannot get 26 contributions until then. In some cases it may not come in until after that. If money has been voted in the Budget for these benefits, and the benefits are not going to come into operation, in one case until the end of the year and in another case for 3½ years from now, what has happened to this money?

As I said, we will support this Bill with reservations, because to oppose it would be wrong. Something is being given and to the extent that it is given we accept it. However, we do not believe it goes far enough.

Mr. Keery

I realise that time is pressing on and that the urgent thing is that these increases and new measures, which I welcome, should be paid as soon as possible. However, I should like to raise a couple of points which might possibly be constructive for the future or possibly would be points that could be borne in mind in the administration of some of the new provisions.

First, I am very conscious at any time when I ask for increases or any kind of improvements in the field of social development that this development has to be paid for from one source or another. I am very dissatisfied on many occasions that the savings of the community play such a small part in the promotion of social developments. One of the matters that I would like to refer to is the actual method of assessing means for some of the social benefits, which in my view inhibits to a larger extent than is desirable the accumulation of savings which in the long run could make perhaps a major contribution to social development.

I am a member of the National Savings Committee and this committee is concerned particularly with matters of this kind. In our dealings with the general public one of the strongest arguments used against saving is that there is in existence a provision in the social welfare assistance scheme dealing with non-contributory old age pensions which takes into account for the purpose of means the yearly value of savings. The provision is as follows and I quote from page 26 of the Guide to the Social Services, 1969:

The principal items constituting means are:

(1) yearly value of investments, capital or property not personally used, calculated by excluding the first £25 of capital value, taking one-twentieth of the next £375, and one-tenth of any balance...

It is very important that this provision should be reviewed and that the method of assessing the yearly value of savings should be revised so as to ensure that only those persons possessing considerable capital would be adversely affected.

I take it as an encouragement that, in his opening speech, the Minister did say that in a case connected with the agricultural community he would make a minor modification in the means test for non-contributory old age and widows' pensions. I am arguing for another modification of this kind because it seems obvious to me that the improved standard of living that we as a nation enjoy today is partly the result of savings of the past, and yet we punish a section of the community today because they saved in the past. As I have indicated, a person more than 70 years of age and who holds savings in excess of £25 may suffer a certain reduction in his pension. This is wrong.

If a person has money in a bank or post office the average rate of interest on that money will be 4 per cent but, as matters stand, when a pensioner's income is being assessed, any sum of money between £25 and £400 is calculated to give a yield of 5 per cent while any amount over £400 is calculated to yield 10 per cent. If a person has £700 in the bank his actual income will be £28 per year on that amount, but for pension purposes his income is assessed at £48 15s per year. This seems unjust. It was a point that was made eloquently in this House from time to time by the late Senator Sheehy Skeffington. In connection with this Bill its is a point worth making again.

If I could put forward a concrete suggestion: I think I have come across different ways for calculating means from savings in the context of the payment of social welfare benefits. I should like to refer to a recent publication by HMSO in Britain, the new supplementary benefits handbook published by the supplementary benefits commission and the Department of Health and Social Security in Britain. I notice that in this handbook they indicate a method of assessing income from capital and there is a very interesting table at page 11 which, if my calculations are correct, would seem to indicate that someone who has a capital of £325 but less than £350 would be adjudged to have means in the region of £2 12s per year, whereas here the same capital, for pension purposes, would be adjudged as yielding an income of £15. This emphasises the type of injustice I am talking about. We are penalising people too heavily. If the example I am quoting were studied I am sure it would be found that the means used by the supplementary benefits commission in Britain is a more fair method of assessment than the one applying here.

I should like to refer briefly to the new allowance that will be payable to deserted wives. This provision is to be welcomed because, unfortunately the problem of deserted wives is becoming greater. For example, I understand that last year as many as 900 Irish wives were deserted. This is a staggering figure. The Minister's clear recognition of the difficulties involved is only right because it will be very difficult to establish who exactly is a deserted wife and what is her income at any one time.

In his opening address the Minister made clear once again that any wife who finds herself in this position should have availed herself in so far as possible of any legal or other processes open to her either to effect reconciliation or to oblige the husband to meet his responsibility to support her and the family. My understanding is that at the moment the most a man may be ordered to pay by the courts in terms of maintenance is £4 10s per week regardless of his income or the number of children. This figure is only 5s more than the maximum allowance payable to deserted wives under this Bill.

While I welcome the provision I do not consider it to be adequate and I hope that the Minister for Social Welfare will do all in his power to get the Minister for Justice to agree to bring in up-to-date legislation governing the marital situation and, in particular, the legislation governing maintenance of wives by husbands who leave home.

In this regard I stress the advantage of tackling this type of problem in a legal way and again I refer to some of the precedents from the United Kingdom. In the handbook to which I have referred it is interesting to note how they deal with the problem of deserted wives and they stress the advantage of dealing with such matters through the courts. In Britain any order made in favour of a deserted wife by the court will not lapse if the wife no longer needs supplementary benefit—for example, if she went out to work. There seems to me to be an advantage in dealing with problems of this kind in a legal way instead of in a social welfare way.

I wonder if we have enough social welfare officers to deal with this new situation. Obviously they are going to have to deal with very difficult personal problems; in some cases social welfare officers may have to try and find the husband. Social welfare officers may find themselves acting as marriage guidance councillors. This will require a new approach in the training and qualification of social welfare officers.

I want to refer briefly to the scheme whereby a person aged 70 years or more may get a weekly allowance for the provision of full-time care and attention by a female relative. This is a welcome extension to an existing allowance already payable to old age pensioners and certain widowed pensioners. I wonder if it is necessary to confine the scheme to people who are relatives. Daughters, cousins and nieces who spend the major part of their time helping incapacitated relatives often become social casualties themselves when the relative eventually dies. They may not have any particular training for a job outside the home. Though they were quite capable of caring for the aged they may not be able to find other employment. Their mental and physical health may be impaired. Surely the important thing here is to provide care and attention in the home, regardless of who does the work? In some cases this can be provided by an outsider happy to do the work for the small sum involved. I understand in some cases in the past without the strict benefit of legislation home assistance officers have been able to make arrangements of this kind on an informal basis so that help could be provided for incapacitated people.

The increase in children's allowances is welcome. I am conscious there may be a poverty problem here which we are not tackling as well as we might. We may not even be fully aware of the type of poverty which exists in some families. A major re-shaping of the present system of children's allowances may be necessary because, even though we are in a time of inflation and wage increases, major increases in allowances cannot lift the unskilled worker with five or six children out of the poverty line. If the Minister and his Department are not already familiar with it, I would recommend them to read the studies of the Child Poverty Action Group in Britain. In the recent survey carried out by the Northern Ireland group on poverty in Downpatrick I was interested to find the group fully supported the campaign in Britain to raise children's allowances to 35s a week per child including the first child. At page 16 of this survey they state:

By including the first child we recognise that expenditure on the first born is the heaviest for most families. It can even provoke a crisis. This again is especially relevant in a province in which an exceptionally large number of small families may be in poverty as a result of low wages.

The same may apply on this side of the border and we may find we need a complete re-thinking of our children's allowance schemes. I have corresponded with the Parliamentary Secretary about this matter and he knows my interest in all the research and investigatory work going on in the Department of Social Welfare in an endeavour to improve benefits and schemes of all kinds. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to speed up this research and investigation work so that the next time we have a review of the Third Programme we shall read of considerably more plans and proposals in this regard. Even if we are at a stage where our plans are years in advance of our capacity to implement them, they are an encouragement and incentive to people to work towards the day when the economy will be able to bring them to fruition.

I have tried constantly to convey to the House my consciousness of the difficult problem of sorting out social priorities in an effort to get money to people who need it most. Under this Bill a death grant of £5 in the case of the death of a child under five years of age, £15 in the case of a child from five to 18 years of age, and £25 in every other case is being given. I can see the point in giving this grant in the case of adults who, apart from funeral expenses, may suffer interrupted wage earning. It is important that a sum of money should be available to tide the family over during the traumatic time of death in the family. But in introducing death grants are we really using money in an effective way for those who need it most, or could the resources be used more effectively elsewhere? I may have missed the arguments in favour of the death grant. We have not had a full circulation of the complete debate in the Dáil but I understand the death grant may well become a permanent part of our social welfare system. I would be most interested to hear more about it so that in recommending the Bill, as I shall gladly do, and in trying to see that people gain the most from the benefits it offers, I shall have a full appreciation of what it is intended to achieve.

Mr. Russell

I should like to join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill. While it does not provide all the benefits we would wish, we must have regard to the capacity of the community to bear the cost. In that regard a valid point was made by the Minister in the Dáil when he said that increasing social welfare benefit should come from the increasing wealth of the country as a whole and the expanding economy.

