Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 1972

Vol. 73 No. 3

Social Welfare Bill, 1972: Second Stage:

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

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

The Bill is concerned mainly with the implementation of the proposals in the Budget for improvements in the existing social insurance and social assistance schemes and consequential matters. The Bill also extends social insurance to the Garda Síochána and contains other provisions designed to further improve the social insurance system. I hope that the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill will help Senators in their examination of the Bill which, because of its technical nature and the fact that it includes many amendments of existing legislation, tends to be difficult to understand in places.

The Budget increases in the field of social assistance will add an extra 50 pence a week to non-contributory old age, blind and widows' pensions and deserted wife's allowances which will bring the maximum personal rate up to £5.15 a week in each case. To meet the special needs of the very aged, a further 50p a week is being provided this year for old age pensioners aged 80 or over, which will bring their maximum personal rate to £5.65 a week. The increased maximum rates of pension will enable the scale of means and rates of pension to be extended. The weekly amounts paid to non-contributory old age and blind pensioners in respect of qualified children are being increased by 40 pence to £1.15 for each of the first two children and by 25 pence to 75 pence for each additional child while the amounts paid to widows and deserted wives for qualified children will be increased by 45 pence to £1.35 for each child. Orphans' non-contributory pensions will be increased by 50p a week to £3 at the maximum.

The scheme of allowances for deserted wives has only been in operation since October, 1970, but experience has shown that the present minimum age limit of 50, which applies to those who have no dependent children, has operated harshly, particularly in the case of persons in the 40 to 50 age group. I propose to solve this problem by the provision in section 19 of the Bill reducing the minimum age limit for allowances for deserted wives without dependent children to 40 years.

The rates of unemployment assitance payable to persons in urban and rural areas are being increased by 40p a week for the recipient and by a further 30p a week where there is an adult dependant. The maximum rate will then be £4.35 for a single person and £7.75 for a married couple resident in an urban area. Outside urban areas the corresponding rates will be £4.05 and £7.35. Where there are dependent children, the rates payable in respect of them are also being in-increased. These increases in unemployment assistance will have the effect of automatically extending the means limit for qualification for unemployment assistance. All these increases and improvements in relation to social assistance will operate from the beginning of August next.

The increases in rates of social insurance benefits and pensions announced in the Budget will come into operation at the beginning of October next. These will provide an extra 70 pence a week on the maximum personal rate of old age (contributory) pension and an extra 60p a week on the maximum personal rate of widow's (contributory) pension, disability and unemployment benefit, invalidity pension and maternity allowance. A special increase of £1.25 a week is being provided in the maximum personal rate of retirement pension to bring that pension up to the level of old age (contributory) pension. Persons aged 80 or over receiving retirement pension or old age or widow's (contributory) pension will get an additional 50 pence a week. The payments for dependants are also being increased— for example an extra 30 pence a week will be paid for an adult dependant in the case of old age (contributory) pension, invalidity pension, disability or unemployment benefit while, in the case of retirement pensions, the increase will be 70 pence, to bring the level of payment up to that of old age (contributory) pension. For recipients of old age (contributory), retirement and invalidity pensions and disability and unemployment benefits the payments for qualified children are being increased by 45 pence to £1.35 a week in respect of each of the first two and by 35 pence to £1.00 a week in respect of each other qualified child. Widows receiving contributory pensions will be paid £1.50 a week for each qualified child instead of £1. Orphans' (contributory) allowances will be increased by 50 pence to £3.80 a week.

Finally, the rates of death grant payable are being increased from £25.00 to £35.00 for an adult, from £5 to £7 for a child under age five and from £15 to £21 in the case of any other child.