The Bill contains some innovations that are welcome and which have already been referred to by previous speakers. I should like to refer specifically to the death grants which are an innovation so far as State-assisted social welfare schemes are concerned, although they have been in existence for a number of years in schemes operated by private and public firms. The rate of benefits appears very small and I have no doubt that at the earliest opportunity the Minister will increase the sums, which vary between a maximum of £25 to £5 for the death of a younger qualified child. I do not think any Member of this House would be happy that these limits would continue permanently in this part of our social legislation. However, it is a step in the right direction and as it is now on the Statute Book I have no doubt that the present and future Ministers for Social Welfare will take the earliest opportunity of bringing the payments into line with modern requirements.

The invalidity pensions are a welcome innovation and those of us who have had experience as members of local authorities will agree they are long overdue. One provision referred to in the Minister's statement, about which I am not happy, is the provision stating that the benefits will be paid by cheque issued from the head office of the Department. This raises a wider issue to which I shall refer at this juncture, namely, the growing centralisation of the operations of the Department of Social Welfare. I can remember some years ago, as I am sure other members of local authorities do, when various social welfare payments were made at local levels. I consider the discontinuance of that practice and the continuation of the present arrangement of paying social welfare benefit by cheques from Dublin to be a retrograde step. I have known of cases where the recipients would have been virtually destitute were it not for the help given by the home assistance officers. I am sure Senators will agree with me that the administration of our social welfare code should, as far as possible, be localised, or at least regionalised. While welcoming the provisions in the Social Welfare Bill I would suggest to the Minister that its administration would be greatly improved and expedited if more of the operations of the various schemes were delegated to the local authorities.

Not so long ago we discussed in this House the new arrangements for regionalisation of health administration and I think a similar type of organisation in regard to social welfare would be worthwhile. Presumably it does not arise under this Bill but the question of administering the benefits is valid to discussion of the Bill.

The retirement pension scheme is a worthwhile innovation and I should like to congratulate the Minister on introducing it. Already, a growing number of private and public bodies operate retirement pension schemes. It is obvious that to bring this retirement pension scheme into line with modern conditions the qualifying age for the old age pension should be reduced to 65 years.

I should like to ask the Minister if he would indicate when he is replying what will be the position of firms where pension schemes with death benefits are already in operation. Is it intended that the new State scheme will supplant these schemes, or will it continue side by side with existing pension schemes where they are operated by private and public firms?

The scheme in regard to care of the aged is a worthwhile innovation. I hope I will not be regarded as facetious if I suggest that this scheme might be extended to include certain types of male help. At the moment the definition of the person to assist the aged is confined entirely to females, and, on the face of it, this appears to be right. However, I can visualise a situation where the only relative of an old person might be a male who, perhaps due to disability of some kind, was not able to work full-time and such a person might welcome extension of this scheme. I would ask the Minister to consider, if not in the present Bill at least at a later stage, extending the provisions of this Bill to include certain males who might be of assistance in caring for the aged.

In connection with deserted wives, it is a sad commentary on our society that we must give a welcome to the provision made in this case but it is all too necessary. We all know of cases where unfortunate women and families have been deserted, but could a case arise where the husband would be the deserted partner? While it might cause a certain amount of laughter, I can visualise a case where the woman would be the breadwinner—perhaps the husband was physically or mentally handicapped—and in the event of the wife leaving the husband I could well see a case here for payment of benefit to the husband.

Senator Keery referred to childrens' allowances and I should like to support him in his comments. The Bill gives welcome, if modest, improvements under every facet of our social welfare code. I do not think any Senator would feel that an increase of 2s 6d is adequate in respect of children's allowances. This country of ours is one of large families. We have a special obligation to assist the parents where there are a large number of children—any number from five upwards. I would strongly criticise the meagre increase of 2s 6d a week. The allowance for the first and second child is 15s and it is only 10s each for the additional children. Any Senator who has been involved in social work will agree that the larger the family the greater the expense. As a personal view, I would reverse the order and, as the family became larger, I would increase the social welfare benefits.

The Minister referred to the net cost to the Exchequer. It is a very substantial amount. Social assistance is to cost an additional £6.4 million in a full year and the net increased cost of social insurance will be £2.1 million, or a total of £8.5 million to be borne by the State. This represents a substantial increase in the bill for social welfare but one which we, as a society, must accept as a very necessary and humane obligation. I should like the Minister to state, when replying to the debate, what is the present position of the social insurance fund. What moneys are in the fund? If the fund stands at a substantial figure, I think that a very strong case could be made for paying certain benefits at an earlier date, particularly one of the new benefits such as the retirement or the death benefit. Death can happen at any time, but this new benefit will not become payable until March, 1971. Every effort should be made to bring this particular benefit into line with the payments which begin on 1st August next. I think that any extra cost which would be involved would be very readily accepted by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Claiming as we do to be a Christian and humane nation, we must accept that the cost of adequate social welfare schemes should be borne by the stronger section of the community and by those in better circumstances. This burden will tend to increase because the proportion of old people and young people in this country is very high. I think I am correct in saying that the proportion of such people in our community is among the highest in Europe. This means that fewer people during the working years of their lives will have to provide for social welfare services for more old people. In the final analysis, our reputation as a Christian nation will be judged by our concern for the aged, the sick, the young and the disabled in our community. It is vital that the benefits under all these headings should be the highest we can afford and these benefits should increase pro rata as our economy expands and the standard of living of our people rises.

I should like to refer to the place of voluntary bodies in the general welfare code. However beneficent the State or the local authority is, nothing can supplant the care and the human touch which the voluntary worker brings to bear on his task. We would all like to see the State and the local authority give every possible encouragement to these young men and women. We all agree that today the young people are taking a great interest in the less fortunate in our society. Every encouragement should be given to them in this work. I hope there will never be a clash between the central authority in any bureaucratic sense and the voluntary work which is unpaid, unhonoured and always unsung. There is a growing awareness among the younger people that participation in social work is not only a community obligation but brings with it a real sense of personal satisfaction in promoting happiness among others. Long may that spirit continue.

Professor Quinlan

We all welcome what has been done in this Bill. We would all like to see more being done under the various headings. We have the sobering fact of the costs involved. As pointed out by Senator Russell, the total increased cost involved this year is almost £8 million over previous years. This would be regarded as a reasonable increase were it not for the strong inflationary forces at work. These will offset most of the increases under the regular headings. The increases will be eaten up by the increased prices. I appeal now, as I did before, to have the provision of increased finances for social welfare schemes tied in with specific taxes on luxury items such as drink and entertainment. In that way the taxes on those items would be more acceptable. It is only fair retribution that a fraction of the money spent on luxuries should be seen to go directly to relieve cases of hardship and to improve social welfare benefits. Another penny on the pint or an increase in income tax would be accepted much more readily by the community if it was labelled as making a big breakthrough in the social welfare field.

Many of us are not satisfied with the slow improvement which has come. The time has come when there should be a big step forward. That big step forward should be accomplished by means of designated taxes, tax increases for these specific purposes, if necessary tax increases introduced in a supplementary budget which would emphasise and underline much more forcibly that this was a redistribution of money from the better-off sections to the welfare requirements.

There are many desirable features and innovations in the present Bill. The first I would like to turn to is the question of old age care allowances. This is extending to what we might call the genteel poor the benefits already available to those who qualify by a lower means test. The ceiling has been fixed here at just under £300 per annum for those who are incapacitated and over 70. The first point I would make is that the sharp division is wrong. None of us particularly likes means tests; however, the facts of life are there and we have to recognise them. But surely it is very unjust that an incapacitated person over 70 who has an income of £299 a year is entitled to about £150 more from the State, bringing his total income to £450, whereas a person who has £301 a year, being over the limit, gets nothing. It would be much fairer that this should be on a phased relationship so that if a person had an income of £400 a year he would be entitled to the difference so as to bring his gross earnings up to the same level, and that a person with £400 a year would be entitled to £50 from the scheme. I think that that would be recognised as being fair all round and I do not know why it has not been introduced in the present Bill.

This, again, is only for incapacitated people over 70. We are being forced by scarcity of money to make too many distinctions here because people over 70 years of age, I think, are entitled to help of this type if it enables them to avoid loneliness. I think that as a national objective in the care of the aged we should seek to combat loneliness by every means possible, and the most effective way is to ensure that the old people are living with some others who have some responsibility for caring for them. In that regard we might take it that these old people are in most cases entitled to enter one of the institutions available if there are places there. We should be able to calculate quite easily what is the cost to the public, borne by the county rates, per head for each person kept in one of those institutions and we will find that it is quite a substantial figure. I hazard a guess that it is considerably more than the £2 15s that is provided here, yet this £2 15s is an effort, and a commendable effort, to keep such a person out of the institutions and in a home environment. Therefore, I think we should have a figure—maybe the Minister can give it in his reply—of what is the accepted average cost over and above the contribution got from the pensions of the people concerned for those in the various institutions caring for the aged.

I think it is wrong to have any mention here of relatives. While relatives would be the normal people whom the old person might turn to for this type of care, in fact any neighbour or anyone providing the care should be recognised and accepted. I would put it that a qualified social worker in the area would have to certify that the person concerned was a bona fide and acceptable person to undertake that responsibility; but, once we got that certification, then by and large it does not matter what the relationship is between the person providing the care and the old person. Let us accept it and approve it and treat it on a level plane. This, I hope, will come in shortly because the present provision is already there except for old age pensioners who are incapacitated and it is now being applied to those with incomes above the old age limit of £300.

Next year I would hope to see the scheme extended and changed. The changes I would call for include the removal of the term "relative" altogether, so that this will be applied to all entitled to this type of assistance. I also question whether we should take too seriously the requirement of being incapacitated. After all, old age itself is incapacity enough, and certainly if it goes over 75 the very fact of that age should be sufficient to qualify for being classed as incapacitated in the sense of the need for protection from loneliness, the need for somebody having some concern and care for the person concerned, which is necessary whether the person is physically incapacitated or not.

I agree with what Senator Keery said. He made the point, very rightly, that there have been these very good charitable people who are neighbours or who cared for long years for relatives. At the end of that period, when the relative dies, they are left with nothing much to do. Their whole training and experience makes them ideally suited for caring for such incapacitated people. Consequently, I would call very strongly for the broadening of these provisions in order to include all such people and to avoid the greatest enemy of old age, which is loneliness. The bigger institution is not the solution to that. The solution to that is the Christian housekeeper who takes in three, four or five such people in a small group where they can have all the benefits of living in small groups and yet have an acceptable level of comradeship and care provided.

The next thing I would turn to is the deserted wives' allowance. This is a long overdue provision and one to be welcomed, but again, I think that the provision needs to be substantially improved in the next Budget or in some subsequent Budget. First of all, the requirement that the woman should be over 40 seems to me too stringent. The very fact of fully authenticated and certified desertion should be sufficient. I should like to ask a question about the children concerned. Are the contributions specified here over and above those to which the children would be entitled in any case under the general children's allowances? That is probably the case, and of course, it should be the case.

Such children are orphans in a very real sense, but yet the rates payable in respect of them do not bear any relation to the rates for orphans. Therefore, a strong case could be made for improving the rates greatly. There is also the fact that such improvement would not cost very much because, thank God, we would not have too many recipients. It is one case where we could afford to be generous.

I am always puzzled by the type of penny-catching that goes on in connection with allowances paid at various rates. An allowance of, say, 15s a week for a second child, another rate for a third child and so on. It does us no credit to save 5s a week in a scheme of this sort, but I would suggest that we should simplify the administration of the scheme and treat all children equally. This, also, would be more just.

I would ask also in relation to deserted wives if the wife would be eligible for unemployment assistance? It is said here that a wife less than 40 years of age should be capable of supporting herself and her family by obtaining employment. Does that mean that a person would be entitled to unemployment relief if she could not obtain suitable employment?

We welcome also the provision for retirement pensions between the ages of 65 and 70. I hope that the payment of a retirement pension will not in any way inhibit the person concerned from doing some part-time or seasonal work. Of course, I know it would not be payable where a person was in regular full-time employment involving insurance contributions but I would hope that part-time work will not be taken into consideration.

The general increases that have been a standard feature of all Budgets are a little more generous this year, but when we take inflation into account the advances are not, perhaps, as good as they were in previous years. Therefore, next year, when, I hope, the economy will have stabilised itself and the present strike mania will have disappeared, I trust there will be a real step forward in relation to social welfare benefits and that there will be recognition, even if belated, of the high inflation that has occurred during the past two years and which, unfortunately, has eroded most of the social welfare benefits that we have been able to provide.

I welcome the Bill so far as it goes but I hope for much better in the future.

Mr. Eoin Ryan

I welcome this Bill which is the latest in a series of Bills to enlarge the scope of the social welfare code and increase the benefits payable to social welfare recipients. I am sure that all of us would like to see the scope extended still further and the payments to be given greater. However, having regard to the resources available, it would be difficult to deny that this is a reasonable effort to meet the problems of those in need of social welfare.

It is comparatively easy for the Minister to increase the rates payable to recipients if he can persuade the Minister for Finance to give him the necessary money, but what is particularly commendable about this Bill is that a great deal of hard work and thought has gone into extending the scope of the social welfare code to investigate social problems and to deal with these problems.

There are a couple of points I should like to raise in connection with the Bill. The first is rather complicated.

There are three conditions applicable to the retirement pension. They are, and I quote from the explanatory memorandum:

(a) that the claimant entered insurance before reaching the age of 55,

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

(c) that he has an average of 48 contributions paid or credited per contribution year from entry into insurance until he reached the age of 65.

It seems to me that the third of these conditions is a rather erroneous one and, in certain circumstances, could result in an injustice to a person who had contributed for many years but who, as a result of some misfortune, found that his yearly contributions did not average 48. This is a very high average and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this point when replying. Perhaps there are circumstances in this regard to which I have not adverted.

The other point I wish to make is one which I have made on a number of occasions in the past in relation to other Bills, and that is the difficulty in following the social welfare code. In his opening address, the Minister said and I quote:

... the Bill consists mainly of amendments of the existing legislation and may, therefore, appear obscure in places, but the very full explanatory memorandum which I have had circulated will, I trust, be of assistance to Senators in clarifying its provisions.

I think the Minister was understating the case when he said that the Bill was rather obscure because it is really very difficult to understand. The Bill is entitled

An Act to amend and extend the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1969, the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1969, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, 1935 to 1969, the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Acts, 1944 to 1969, and the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1969.

As can be seen, a great number of Acts are involved. If one is in doubt about a particular section or subsection the difficulty of ascertaining the matter is enormous. To any one in the legal profession asked to advise on a particular point it is a formidable task. The explanatory memorandum sets out the position in a very clear way and is very useful. The Department of Social Welfare also issue a guide to the social services every year which gives a broad summary of the benefits available. I advocate that the time has long since passed when a Bill should be introduced to consolidate the various social welfare benefits into one Bill. I agree that in a very short time that Bill would be out of date but it would be of great assistance at the present time. I recommend the Minister to introduce a Bill of this kind as soon as possible.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair from time to time has difficulty in knowing what Senators are offering. He would ask those Senators offering to rise decisively in their places.

Mr. McDonald

I, too, welcome this Bill. Our present social welfare system tends to keep people idle instead of keeping the maximum numbers possible engaged in full employment. I have often thought, looking at the wage rates for agricultural workers and the difficulty of getting people to work in agriculture, that if the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Department of Social Welfare co-operated and, instead of paying £8 10s per week to the worker, his wife and an average of four children, paid half that amount to full-time agricultural workers, they would bring the meagre £13 per week of these workers into line with other wage rates. This would mean a far greater work force in agriculture, and the vast amount of money spent on social welfare benefits would be much better employed. I realise it would be difficult to implement such a scheme but the Government should be thinking along these lines because in rural areas there is a limited amount of work. Even if a man could not be employed for 52 weeks of the year, there should be greater flexibility to enable these people to do work when they are able to secure work.

I support Senator Keery's point about the assessment of the income of people applying for old age non-contributory pensions. This is something which has been allowed to go on for far too long. From my experience as a member of an old age pensions subcommittee it appears to me that pension officers in general get some type of bonus for every applicant they turn down. When dealing with the poorer sections of the community the benefit of the doubt should go to the applicant every time. I would ask the Department to do something about this problem because the money involved is not great and the people concerned have devoted their entire lives to the country. The vast majority of them have worked hard and honestly all their days. The only security these people have for the proverbial rainy day is their pension. If the Government had introduced old age pensions at 65 years of age all around it would have been much simpler to implement than the system they have introduced with retirement pensions to bridge the five years between 65 and 70 for those who may require it. When neighbouring countries are able to give pensions at 65 years of age, surely we should be able to give the same benefits here?

I suppose it would not be proper to anticipate that people would take advantage of death grants, but, when one considers that people have been sentenced to the pledge for five years for bringing about somebody's death, that £25 might be an added inducement. I trust that, if there is any doubt at all the £25 grant will not be paid. The £5 for children is hardly worth paying because it would go nowhere near to meeting funeral expenses. It would make only a down payment on a grave. The £5 should be increased to a more realistic figure—perhaps £25 all around should be paid.

While I welcome the provision for payment in respect of care of the aged, if the Government are honest they must admit they will make money on this transaction and they could provide a more generous amount than the £2 15s weekly. We all agree that it is desirable that as many elderly people as possible should be enabled to remain in their own homes and it is unfair of the State to ask that a daughter would return home to care for the aged person for the princely sum of £2 15s. We cannot forget that an individual's first duty is to himself and his own immediate family. If the aged person has not got anyone to care for him the State will have to take over and the resultant cost of maintenance in a geriatric home will be in the region of 20 guineas per week.

The provision of £2 15s is a meagre sum and entirely unrealistic. We have had this problem for many years and I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced the scheme. However, one would hope that it would be brought more into line with present-day needs. We should not forget that the Government stand to make a considerable amount of money when the aged people are cared for in their own homes.

If a person's means are investigated in the first instance by a central department—in the ordinary course of events it might well be by the tax office—the data secured at the first application should be used for all other purposes. It would prevent the wastage of a considerable amount of public money which might be diverted into more worthwhile spheres.