These increases very substantially improve the payments under the various schemes. From October next under the old age (contributory) pension and retirement pension schemes, a single pensioner will get a maximum of £6.20 a week, while a married couple will get £10.35. A widow without children will get £5.60 a week by way of widow's (contributory) pension at the maximum. The maximum rates of unemployment and disability benefit, and invalidity pension, will then be £5.55 a week for the recipient and, where there is an adult dependent, £9.30 a week. As Senators will no doubt have noted, I have found it possible this year to continue the trend of recent years of improving the position of those having the care of children by substantially increasing the amounts payable for children under both the social assistance and the social insurance schemes. In this connection particularly I have again recognised the special position of widows and deserted wives by paying them greater increases for their children than are paid for the children of other recipients of social welfare benefits.

As I have already indicated, the increases in rates of social insurance benefits and pensions will come into operation from the beginning of October next, but certain rates of unemployment benefit, which are payable where unemployment continues after 156 days and which are the same as the maximum rates of unemployment assistance payable in urban areas, are being increased from the beginning of August next when the assistance rates go up.

These increases in rates of payment and other improvements in the social insurance system are estimated to cost some £13,595,000 in a full year. The social insurance system is based on the principle that the cost is met out of the social insurance fund to which employers, insured persons and the Exchequer contribute in approximately equal shares. The steps taken in recent years to keep the Exchequer's share of the overall cost at the one-third level have not been successful. Consequently, in order to meet the cost of the substantial improvements in benefits and ensure that the Exchequer is not required to bear an excessive proportion of the cost of the social insurance system, it is necessary that the rates of social insurance contributions should also be increased substantially from the beginning of October next. The increase proposed in the ordinary rates of social insurance contributions is 40 pence a week. Lesser increases are being applied where some only of the benefits concerned are covered. The increase of 40 pence in the ordinary rate of men's contribution will be shared by the employer paying 22 pence and the employee 18 pence and the total social insurance contribution will then be £2.12 a week of which £1.09 will be borne by the employer and £1.03 by the employee. The increase in the rate of voluntary contribution covering widows' (contributory) pensions only will be 7 pence making it 44 pence and the increase in the voluntary contribution which covers old age and widows' (contributory) pensions, retirement pension and death grant will be 17 pence making it £1.08. A table showing the present and proposed rates of contribution appears in the explanatory memorandum.

With regard to the increases in contributions it is scarcely necessary for me to say that substantial improvements in the social insurance system must involve substantial increases in the contributions payable by employers and insured persons if the basis of the system as a contributory one providing benefits free of means test is to be preserved. While, therefore, it may seem that the proposed contributions for insured persons are heavy, it should be borne in mind that the contribution payable by the ordinary male worker himself for purely social insurance from October next will be £1.03 which represents 3.68 per cent of the average weekly pay of adult male industrial workers in December last, £27.99.

This percentage is not excessive when compared with the position in other countries. For example, in Britain, at the same pay level, an insured man will be paying £1.55 from October next or 5.54 per cent of his earnings in contributions for purely national insurance. In the member countries of the European Economic Community, the latest figures available show that for insurance in respect of pensions and sickness and unemployment benefit, which would broadly be the equivalent of our purely social insurance, the insured worker is paying 6.58 per cent of his earnings in France, 7.05 per cent in Italy, 11 per cent in Luxembourg, 11.05 per cent in Belgium, 13.15 per cent in Germany and 17.95 per cent in the Netherlands, while the employer also is required to contribute heavily on the basis of the worker's earnings—18.32 per cent in France, 30.66 per cent in Italy, 9 per cent in Luxembourg, 14 per cent in Belgium, 13.15 per cent in Germany and 15 per cent in the Netherlands.

Arising out of the increases and improvements in the general social insurance system provided for in the Bill, it is proposed also to improve the benefits payable under the occupational injuries scheme. The increases proposed are 60 pence in the rates of the main weekly paid benefits and allowances with proportionate increases in other payments.

There is a separate motion being put before the House approving the Redundancy Contributions (Variation of Rates) Order, 1972, which will provide for the weekly redundancy contributions for men to be increased by 3 pence to 8 pence and for women by 2 pence to 6 pence. These contributions are collected by way of the social insurance stamp for those classes of employees to be covered for redundancy purposes and are additional to the rates of social insurance contribution dealt with in the Bill and which I have mentioned earlier.

The schemes under which old age (care) allowances and increases of pensions both contributory and non-contributory are payable in respect of certain prescribed female relatives who give full-time care and attention to incapacitated persons aged 70 or over, are being extended. From October next these will cover male relatives who will be prescribed and will also be payable with invalidity and retirement pensions.

This is being done because cases have come to light in which it has been shown that the necessary care and attention is being provided on a full-time basis by male relatives and there is, accordingly, a certain inequity in confining the schemes to female relatives only. In addition the rates of payment are being increased in all cases from £2.75 to £3.00, the increased rate being payable from August in the case of payments under social assistance schemes and from October where the payment is under a social insurance scheme.

The final matter relating to the Budget proposals is the position which will arise in August next, when non-contributory pensions are increased, where for the period up to the end of September next, when contributory pensions are increased, cases will arise where the non-contributory pension to which a pensioner might be entitled would be temporarily more favourable than the corresponding contributory pension which he holds. An option was given to contributory pensioners by the 1966 Act to switch to non-contributory pensions where it would be to their advantage, but it was never the intention that this option should operate for very short periods. There is provision in this Bill as in previous years' Bills to prevent such switching where the advantage would only be temporary. The right of pensioners to switch where the advantage would be permanent will remain.

I will turn now to matters which do not arise out of the budget proposals. The first is the provision in section 15 to implement the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commission on Garda Pay and Conditions to the effect that gardaí should be brought within the scope of the social insurance system. Under this section, employment as a member of the Garda Síochána will, from a date to be appointed by order, be made compulsorily insurable, but not for occupational injuries purposes, and I will have power to make regulations modifying the Act in relation to gardaí. What I propose to do in these regulations is to limit the insurance of gardaí to widows' and orphans' pensions as in the case of established civil servants. Gardaí will, of course, be subject to the remuneration limit of £1,600 applicable in the case of non-manual workers. The statutory exclusion of gardaí from occupational injuries coverage is based on the facts that the employment involves risks above and beyond those normally encountered in employment which is covered for such purposes and the force has its own scheme of compensation for injuries received in the course of duty.

The next matter, dealt with in section 9, is to remedy the situation where some social welfare beneficiaries fail to make any provision for their families although the benefit or pension in payment is intended in part for their dependants. This failure may be due to any of a number of reasons but, regardless of the reason, the family involved suffers distress and hitherto the Department have been almost powerless to take any effective action in such cases. In connection with the old age (contributory) pension scheme, however, power was taken in 1963 to enable that portion of the pension payable in respect of a dependant to be paid directly to the dependant or to some other person on her behalf where the circumstances of the case seemed to warrant such action. This provision has proved to be beneficial in operation and it is proposed in the Bill to provide similar powers in relation to other social insurance benefits and occupational injuries payments where dependants are paid for. It will be possible to extend those powers to the social assistance schemes by regulation.

A further matter relates to the recovery of arrears of social insurance contributions where an employer goes bankrupt or becomes an arranging debtor. Health contributions and redundancy contributions are, by virtue of the Health Contributions Act, 1971, and the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, respectively, deemed to be social insurance contributions. These Acts also give to redundancy and health contributions a period of 12 months priority in the disposal of the assets of a bankrupt or an arranging debtor. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, however, social insurance contributions are only given a period of four months' priority in such circumstances. Section 10 proposes to remove this anomaly by amending the Social Welfare Act, 1952, so as to give social insurance contributions the 12-month period of priority which applies to redundancy and health contributions.

The final matter concerns the contribution conditions for receipt of maternity allowance which is payable on a woman's insurance only. At present, eligibility for the allowance depends on the woman's insurance record in the last contribution year before the commencement of the sixth week prior to the expected date of confinement. This has been found to cause difficulty where a claim is made just after the end of a woman's contribution year because, until the relevant insurance card has been surrendered to the Department, the claim cannot be decided. In the case of maternity grant, this difficulty does not arise because eligibility may, as an alternative, be determined on the insurance record in the previous contribution year and section 14 proposes that a similar alternative should operate in the case of maternity allowance.