I consider some of the criticism expressed by Senator Belton not fully justified. Perhaps I may be misinterpreting him, but I thought he suggested that if a person was benefiting from an industrial insurance scheme—where an individual would pay a certain amount either weekly or monthly and on his death a lump sum is payable-such a person would not qualify for this contribution.

Dr. Belton

I queried that point.

Mr. Nash

It is obvious from the Bill that a person would be entitled to both benefits because what insurances an individual might take out privately is a matter for himself. Senator Belton suggested that the benefits for invalidity would not come into effect for approximately three years.

Dr. Belton

For retirement purposes approximately 156 contributions are required.

Mr. Nash

My interpretation of the Bill is that the contributions made under previous Social Welfare Acts are available for this. I say that subject to correction by the Parliamentary Secretary. It appears to me that the only benefits that would be deferred are the death benefits, which are the smallest; they will not come into effect until March, 1971.

I have pleaded on more than one occasion in this House for the self-employed people. There is nothing provided for them, everything is according to their means. Such people, who are proud enough to remain self-employed, are hurt when a most detailed examination of their ways and means is carried out. Many of them, in an effort to help themselves, in an effort to get for themselves the minimum amount necessary to bury them, take out small industrial insurance policies on which they pay a few shillings a week. I would like very much if those people, instead of contributing to those industrial schemes, would make similar contributions to the social welfare scheme. If their benefits were not as large as others would get, let them have benefits in proportion to what they pay. If a contributory pensioner gets 65s per week, at least let these other people get half that amount. If such people have a few hundred pounds saved they should not forfeit old age pensions because of it. Let us give them half the old age pension if they have made half the contribution.

There is a section of the population which is very neglected. Practically all contributory beneficiaries are organised in trade unions. They are organised in militant groups and can fight their own corner. Other people are completely unorganised. We seem to be reaching a state where nobody can get anything except through militancy. One of the reasons why these unfortunate people cannot get better consideration for themselves under the Social Welfare Acts is because they are unorganised and, therefore, are the least militant section of our community. I should like to see the day when people can hope to benefit, not by militancy, but by loyalty and effort, and by being interested in the State as such. I would feel that whatever time I have spent in this House would have been well spent if, in all these years, I achieved nothing more than to get some recognition for these self-employed people, like local tradesmen, local shopkeepers, local small farmers, who are often the backbone of our community. I should like to see more favourable recognition for them under the Social Welfare Acts.

Miss Bourke

Like other Senators who have spoken, I should like to welcome the Bill as part of the social welfare code. This Bill introduces some innovations. I am glad to see that Senators on both sides of the House say there is not enough in the Bill and that the provisions are inadequate. This is the only way we can approach the Bill, by welcoming it in a limited manner. We must try to contribute ideas. I should like to mention what Senator Eoin Ryan has said about the social welfare code being complicated. It is difficult to follow. It is difficult to relate the provision to whatever Act has been mentioned. The Senator spoke as a lawyer. I speak also for the people who benefit under the social welfare code. People who might benefit under this Bill may not be aware of their rights. I know of cases of people, particularly in the country, being unaware of the benefits to which they are entitled. A consolidated statute, and more explanatory documents from the Department of Social Welfare to inform people of the benefits under the social welfare code are necessary.

I am not very happy with some of the wording of the Bill. Many of the important definitions will be made by Ministerial regulation rather than as part of the Bill itself. I refer particularly to the deserted wives allowance. I welcome this provision, which is long overdue, and endorse what other Senators have said about it. Section 22 says that the Minister may make regulations in respect of these allowances and may specify the circumstances under which a woman is to be regarded as being deserted by her husband. Is this the right approach to this type of benefit? Is it to be left to the Minister to specify when a wife is deserted? The right of the deserted wife is being decided on by regulation of the Minister. Section 6 refers to the invalidity pension. The actual scope of this is defined by regulation of the Minister. Section 6 (2) and (3) reads:

(2) The conditions under which a person shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as being permanently incapable of work shall be specified by regulations.

(3) Regulations may provide for disqualifying a person for receiving invalidity pension if he fails without good cause to observe any prescribed rules of behaviour.

On the Committee Stage I hope for certain clarification of what that means and for a possible amendment of it. It is the Minister by regulation who will define the scope of the rights of people who are going to benefit under the social welfare scheme.

I am not happy with the way the social welfare code is developing. There is too much added on over previous Acts. There should be consolidation, not only for the lawyers but also for those who will avail of their rights. I am not happy about the way the power to implement the Bill will rest on the Minister.

The death grant is an innovation. Like other Senators who spoke, I welcome this new benefit, but I think the amount involved is laughable. It compares with the £5 given to a person who reaches 100 years of age although this has now been increased to £50. Only when the death grant is increased will it be something we can talk of as being a real benefit. I should like to see the death grant increased in the same way as the payment to centenarians has been increased.

Turning now to the section relating to old age care allowances, I agree with Senator Professor Quinlan and others who said that this should not be confined to female relatives. This is an unnecessary and rather arbitrary restriction on what was a very good idea: the idea of providing assistance to take care of aged persons, to prevent, as Senator Quinlan said, loneliness in old age and if possible to prevent the institutionalisation of old persons, which is something we all are not in favour of. We ought to try to encourage the care of the old in their own homes, which is part of the tradition of this country, one of our fine traditions. But this part of the Bill may not be fully implemented if the arbitrary restrictions in it confining it to a relative is continued. I do not see any logic in this. It does not matter who the person who provides the assistance is, whether it is a relative either male or female or whether it is, as somebody mentioned, a friend or neighbour, the essence of it is that assistance be provided for the person.

These are my main points. Any other points that I wanted to make have already been made by other Senators who have spoken. I should like to conclude on the point I mentioned already: the important need for liaison with the people who are to benefit under the social welfare schemes. I am not satisfied from what I have heard, particularly in the rural areas, that those who are to benefit are fully aware of their rights. At some stage an effective communications system should be set up with those people so that they will be made fully aware of and be fully able to avail of the social benefits under the social welfare code.

Business suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Mr. Crinion

One of the most significant aspects of the Bill is the allocation of almost an extra £6½ million. That is a substantial amount of money to contribute towards social welfare. We may all say that enough is not yet being done but £6½ million is a significant amount by any standards. Of course, this money must be provided by way of taxation and while we may complain from time to time about taxation I do not think any of us would grouse because this taxation is going towards increased benefits for the less well-off sections of our community.

This increase in social welfare benefit is an indication of the sincerity of Government's desire to help the needy sections. However, such increase would not be possible if it were not that the economy is expanding. One cannot get money out of a stone. It is only as a result of hard work and good planning on the part of the Government and the people of the country that this extra money can be provided. This increase is an indication, also, of the serious intention of the Government to carry out the programmes that they have outlined.

The death grant, retirement pensions and the scheme for deserted wives are all very welcome. I heard some criticism of the fact that the death grant in the case of a child up to five years of age is only £5. I realise the amount of sorrow a family would suffer at the loss of a child but funeral expenses for a child are very much less than in the case of an adult. It must also be remembered that a grant is only assistance; no scheme provides for 100 per cent of the cost.

The retirement pension is very welcome. It will not cost the Exchequer very much extra and it will save persons of 65 years of age having to sign on at the labour exchange or to get a medical certificate every week. These people are being given the status of retired persons and are being supplied with pension books which will allow them to collect their money in the same way as every other pensioner, at the post office. I suggest a scheme should be introduced whereby old age pensioners would be allowed to do temporary or part-time jobs. A pensioner might be able to do a day's gardening, or something like that. Doctors would agree that this would be very good occupational therapy. I realise it might be difficult to implement such a scheme but the suggestion is worthy of consideration. In the past an unemployed person by not signing on certain days was able to do an occasional day's work and still remain on unemployment assistance. Perhaps the Minister might consider this because, while I accept that it could perhaps lead to abuse, it might be beneficial in the case where the pensioner might not be able to work on a full-time basis.

The invalidity pension scheme is welcome. However, I consider the provision that 48 contributions must be paid or credited in the last contributing year as being too restrictive. Take the case of a person suffering from multiple sclerosis where there is no hope of his becoming fit again. During the course of his illness, before he becomes completely invalided, there will be many weeks in which he will have broken employment. In that case, the 48 contributions might be too high and I can visualise a case where a person would be disqualified on this point.

Now that the retirement pension scheme has been introduced perhaps the Minister for Finance in his next Budget might consider the possibility of granting free transport and free electricity to people in this category, as is provided for old age pensioners. The provision of free transport would not cost a tremendous amount and it would give those people some little comfort. There are many buses that are not always full——

Mr. Colley

That is not what CIE say.

Mr. Crinion

At any rate, in my area there are buses that are not full. I am sure the Department would be able to work out some plan in this connection.