To conclude, I will summarise the cost of the various proposals in the Bill. On the social assistance side there is £3,884,000 for old age and blind pensions, £610,000 for widows' and orphans' pensions, £165,000 for deserted wife's allowances and £2,751,000 for unemployment assistance, the total cost being £7,410,000 in a full year, all of which will fall on the Exchequer. The gross cost of improvements on the social insurance side will be £13,595,000 in a full year, of which the increases in contribution rates will provide some £10,424,000 leaving a further £3,171,000 to be borne by the Exchequer.

I have much pleasure in recommending this Bill to Seanad Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Professor Dooge

On a point of order, a Chathaoirleach, in view of the fact that the Minister has not made a full statement of the reasons why he is proposing the Redundancy Payments Order, I would ask you to rule that we are discussing only No. 1.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not think the Minister has concluded.

Mr. J. Brennan

Are we to formally move No. 5?

An Cathaoirleach

No, we can discuss only one motion at a time. The Minister can speak to No. 5, but it will be moved after we have disposed of No. 1.

Mr. J. Brennan

I will deal, then, with the Redundancy Contributions Order.

The resolution proposes approval of a draft order to provide for increases in the rates of redundancy contributions by employers and employees.

The necessity for the increases is due to three main reasons:

1. The rise in incomes since the coming into operation of the Redundancy Payments Act on 1st January, 1968—the amounts of redundancy lump sums and redundancy weekly payments are based on the pay of redundant workers at the date of dismissal:

2. the rise in redundancies due to world wide business recession—a contributory factor to the increase was the reduction of the qualifying period of four years continuous employment with the same employer to two years under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1971.

3. the improved benefits for redundant workers and the increased rebates for employers provided for, under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1971, for example:

(i) The period necessary to qualify for benefit was reduced from four to two years with the same employer.

(ii) Coverage by the scheme for non-manual workers after they have exceeded the income limit of £1,600 for compulsory insurance was increased from two to four years.

(iii) The limit of 20 weeks' pay on the amount of the lump sum payment was abolished.

(iv) Each lump sum payment was increased by the equivalent of one week's pay.

(v) Employers' rates of rebates of lump sums to employees from the redundancy fund were increased by 5 per cent and the new rates of rebate are from 55 per cent to 70 per cent depending on the length of notice of dismissal given to the employees.

(vi) Each year of continuous employment over the age of 41 years counts for two weekly payments. Formerly each two years over 41 counted for three weekly payments.

The redundancy contribution rates in operation at present are as follows:—

Men—Employer's contribution, 3p; Employee's contribution, 2p; Total, 5p.

Women—Employer's contribution, 3p; Employee's contribution, 1p; Total, 4p.

There has been no change, with the exception of a decimalisation adjustment, in the contribution rates since the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, came into operation on 1st January, 1968.

The annual income from present contributions is between 1¼ and 1½ million pounds—estimated—and this would not be sufficient to sustain the present trend in expenditure. It will be necessary to increase the contributions in order to bring in between £2 million and £2¼ as from 2nd October, 1972, that is, the date on which the new rates of contribution will be payable under the terms of the Social Welfare Bill, 1972.

The new rates will be:

Men—Employer, 5p (increase, 2p); Employee, 3p (increase, 1p).

Women—Employer, 4p (increase, 1p); Employee, 2p (increase, 1p).

Total overall increase 5p.

It is hoped that these increases will keep the fund solvent for 12 months but it will be necessary to keep the trend of expenditure under constant review.

This is an opportune time to recall that the Redundancy Payments Act was conceived within the framework of the manpower policy of the Department of Labour and that the aspirations which went into the planning of the Act have been fulfilled as the lump sum and weekly payments have cushioned workers and their families against financial hardship while enabling the workers to seek alternative employment with the assistance of the national manpower service. The redundancy payments scheme is based on the principle that a worker who has given a certain period of service with the same employer builds up rights in his job which entitle him to compensation. While the redundancy payments scheme is intended primarily to help workers it also enables employers to secure a more ready acceptance by workers of changes in the labour force caused by advances in technology.

I believe that the increases in rates proposed in the draft order are very modest, having regard to the factors I have mentioned.

Accordingly, I recommend to the Seanad to approve the order in draft.

Mr. Reynolds

I certainly welcome the Social Welfare Bill for the increased benefits outlined. The one matter that continues to disappoint us is that, when the budget is introduced, the increased taxation contained in it comes into force the following day while increases for social welfare recipients, such as old age pensioners, deserted wives, people in receipt of home assistance and so on, are not forthcoming until August or October. I believe such benefits should be given at a much earlier date.

If we look through the list of benefits we find that £4.65 is the maximum pension at present payable to non-contributory old age pensioners. That figure will now be increased by 50p and will result in a pension of £5.15. However, if a person owns his own house he will not get this amount; if he has a nominal sum of money in a bank —which most elderly people put aside for their burial—he will not qualify for this amount. It is only payable to old people who are more or less destitute.

In the amount of money payable to old age non-contributory pensioners and to qualified children, in the income bracket of £25, the widow qualifies for £4.40 and the first two dependent children qualify for 75p. That sum is now to be increased by 50p for the widow and 40p for each dependent child, which will result in a figure of £1.15 per week each for the first two children. The third child and subsequent children are at present in receipt of 50p and this figure will now be increased by 25p which will give them a total of 75p each. That leaves a difference of 40p between the figure for the first two children and that for the third child and subsequent children. I believe that the third child and all subsequent children should qualify for the same amount of benefit as the first two children.

We are operating our social welfare benefits under the very same means test which operated in 1952. If we are sincere about giving our social welfare recipients the benefits to which they are justly entitled the means test should have been revised during that 20 years. I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not revise the means test in this Bill. Everybody knows that during the last 20 years the cost of living has gone up by at least 300 per cent and perhaps higher.

There is another point which, I think, I raised in the Dáil some years ago and about which nothing has been done and that is the case of a widow who has £1,000 in the bank. While she remains a widow she will qualify for a pension of £4.15 plus 50p increase in August which will give her £4.65. When she reaches the age of 70 years and if she still has the £1,000 in the bank, her income will drop to £3.40, plus the 50p increase proposed, which will give her a total of £3.90, and she stands to lose 75p per week. The need for a change in such circumstances is long overdue. As people get older they are more in need of help, particularly if they are people in receipt of social welfare benefits.

There are a number of people here who are in receipt of pensions from abroad. I am thinking mainly of people who are in receipt of British Army pensions. If they get an increase of 25p or 30p per week from the British Government and if they are in receipt of a non-contributory pension here their pensions are immediately reduced by the same figure. It is about time something was done about this problem which is prevalent throughout the country. Many people feel aggrieved about it.

I am delighted that in this Bill the Minister has extended the provisions to cover male relatives who are caring for the aged. This allowance at the moment is £2.75, and the increase of 25p will bring it to £3. There are a number of elderly persons, particularly in the West, living with people who may not be relatives as specified in the Act. The Minister would have been well-advised to have extended this benefit to anybody who was caring for an aged person, irrespective of whether or not he was a relative. There is sufficient machinery in existence to ascertain if they are being cared for in the proper way. In 99.9 per cent of cases they are, whether or not an allowance is given. There are home assistance officers, district nurses, and so on, and it would not be a great hardship on these officials to see that such people are being cared for.

It is utterly impossible at the moment to get an aged person into any type of institution, and every encouragement should be given to people who are prepared to keep them in their homes. The cost of keeping old people in institutions vary tremendously. The last figure I saw in relation to costs for an ordinary home was about £12 or £14 a week. Perhaps the costs have been increased since. In view of such costs, it would be advisable to encourage more people to keep their aged relatives at home. It would serve a double purpose. It would leave accommodation available for those who have no alternative but to go in, and it would keep local authority expenditure down.