In regard to the provision of payment for care of the aged, a married daughter or daughter-in-law whose husband is supporting her will not get the grant. I know of one case where a lady celebrated her 100th birthday some weeks ago and whose niece has been taking care of her for the past ten years. The old lady lived away from the main road and would have been deserted had it not been for this niece who brought her to her own house. Such an aged person will need full-time attention and, although the niece is supported by her husband, I consider that in this case perhaps a grant of half the usual amount could be paid. It must be remembered that if that old person went to a county home it would cost at least £10 per week to maintain her there. In addition to that, in many cases the aged person is not happy and would be much more contented to remain in the family circle, surrounded by her relatives.

Public representatives have frequently encountered very unhappy cases where wives have been deserted by their husbands. I know that the Department are working on regulations to deal with these cases. I hope they will not insist on very detailed inquiries to find whether a wife has been deserted or not. It should be possible to get information from the home assistance officer, the local sergeant of the Garda or the parish priest as to whether a wife has been deserted. I do not like regulations which must be complied with before a benefit can be paid. I hope discretion will be given to officers dealing with these cases. This is a delicate problem. A woman may not be able to say where her husband is. It is painful for her to discuss the matter.

There has been mention of the age of 50 years in the case of a deserted wife with no qualified child. There was an age limit for widows pension which was waived. In some cases a widow was left a house with a small piece of land. It might not be possible for her to get employment locally. A woman in such circumstances does not like giving up the home or going away. She might not be qualified or trained for a job, having married young. She could be debarred from benefit on age limit. Nobody likes leaving land. If a house or land is left, anything might happen to it. That age limit should be examined in cases where a person cannot get employment and cannot leave the home. I would like this point examined.

I got a letter seven months ago about a man named Michael Gorman. I would like to bring his case to the notice of the officials in order to get a decision on it. Seven months ago the Parliamentary Secretary sent me a letter saying that Michael Gorman was being granted the female relative allowance for his daughter-in-law. Nothing has happened since then. Perhaps nothing has happened because this lady may be supported by her husband who is on social welfare assistance and a decision was not taken as to whether the female relative allowance applies in her case. This lady is looking after an invalid husband suffering from multiple sclerosis for the past ten years. There is a father who has an old age pension and a mother. The wife's father is also with them and he has an old age pension. He is 83 years of age. The other pensioners are 78 years. This lady has two children under 16 years of age. She is the only person in the house who can look after all these people. Three of them in receipt of old age pension and one of them receives social welfare benefit. The husband has multiple sclerosis and it cannot be decided whether or not he is supporting her. No decision has been taken on this point. The Department may have a letter from me tomorrow, but while the officials are here I would like to say that I feel the case should be cleared up in the next few weeks. This lady is doing a great act of charity. She cannot leave the house, even to go to the shop. She is living near the village with all those old people.

I would like to compliment the Minister on providing an increase in the State contribution to the less well-off sections of our community. Every aspect of social welfare has been covered. The Government took office 13 years ago, and every year the Minister for Finance has provided an increase for the old age pensioners. I hope that this will continue.

Mr. Lyons

I do not know whether it has been mentioned before that it is extremely difficult for people in some parts of this House to hear the Minister who does us the courtesy of appearing here or to hear the Senators. It is time that some type of sound amplification was introduced into this Chamber. There is a beautiful ceiling and doors, and a very fine fireplace, but the room is very drab. It looks more like a court-room with two docks than the Chamber in which the premier body of this country sits to finalise legislation. Having said that, I want to say that in common with all the other people who have spoken, I welcome this Bill, and also in common with everybody else, the only reason that I speak against it in the main is that this Bill does not go far enough.

I should like also to say that I agree with Senator Ryan that the social welfare code is becoming so complicated that one would almost need to employ a lawyer to examine it, and we who are in local authorities and Members of the Oireachtas who have to advise the people who come to us often find it extremely difficult to say under which section of the social welfare code their cases come. What must the difficulty be for the people who are not familiar with the debates here, where nearly everything is explained, in interpreting their entitlements according to the code? I do not know where one can put the blame for this, but I would hope that a Consolidation Bill would be brought in, as Senator Ryan suggested, embracing the entire social welfare legislation. That would simplify matters. In fact when I read the words "invalidity pension" I associated them with an invalid rather than with "invalid". I asked myself "What in the world can that invalidity pension be?" Having had the thing explained I say that whoever chose the word might have chosen a better one, but that is only by the way.

As I said, we can say that we welcome the Bill because when governments, whether socialistic or otherwise, accepted the responsibility that in the older days used to be carried out, whether accepted or not, by people of greater means, to help the people unable to help themselves and to provide the necessary money from general taxation, this was a wonderful step forward.

Anyone who reads social history will realise that in the past—I am going back some time now—there were only the rich and the poor, or the rich and the starving, or the rich and the dying; but when society accepted the responsibility it is grand to think that members of political parties of all shades of opinion at government and local authority level decided that they should do the best they could with the moneys available to them to help those classes of people. The only thing we can do is to try to ensure that the various classes that do benefit get the maximum benefit in their particular classes, and that the investigation that has to take place is carried out by the right type of people—people who realise that there must be flexibility in investigation particularly for social welfare purposes and that you cannot lay down strict straight lines and say that you must stay within them. All social welfare officers should be selected on that basis. Of course, politically, we often hear that in the social welfare service a person must be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party before he can get a job. I do not think that this is absolutely true, but even if it were true I would say that the essential thing would be that the individual selected was a person capable of coming to a right decision in the broadest possible way to give the maximum possible to the recipients. I would ask the Department when selecting people for these purposes to ensure that the persons appointed have the mature experience necessary to make decisions and minds capable of flexibility in giving a service to the people.

Coming to the new provisions in the Bill—the death grant, the invalidity pension and the retirement pension— while we can welcome the death grant surely nobody today will say that a grant of £25 goes any distance in meeting the expenses of burial? Quite a number of years ago, when some gentlemen in a local hostelry were discussing the cost of living one local character said "Well, if the cost of living is going up, the cost of dying is going up too" and this is absolutely true. While the grant will mean something to the people concerned, there is a qualification. I do not see that small farmers are included in this. I also agree with Senator Nash that self-employed people are the people who are forgotten by practically every code under which we operate. These people, small shopkeepers and tradesmen involved in their own business, having to pay all the rates and all the taxes, are almost completely forgotten under our code, and when they try to come in under the shield of the social services for help in any particular way there is investigation which many of these people do not wish to be subjected to and they live all their lives in poverty and die in poverty due because they cannot avail of the services. This is a matter that we must look into because we are trying to be fair and every Member of the Oireachtas would feel that it is not right or equitable that any section of the people should be left out. The Minister should give some consideration to this matter.

The invalidity pension will be in fact a replacement for unemployment benefit and other services. The retirement pension will be in effect a replacement also, because most of the categories covered by both of these pensions have been covered under various other social schemes; but the qualifications lead to frustration amongst the people and also amongst members of local authorities and of the Oireachtas who are trying to guide the Department so that the individual investigator can give the best decision possible.

A Senator remarked that it is time we had a central investigating authority that would investigate means for all purposes—housing grants, social welfare and so on. Perhaps this is something which the Government should look into. Senator Dr. Belton mentioned this earlier today and it was taken up by Senators on the Fianna Fáil side of the House. It is something that should be investigated, because it is a shocking thing to have investigations carried out for old age pension, housing grants, unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance, by different individuals operating different codes and, therefore, making different decisions. If the Public Service is to be streamlined as it must be, there should be a central investigating authority set up that would be availed of by every Department.

We all agree with the provision of all the services covered in the Bill, but I would ask the Minister this question: children's allowances at the moment are being paid on a particular basis and the differential is being increased where there are large families. I would say that the differential should be greater because, let us face it, the actual amount provided in children's allowances today, even though it might look well on paper, is very little. It is mainly the larger families who are in the lower income bracket. Various explanations have been put forward for this. However, it is the business of the Oireachtas and, in particular, the business of the relevant Department to ensure that the benefits will be increased for these larger families. If this cannot be done in the present year, I hope that the Minister will see his way to improving the position next year.

The question of incapacity has been mentioned by many Senators. It is difficult for anyone to assess physical incapacity but I wish to say to the House that there are many people who are not physically incapacitated but who are mentally incapacitated and many of these people are not able to avail of the benefits under the social welfare code because of the difficulty of assessment. I would like to see regulations being laid down to provide for proper specialist advice in this regard because a person who is mentally incapacitated is in fact more in need than a person who is physically incapacitated. There is also the fact that these persons suffer greater stress and in most cases they are not capable of putting forward their own case for social welfare. This is important in relation to qualification for benefit. We should ensure that the mentally incapacitated are in a position to avail of social welfare benefits. While incapacity is difficult to define, defination is not impossible. Our mentally incapacitated are neglected. Of course, voluntary organisations throughout the country are doing magnificent work in this regard and not matter what social welfare legislation is introduced these people will always be needed to look after the incapacitated. As our society becomes more affluent there will be more people available to carry out this voluntary work. We all realise the valuable contribution voluntary organisations are making towards the community and I advocate that, wherever it is possible at Government level to help these organisations, help should be given with the least possible delay.