On reading the explanatory booklet issued by the Department of Social Welfare, one can find schemes that should no longer be in existence, such as the cheap fuel scheme and the cheap footwear scheme. These are two schemes which should be discontinued completely. The cheap fuel scheme is not serving any useful purpose at the moment. A number of committees have been established throughout the country to look after the elderly. These people are subsidised substantially by the Department of Health. Local authorities never regarded the free fuel scheme very seriously, particularly in rural areas. A very limited amount of fuel was made available. The Minister could easily end the scheme and subsititute a cash grant to those who are eligible for home assistance.

The cheap footwear scheme should also be discontinued. It is time in 1972 to end a scheme whereby assistance officers issue vouchers to people in the lower-income bracket who may have to make a contribution of £1 or £2 towards the cost of the footwear. It would be quite a simple calculation to increase the assistance that such people are entitled to and so enable them to purchase their own fuel and their own footwear. Very often voluntary organisations have to make contributions towards the cost of the footwear and fuel issued under these schemes. I must say a word of thanks to the various voluntary organisations throughout the country, such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the Committees for the Care of the Aged. These bodies are doing wonderful work. We are obliged to offer them our gratitude. A number of people would be in a desperate plight but for such organisations.

I should now like to refer to those who claim unemployment benefit. Recently I was approached to fill a form in this connection. I noticed that the maximum remuneration per day was 50p. This figure should be substantially increased. It should be somewhere between £2.50 and £3 per day. Food prices have increased during the past 12 months by 11.2 per cent. The prices of coal, clothes, footwear and many other items have increased by much more than this.

The discussion on social welfare benefits has become a hardy annual. Twelve months ago, even with lesser benefits, the recipients would have been able to buy more than they can at present because of the increased prices. Social welfare recipients can probably only afford to buy meat one day per week. If we are to bring the standard of living of these people up to that of the rest of us, we will certainly have to give a further increase. Elderly people have to watch every penny they get. Old people have to buy a lot of coal to keep themselves warm in winter. The price of coal is increasing every month. These people have difficulty in trying to keep themselves and their houses heated because they are short of money.

There is, in my opinion, a certain amount of hidden poverty in the country. I often wonder what we should do about it. There is probably a limited number of people living on small pensions. Some of these people may be too proud to come to any organisation or official to look for benefit. There are people who had sufficient means of their own and were able to keep going up to recently but, due to inflation and increases in cost, they are unable to balance their budgets now. This is a serious problem and one to which we cannot close our eyes. It will have to be tackled.

In page 83 of the "Summary of Social Insurances and Assistance Services, 1971, and 1972," we find that some county councils are operating the home assistance scheme. In other places the regional health boards operate their scheme A Government spokesman said some time ago that they were going to make some firm decision on this. It was stated that home assistance and all the schemes which come under that heading would be under the control of either the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Health and operated by the health boards or by the county councils. At present some county councils are operating home assistance schemes and in other areas they are operated by the regional health boards. I have no complaint about the delay in making this announcement. I agree with the Minister that it is something which needs to be well thought out before one decides where to put the onus. If the onus is put on the Department of Social Welfare, we may find that the representative in the rural part of the country is a social welfare officer who may have been reared in a city all his life. It would be hard for him to make a recommendation or a decision in a rural part of the country. If the onus is left with the regional health boards, there will be the problem of the members of the boards being so scattered that they will not have full knowledge of local problems.

I suggest that the Minister should leave the local authorities operating the scheme. Their staff know the local problems. I doubt if the Minister will succeed in getting any other Department to operate it as successfully as the county councils have done over the years.

We all know that home assistance is useful to some people who are justly entitled to it. A number of these people are slow to look for it. Some neighbour in the area might mention their name to a county councillor and he would probably try to get somebody to have a look at the case and see what could be done about it. Take an old aged pensioner living alone, certainly he could not exist on the allowance he is getting at the moment. He would have to get some home assistance, maybe £1 or £2 per week. The best people to deal with that is the local representative.