One other matter to which I should refer before concluding is in relation to old age pensions. Those of us who serve on pensions committees are annoyed and frustrated from time to time because of the attitude adopted by the Department in the assessment of income. In rural areas—I do not know about the city—old people keep their money under the mattress or some other such place and if they invest it it is usually with the local bank. The bank pay them interest at about 2½ per cent but when these people are being assessed for old age pension purposes they are considered to be receiving 5 per cent on this money. This practice is wrong and should be changed so that people would be assessed only on what they actually receive. I hope an amendment will be introduced to ensure that this practice is not continued in the future.

The same goes for investigation of means for unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and so on. An amendment should be introduced to deal with this situation.

I have no desire to delay the House. I compliment the Minister on introducing the Bill but I would say to him that the points raised by the various speakers should be considered and also that, as soon as possible, a greater share of the gross national product should be devoted to helping those for whom we are responsible.

Mrs. Farrell

Like the other Senators who have spoken I welcome this Bill and I have no wish to delay its passage through the House. Most of us would agree with the various points raised but I should like to refer in particular to the category of persons referred to as "prescribed female relatives". There are cases in which there is hardship as a result of a person being incapacitated in the home because if there is more than one relative living with a person, benefit is not paid in respect of the person looking after the incapacitated one.

For instance, I know of a case where a girl is employed in her own home. She is not in a position to look after her parents because she must continue to earn her living. Another sister has come home to look after the parents but because the other girl is already living in the house, the father is not entitled to draw an allowance for this girl. There is also the case of a woman who is bedridden and who requires two people to look after her. One of her daughters nurses her by day and the other by night but neither of these girls is getting an allowance.

We all realise that if these invalided people are put into hospitals or institutions they will impose a charge of £8 or £10 per week on the State but I cannot see why the Departments of Finance, Health and Social Welfare could not agree to devote the money to those caring for such people thereby retaining them in their own homes. If we do not wish our old people to have to go to institutions we must be realistic and consider what we can do to have them retained in their own surroundings. The Minister does not need legislation to amend the Bill in this way; he can do it by regulation. The Minister for Finance is here now in another role but I hope he will take due note of this situation.

Mr. A. O'Brien

I should like to join with the other Senators who have welcomed this Bill and to congratulate the Minister on having introduced it in so far as it provides increased benefits for people in the social welfare classes and in so far as there are innovations to help these people. However, the Bill does not go far enough. Perhaps it does not go as far as the Minister himself would like it to go. The Minister must have qualms of conscience the same as the rest of us when he thinks of people who find it hard to make ends meet having to contribute to the national Exchequer in the form of turnover tax on the essentials of life. I do not want to be hypercritical about the matter, I take it for granted the Minister is as concerned about this as everyone else.

When workers obtain an increase in their wages and salary in most cases the payments are retrospective and in some cases they are made restrospective up to a year. A tendency has grown up when increases in social welfare benefits are given not to pay these increases until the following August, December or even January. This may or may not be due to administrative problems but every effort should be made in future to ensure that payments are made as soon after the increases are announced as possible. The increases visualised in this year's Budget will not become operative until later in the year. What is happening is that the increase in the cost of living outstrips the increased benefits which the Minister has announced in his Budget. As a result these increases do not have the beneficial effect they would have had if they were implemented at the time they were announced. In future I hope attempts will be made to ensure that increased benefits are payable a short time after they have been announced.

The means test has done more to create mistrust and a feeling of victimisation in our community than anything else in recent years. I feel sure the Minister would not condone the action of a person investigating the means of an applicant for old age pension in counting hens, ducks, the odd stray turkey, a few pigs and a few cattle. I do not think it was ever intended by the people who introduced this social welfare legislation that such a rigid approach should be made. Means tests are bitterly resented not only by the applicants themselves but by their neighbours. These people think the State is going too far in making inquiries of this nature. I am sure there are reasons for doing these things but the investigating officer could observe and make note of the general appearance of the applicant's home. I hope the Minister will issue instructions to the people who carry out these means tests that their actions are not in the spirit in which the Minister introduced and the Oireachtas passed the Bill.

With regard to the raising of the upper age limit of a child from 16 to 18 years of age for benefit under the Bill I should like to know if a child who became 16 at the time the Budget was introduced, and these improvements were announced, will continue to receive benefit because he is under 18 or whether from the period since the date of the Budget until the Bill is passed he will receive no benefit because he was over the age of 16? Those children who had reached the age of 16 at the time the Budget was introduced should receive benefits continually until they reach the age of 18. As a member of a local authority I have found the deductions made from old age pensions when pensioners are in hospital for a considerable time are very much resented.

A number of speakers have said that the death grant is not adequate but I welcome its introduction as a step in the right direction. I trust when our national prosperity increases the grant will be increased. As I understand it the grant applies to persons in the contributory category; it does not apply to persons who are not in that category. I should like to know if local authorities will be directed by the Minister to make a corresponding increase in the funeral grants payable to persons who do not come under the scheme. Local authorities allocate grants to relatives who do not have the means to bury a deceased relative. It is my opinion that these people do not come under this scheme but I trust the local authorities will be advised about the situation. It may be that this is an attempt to include every old age pensioner, whether contributory or non-contributory. I should like some guidance from the Minister on that point.

I should like to raise a point in regard to women employed in agriculture and domestice service. I understand they must be ten years in employment before they can avail of unemployment benefit and if this is so the Minister should look into this matter. I consider this period far too long, and this matter might be reviewed.

Another matter I would raise is the allowance for caring for incapacitated old age pensioners. Although an allowance is given to many relatives, including daughter, step daughter, niece and so on, the wife is not included. While there may be some theoretical reason for excluding her, in view of the work she is doing in caring for the incapacitated old age pensioner she is equally entitled to some assistance. In many cases these people have a very hard struggle to eke out an existence. A married daughter or a daughter-in-law who is supported by her husband is not entitled to benefit.

It sometimes happens, especially in rural Ireland, that instead of the female relative going into the house of the old pensioner to care for that person it is more convenient if they take the aged person to live with them. In certain cases there is a difference of opinion as to whether the woman of the house is entitled to payment for caring for the old person because the latter is not living in her own house. Anyone familiar with conditions in rural Ireland knows that in many cases old people live in very bad houses, without heating or water and sewerage facilities. It is a humane and kind act for the relative to take the old age pensioner into the home and to care for him or her. If difficulties arise regarding payment in such cases I can visualise friction between the husband and wife when payment is not made. If there is any way the Minister can ease the situation it will be greatly appreciated by many people.

I should like to comment briefly in regard to people who have obtained all their insurance stamps in England. In many cases when they return here they find there is a long delay in obtaining benefit and there appears to be a breakdown in liaison between the Department here and the British Ministry in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the long delays that occur but if something could be done about the matter, even at ministerial level, it would relieve much anxiety and suffering.

I should like to make a comment in regard to allowances paid to small farmers. This has been worthwhile and has enabled many people to remain on their farms when they might otherwise have had to emigrate. However, in some cases administration of the scheme appears too rigid. I have in mind one case that occurred in my own locality. It concerned a man who wished to give one of his two holdings —one of the farms was quite small and one was medium-sized—to his son. The farmer had decided that he and his wife would live on the small farm and the son would have the mediumsized one. The son was aged 26 years and, unlike his brother who had emigrated, he wished to remain at home. However, the examining officer believed that the farmer and his wife had moved into the small farm solely for the purpose of obtaining the allowance.

Anyone familiar with conditions in rural Ireland will be aware that young women will not marry into farms where the mother and father are residing. However, the situation is not helped when decisions such as the one I have mentioned are made and where there is unnecessarily rigid application of the provisions of the Act. When the scheme to grant allowances to small farmers was introduced I do not think it was in the mind of the Minister or of the Houses of the Oireachtas that it would be administered in such a restricted way.

I agree with Senator Lyons that means tests are necessary and will remain so for quite a considerable time. We cannot give grants indiscriminately but where a means test is applied it should be done in a flexible and generous way rather than in a harsh manner. It is better to err on the side of being somewhat generous to the people who need assistance than to be overstrict and to encourage, among the population, a general distrust of those who administer our laws.

Mr. J. Boland

My remarks are of necessity rather scattered, mainly due to the obligation placed on the Leader of the House to begin to produce Bills like a conjuror producing rabbits out of a hat. I have not had an opportunity of spending as much time as I would like examining the various proposals in this Bill.

I would like to take the opportunity of bringing one or two points to the notice of the Minister now. For some time past I have felt that the Department of Social Welfare is one which we could, perhaps, do without in its present form. It seems to me that in its better operations it travels much the same ground as the Department of Health and the Department of Labour.