I read some months ago that it was proposed to have a flat rate for social welfare benefits. I am disappointed the Minister has not said anything about this. Fine Gael have advocated for years that social welfare benefits should be based on wages. Take the case of two married men, each having a wife and six children. One is in receipt of £25 per week and the other in receipt of £15 per week. They would both get the same rate of benefit if they fell ill. Something will have to be done about this. Everybody will admit that the hardship is much greater on the man with £25 per week because the reduction in benefit is greater than that of the man with £15 per week.

In conclusion, I would like to welcome the Bill again. The Minister is moving in the right direction. He is probably moving rather slowly but I hope he will ultimately reach the end of the road.

In regard to the Redundancy Payments Order, the Minister mentioned that the contributions are to be increased again. The employer has to pay 5p, an increase of 2p, and the employee 3p, an increase of 1p. That is in respect of men. In regard to women, the employers will have to pay 4p, an increase of 1p and the employee 2p, an increase of 1p. General insurance has increased as well. It is increased to 12p now for an ordinary employee's stamp. These increases are becoming very substantial.

Mr. Keery

I welcome this Bill very warmly and also the increases in social welfare benefits which it contains. The Minister in his remarks concentrated on the benefits and I would like to draw the attention of the House to some other aspects of social development, which have been overlooked in the debate on the progress made by the Government in this connection.

There is a good deal of criticism of the progress made towards achieving the targets laid down in the Third Programme of Economic and Social Development. The latest review of the Third Programme and the outlook for the present year appeared at a time when the popular debate was concentrated on other matters. The record of achievement under the heading "Social Development" in this latest review of the Third Programme is worthy of note. The average annual rate of growth in total social expenditure in the first three years of the programme is estimated at 6.7 per cent. This is above the projected rate of 5.8 per cent. The measures taken to improve the real position of social welfare beneficiaries accounted for this higher growth rate.

In the years ahead we may see a new programme with an exciting potential in that we may find in this review of the Third Programme that the inter-departmental committee set up to consider how a comprehensive social development programme should be evolved have now completed their examination and the results will be the basis for drawing up the social development programme for the future. It is important that the basic homework should be completed so that further advances in the welfare field will be based on a careful study of the present situation and on a pinpointing of the most important sections of the community.

There is a scheme in hand which it is hoped will lead to the introduction of a comprehensive scheme of national social assistance. There is an analytical study of children's allowances under consideration in conjunction with the programme budgeting project in the Department of Finance. Apart from looking at the record of achievement in increased benefits, people should realise the Government's and this party's great awareness of the importance of improvement in the whole social field and that intensive work has been going on for the future. This work is nearing completion and it should be reflected in new legislation at an early date.

One can see signs from the Social Welfare Bill, 1972, that studies of the situation have pinpointed areas of great need where a marginal increase or an adjustment in a welfare payment specifically aimed at what may seem a small section of the community, can do a lot of good. I welcome the additional payments to pensioners aged 80 years and over. I also welcome, along with Senator Reynolds, that the old age care allowance is now being extended to cover male relatives and also the increased rates of payment for children of widows.

The Minister now has power to make regulations to arrange for the dependant portion of any benefit or pension to be paid to some person other than the pensioner or beneficiary. This kind of thinking shows that the increases in social welfare are not only substantial in themselves but that special attention is being paid to areas of most need and that wherever possible the Minister is taking discretionary power to ensure that the money goes where it is most needed.

Social welfare is a major investment by the community and sometimes relatively small payments for social welfare can lead to substantial saving in other fields. The more assistance pensioners get to enable them to be independent, the lesser the risk of their having to turn to institutional care and helps towards their happiness.

Turning to the problems of child poverty, all the indications from social study and research show that the child who comes from a deprived background will make more and more demands on the State through problems of unemployment or delinquency. I was impressed by the recent memorandum published last week by the campaign for the care of deprived children. Those who are getting children's allowances may find much of interest in the research published in that report. It points out that there has been little substantial or comprehensive research on poverty in Ireland and the more information we have in this field the more likely we are to plan prudently for the future.