A rationalisation of these Departments and a transfer to the Minister for Labour of functions in regard to unemployment benefits and allowances and, to the Department of Health of functions in relation to disability and sickness benefits would be something which would probably be welcomed to a very great extent. This would lead to a more effective and efficient operation of these services. It is the experience of every Member of this House and of the Dáil, and of every public representative, in no matter what capacity, throughout the country, that they have from time to time been fraustrated at the slowness and delays of the Department of Social Welfare in answering simple queries and in providing necessary information which would enable the public representative to carry out his duties properly. If our frustration bothers us, what must the frustration be of the people without benefits and allowances, or with missing cheques? People are asked to fill in numerous forms, often to no avail. It seems to me that the operations of the Department should be closely examined by the Minister.

There are new proposals in this Bill in relation to allowances and pensions. These are welcome. If they are to be efficiently operated I would suggest that the whole method of assessing claims, processing them and making payments should be seriously examined. Very often people in public life come across an applicant who has written to the Department of Social Welfare months before and received no reply. On contacting the Department they are told the Department have no record of such a letter. If the Department admit to having received such a letter, they insist that it has been transferred to another Department or to another section in the building and that they are no longer concerned with it. It seems to me that this is not the way that claims from people suffering in any way, through illness or unemployment, should be dealt with. Consideration and the spirit of charity should be noticeable in processing these claims. A special type of officer should be employed to deal with them. It is only recently that the Department of Social Welfare got around to realising the responsibilities attached to the word "social" in the employment of officers in the Department. The Department of Labour and the Department of Health could much more effectively administer most of the present schemes. These Departments could perhaps more imaginatively devise new schemes to deal with changing circumstances. I realise that in making that suggestion I am probably suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has just arrived in the Chamber, that his job could go by the board. I would not be surprised if the Parliamentary Secretary was of one mind with me in the suggestion that the Departments of Health and of Labour could more effectively administer most of the schemes at present administered by the Department of Social Welfare.

I should like to refer to the disparities which exist in the assessment of means for unemployment assistance in various parts of the country. As I understand it, in the West of Ireland at the moment means are assessed on a valuation basis of £20 income being equivalent to £1 valuation. In other parts of the country the means test is a subjective exercise operated by social welfare workers. I think it would be better if one standard was employed and clearly set out and known to operate on a national basis.

I am disappointed that in some part of this Bill an opportunity was not taken—perhaps it would not be the appropriate measure, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will be only too pleased to inform the House on this—to tighten up the procedure in relation to the obligation of employers to stamp national insurance cards. We all of us know the very great hardship which arises where employers have either deliberately or otherwise not stamped the insurance cards of their employees and the employees were completely oblivious of the fact and almost invariably were paying their contributions by way of deduction from their pay packets and were happy in the belief that their cards were being stamped by the employer. The process at present as I understand it is that if a person applies for benefit he will be informed that his card has not been stamped and that he is not eligible, and the only recourse open to him then is to take civil action in the courts. As we all know, this is a very slow, tedious and cumbersome process, with all due respect to those legal luminaries who happen to be present on every side of me at the moment. I understand that the Minister's Department are prepared, if application is made to them by the injured party, to initiate the legal proceedings on behalf of the injured party, who is the employee, but all too often there is a quite considerable time lag from the time the injured party discovers that the Minister's Department would be prepared to do this to the time when the Minister's Department eventually accede to his request to initiate the proceedings and the time after that again when this legal prolongation finally reaches its conclusion, usually, I think, successfully, but at the end of that stage, if the injured party has been dependent on the money he should have got by way of benefit he would have starved to death. There is a case to be made for having failure of employers to stamp insurance cards made a criminal offence with heavy punitive fines and indeed coupled with imprisonment in particularly bad cases, and the Minister's Department or the Department of Labour should be given legislative power to act immediately in such cases against such employers.

I would like to suggest that this Bill could perhaps have been used to initiate a publicity campaign to notify employees of the dangers which exist in not checking that their employers were regularly stamping their cards, and to issue a warning that they should ensure when contributions are being stopped from their weekly pay packets that the employer in his turn is fulfilling his legal share of the bargain and making his contribution by purchasing the stamps and fixing them to the cards. All too often indeed we know of cases where this is not done and there is long-term suffering both to the employee and to his dependent family. I would like very much indeed if in replying on this Stage of the Bill the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary could give us some indication as to the Government's thinking on this and whether they intend to take steps to tie up this loophole which exists at the moment.

The proposed retirement pension as outlined in the Bill is of course very welcome to all of us on this side of the House-indeed especially welcome as this suggestion basically emanated from this side of the House some years ago. I think that most of the fairer people in other parts of this building would agree that the suggestion first came in Fine Gael policy documents.

Mr. Colley

Like all the good suggestions.

Mr. J. Boland

I am glad the Minister agrees and I hope it will be clearly recorded that the Minister for Finance has stated today that, like all good suggestions, this one emanated from Fine Gael policy.

Mr. Colley

I hope it will and it will be clearly understood too.

It is recognised by all of us here that the social welfare benefits in this country rank among the lowest in Europe and our social welfare recipients rank among the lowest paid and yet probably they have the highest content of forms to be filled in by any country. It would be a good thing if this Bill and its successors were able to abolish these two reputations.

Mr. W. O'Brien

Like other Senators, I welcome this Bill. I am not too happy that it goes far enough. When I say that I am not being critical of the Bill, I merely want to point out that it caters for people who are not in a position to organise for themselves. They have to depend on us as their advocates to get the best possible benefits for them. Workers are receiving as much as £7 a week increase in their salary in order to meet the increased cost of living. This is recognised and accepted by the employers association and it is being paid even in my own county. That, in itself, is an indication of how the cost of living is increasing and for that reason we must realise the difficulty that confronts social welfare recipients whom this Bill is intended to help.

I notice that an unemployed single man in an urban area is paid £3 12s 6d a week and a married couple are paid £6 8s whereas in rural areas a single man receives only £3 6s and a married couple receive £6. There is only 8s difference but I fail to see the reason for that difference. The cost of living in rural Ireland is just as high as it is in urban areas. As a matter of fact the vast majority of people in rural Ireland go to the towns and cities to shop because they get better bargains there.

I welcome the provision being made for deserted wives; it is long overdue. These women suffered a big disappointment in life and very often they are slow to make any representation on their own behalf because they are too embarrassed to do so.

With regard to the payment of social welfare benefits I know of cases where claimants were waiting six weeks for payment. It is unnecessary to make them wait such a long time and it causes much hardship. Sickness or unemployment are bad enough but want of money and food cannot be described as a tonic for sickness.

The benefit given for care of the aged is both welcome and long overdue. The amount of money necessary to provide such services is very small compared with what it would cost to keep these people in institutions. I heard it stated by one man who described himself as having a thorough knowledge of the expenses incurred in maintaining a person in hospital that it cost up to £17 10s a week per patient. If that figure is anywhere near correct we are getting away lightly with the amount of money we are providing under this Bill to care for the aged at home.

In conclusion I want to say that I appreciate the benefits given in the Bill and although I am not satisfied that they are enough they are a step in the right direction. I sincerely hope the Minister at the next available opportunity will see his way to lighten even further the burden on social welfare recipients.

Mr. Colley

On behalf of the Minister for Social Welfare I should like to thank Senator Belton for the kind expression of sympathy he gave to the Minister on his tragic bereavement. It is much appreciated.

I was glad to note that Senators welcomed the provisions of the Bill. I think this would be true of every Senator who spoke. It would probably also be true of every Senator who spoke that while he welcomed the Bill he would like to see higher benefits. I share this view but we have to be realistic and provide benefits which we can afford to pay. I have no doubt that further improvements will be effected as time goes on. As far as I am concerned the sooner that happens the better.

A number of Senators raised questions concerning means tests. It was suggested that one means test operated by a central office should suffice for all purposes. This would be ideal if there were a full investigation and disclosure of means recorded centrally and kept up to date but unfortunately no such record is available.

The income tax records suggested by one Senator would not suffice. The number of taxpayers whose means have been assessed for income tax purposes is only part of the population and by definition does not include those who are in the lowest income group and those most in need of the welfare services provided by the Department of Social Welfare and other Departments. However, I should mention since it was suggested that there should be one agency operating for the different Departments concerned with assessing means that this occurs to a limited extent. The Department of Social Welfare carry out investigation of means for some other Departments, for example, for the Department of Defence in connection with special allowances.

It was mentioned in the Third Programme that the Department of Social Welfare propose to examine the whole social assistance system and the question of standardisation and unification of means tests will inevitably arise in this review. I would hope, as a result, that we will get nearer to the ideal which has been adumbrated here but I do not expect that we shall reach that ideal. However, it would certainly be helpful if we could get nearer to it.

A number of Senators referred to the means test for non-contributory old age pensions and to the method of assessing capital. It is not the interest which the capital earns that is the dominant consideration in this matter. The annuity which a person can buy at the age of 70 is a more important factor in arriving at the method of calculation. I would also suggest that in view of the higher rates of interest now prevalent this method of assessing income from capital is not unreasonable.

The interest on capital a person may receive is not the dominant consideration. This matter has been considered on a number of occasions and several factors, including the annuity a person could purchase for a certain sum, were taken into consideration. I presume Senators do not expect that a person will be allowed to leave money untouched in the bank to pass on to relatives and, at the same time, rely on the taxpayers for his support. A pensioner might reasonably be expected to use some of the capital for his own support and if his capital is reduced as a result he can obtain a higher rate of pension. It should not be forgotten that the most needy section of the people are those who have no means whatever and those who have some capital are in a much better position than that category. This fact must be recognised.

Some criticisms have been made of the rates of payment and of the qualifying conditions for the new schemes to be introduced under this Bill. For example, Senators were critical of the amount of death grants. I should like to point out that it is not intended in the case of a death grant to cover funeral costs in their entirety but rather is it intended as a contribution towards the expenses that occur as a result of a death in the family.

In addition, in some speeches the amounts available under the death grant scheme were compared unfavourably with similar provisions in other countries. In this connection I would point out that the rate we propose compares not unfavourably with the corresponding grant in Britain and in the North of Ireland, which is £30 with a reduction for a younger person. I should like to allay some fears that were expressed by Senators and to make it clear that the death grant will be payable directly and in entirety to the recipient or his personal representative, irrespective of any private insurance or any claims that might lie against him. Similarly, payment of private occupational pensions will not affect payment of retirement or invalidity pensions.

Some criticism was made of age limits and other conditions prescribed in the Bill in relation to the new schemes and to their scope generally. I should like to point out to Senators that these schemes are new and must be regarded as experimental. In the circumstances it was considered prudent at the outset not to make the provisions too wide or to make the conditions for qualification too easy of satisfaction. However, it is intended to effect such improvements in the schemes as experience of their working will suggest as necessary; undoubtedly, experience will demonstrate clearly where improvements are necessary or desirable.

One of the matters that will be specially reviewed is the 50 year age limit for childless deserted wives. Reference was also made to the need for a review of the general children's allowances scheme and comments were made on the rates of payment for children under other social welfare schemes. In this connection, I would point out that, as indicated in the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development, the general children's allowances scheme has been under examination with a view to introducing a greater measure of selectivity in the payment of the allowances and also to effect other improvements in the scheme. In addition, as the rates for children under other welfare schemes were linked with the rates of payment for children under the general scheme, the relationship between them will be reviewed in the course of this examination.

A suggestion was also made that a tax should be levied on luxury and pleasure expenditure and specifically designated for social welfare purposes. I am afraid this would be an unwise step as it would tie the social welfare expenditure to the earmarked tax and it could inhibit the development of our social welfare services if we were to do this.

Criticism was voiced of the average contribution test for retirement pensions. This test is the same as that which applies in the case of the contributory old age pension and is similar to that applicable in other pension schemes. The purpose has been to ensure that full pension is payable where there has been full, or almost full insurance. The average test can be satisfied with contributions that are paid while the person is employed or credited during periods of illness or unemployment or by voluntary contributions where the person ceases in insurable employment. Where the average of 48 contributions is not achieved, reduced rates of pension are payable in accordance with the average that is achieved and thus the pension payable is related to the level of insurance.

Senators complained of the complexity and difficulty in understanding social welfare legislation and a suggestion was made that one consolidated Social Welfare Act should now be produced. I must say that I agree that this would be both desirable and useful. Efforts in that direction have been made. The steady stream of social welfare legislation introducing new and more elaborate schemes in recent years, has prevented completion of the work. There has been at least one Social Welfare Bill each year since 1957. With the many developments and improvements which are being planned at present, I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope of a consolidated Act in the near future. It would certainly be desirable and useful. If it cannot be done because of the rate at which we are improving and expanding the social welfare services and introducing new schemes, I imagine that Senators will be prepared to bear with us in not having a consolidated measure, when this is the reason for it.

I wish to refer to a number of other points which were mentioned. The difference between the rates of unemployment assistance in urban and rural areas arises from the fact that in the urban areas concerned part of the cost of the assistance is raised by the rates. This is not so in the rural areas. I would also like to make it clear that deserted wives coming under the provisions of the Bill will get the same pensions as widows, including increases in respect of qualified children up to the age of 18 years.

Reference was also made to the non-stamping of cards by employers. As I mentioned in the Dáil yesterday, this is a matter which creates considerable difficulties and to which the Minister for Social Welfare has been devoting a good deal of attention. We believe that a solution to this problem, reasonably satisfactory to the various parties concerned, is in sight and that it should be possible to produce it fairly shortly. Legislation is not necessary in order to effect this. It can be done, I think, by regulation.

Reference was made to the payment of old age pensions to patients in hospitals. In those cases the pension continues to be paid to the pensioner or his agents. The Department of Social Welfare do not deduct anything from the pension because the pensioner is in hospital. The hospital authorities, acting within their responsibilities under the Health Acts, may seek to recover some sum towards the cost of the pensioner's maintenance in hospital. This is not a matter which is controlled in any way by the Department of Social Welfare.

I have been asked by one Senator to consider the question of a widow drawing a pension who, in addition, takes up some employment to try to help her to make ends meet and as a result becomes liable to income tax. I have been asked whether her pension could be exempt from tax. I would not like to hold out any hope that this was likely to happen. In so far as income tax is concerned, there are certain sums which are exempt or treated as not being liable to tax in calculating a person's income. In the recent Budget these have been increased but I could not undertake to say that it is likely that in the circumstances outlined there would be further special exemptions. I do not wish to go into details except to say that obviously if such cases were exempted there would be many other cases which would be equally deserving and would also need to be exempted. The whole income tax system would need to be re-cast if we were to accept this proposal.

One Senator questioned the drafting of this Bill on the grounds that it is proposed to give power to the Minister to set out the conditions for the various schemes by regulation, for example, the definition of what would constitute desertion. It would be quite impossibe to draft social welfare legislation in the detailed way which would be necessary, if resort were not had to regulatory powers. If everything went into a Social Welfare Bill, each Social Welfare Act would be extremely bulky and complicated. Worse than that, the administration of the social welfare schemes would become excessively inflexible and difficult. We would have many complaints, far more than we do at the moment, with regard to the method of administration of the social welfare code.

In relation to the deserted wives scheme, I mentioned in my opening speech that it was necessary to adopt a pragmatic approach so as to get a reasonable scheme in operation at the earliest possible date, as well as to ensure that the scheme would be flexible and readily capable of amendment where experience showed that amendment was necessary. The definition of desertion has not yet been finalised. Unless a regulatory method were used to deal with this, the scheme would not yet be ready for legislation. Furthermore, I would point out that such regulations are laid on the Table of the House. They are, therefore, not in the category of regulations which might be made by civil servants, with the concurrence of their Minister, and not subject to any scrutiny or right of revision or revocation.

Another Senator suggested that part-time work should not disqualify a person for retirement pension. This would be a matter for the definition of what would constitute retirement, which will be laid down by regulation. The points which were made by Senators will be taken into account in drafting that definition. I can say that the definition will not be rigid or inflexible. It will take into account some form of work without ruling people out as not having retired.

The point was raised by Senator Lyons as to whether eligibility for invalidity pensions related only to physical disability. I want to assure the House that mental disability can operate to provide that a person who has been insured and satisfied the conditions for the pension will get the pension.

Criticism was made also of the methods of investigation adopted by some of the social welfare officers. These criticisms are not unfamiliar, but I think that Senators, when they think about it, will realise that this is a very difficult problem which certainly cannot be solved by anything you can lay down in a Bill or in regulations or in any written directives to these officers. One has to find the balance in providing such directives between on the one hand the mental state of people who are applicants for social welfare and on the other the dangers of widespread fraud in the making of claims. One can certainly find it possible to devise directives steering a middle course between these two difficulties, but where the problem arises is in the interpretation of these. With the best will in the world if you produce a directive of this kind and give it to 20 different people you may well get 20 different interpretations. However this matter was gone into in some detail in the discussion in the other House and some views were expressed on it by a number of Deputies, including myself. Arrangements are being made to have these remarks circulated to the officers concerned, and I will also have added to that the remarks made in this debate in that connection to endeavour to convey as far as we can to the officers concerned the view that public representatives take of the way the duties are carried out, what are the things they object to, and how they feel the job should be done while doing justice to the State and to the applicants.

A question was raised also about the raising of the age of allowances in respect of children from 16 to 18, and as to whether there would be a gap in payment between the date on which a child has reached the age of 16 and the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. There will be such a gap. It is unavoidable because there has been no legal authority for the payment of any sum in respect of such children and there is not any until this Bill is passed.

A question was raised about the delays in obtaining information from the British Minister of Social Security at Newcastle-on-Tyne. I want to make it clear that these delays are no fault of our Department of Social Welfare. Constant efforts are made to expedite the transfer of contribution records, but the average delay is still about three weeks and can extend to five or six weks. This is sometimes due to difficulties which the British authorities at Newcastle-on-Tyne encounter in tracing insured persons, but this is mainly due to the fact that relevant insurance cards may be held at local offices in other parts of the country.

I hope that I have dealt with the main points which were raised, but to the extent to which I have failed to do so I presume that the points concerned can be raised on the next Stage of the Bill and I will endeavour to deal with them.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 23 Jul 1970