For the Minister for Social Welfare the most interesting figures are those which show that in some circumstances the resources of the State go more to the children of better-off parents than to the less well-off, taking into account the educational benefits to children which are related more to the higher-income groups. It is interesting to look at the percentage of welfare payments which go to parents in this country compared to other countries. In the review of children's allowances which is taking place these relativities would be well worth close examination.

I should like to raise another point on this. I realise that it is extremely difficult to compare social welfare benefits under different administrations. In his introductory speech the Minister indicated that in Britain, for example, an insured person is paying a higher percentage of his earnings to national insurance than would be paid by the comparable wage-earner here. Percentages paid by workers in EEC countries are much higher again. This factor makes it very difficult for us to compare, as many people are anxious to do, differences in social welfare structures between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Despite the difficulties it is extremely important that as detailed as possible an analysis of the social welfare equivalents between North and South should be made and published in the interests of informed debate in this island, a type of debate which will assume greater and greater importance in the years ahead.

I have mentioned the difficulties of comparing like with like, the fact that contributions are higher in the North than in the South, and the fact that we offer to certain pensioned categories free electricity supply and free travel which are not available in the North. When comparing insurance and health services if you add in the importance to people of the length of waiting time for a hospital bed, one can see the great complexity of trying to compare welfare systems in this island let alone internationally. This is something into which a great deal more research should be done.

I am not quite clear as to the best organ for this research, if it would require a separate study group, if it is entirely a matter for Government responsibility, or if it falls within the terms of reference of the inter-party committee which is looking at the implications of Irish unity. As the Minister's Department will be a major contributor to any such study, I would ask him that everything be done to ensure that this task, whatever its difficulties may appear to be, be initiated, carried through and published. I am in no way underestimating the difficulties. I am just arguing that it would be very well worth while from the point of view of public debate. Often people are not even aware of the full range of services available to them, even as things stand here. I should like to make a simple suggestion in this regard which might be helpful.

Most people visit post offices frequently and this is often the centre from which the form for welfare benefit is obtained. Wearing his other hat, the Minister, as Minister for Labour, has ensured that at the counters of almost every library a list of career leaflets from the Department of Labour is available. Similarly, a list of the forms available, pinned up in post offices, would be a constant reminder of the range of benefits available to people and would help them to make application if they felt they were within the range of entitlement.

I should like to welcome the specific increases contained in this Bill. In looking forward to the next programme of economic and social development I hope the next time we are debating social welfare we will not only be debating specific increases but the full range of a comprehensive policy in the social welfare field.

Professor Jessop

I should also like to welcome the improvements in our social benefits which are introduced by the Minister in this Bill. Like other Senators, I hope that this process of annual improvements will continue, and even be accelerated. I have one small contribution to make on section 19 of the Bill, which the Minister has mentioned in his opening statement. It relates to the benefits paid to deserted wives. The proposal he has inserted to reduce the age at which this benefit is paid from 50 years to 40 years is, I take it, in the case of wives who have not got any dependent children.

The Act of 1970 does not seem to introduce any lower age limit in the case of deserted wives who have at least one dependent child. Section 22 of the Act of 1970, which I have here, does not introduce any such limit. It does, however, refer to the necessity for a deserted wife to satisfy the Minister and his conditions as to a wife's means, specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations. I should like to know what means level is at present in operation for a deserted wife with one or more dependent children for the purpose of obtaining the deserted wife's allowance.

In relation to this I should like to mention a circumstance in this city which is presumably apparent to many Senators in this House and which may obtain in other cities also. In many of our principal streets we find young women sitting on the footpath begging, usually with one or more very small children. They are constantly in streets within a stone's throw of where we are sitting today. Members of my department have asked a number of these young women what circumstances lead them to this position. In nearly all cases the answer has been that they have been deserted by their husbands. We have not been in a position to go into this matter much further. We have not inquired about marriage certificates but this is the answer we get in nearly all these cases. I have the notion that a fair amount of money is obtained by these young women in the process of their begging. Do they, in addition, get a deserted wife's allowance and an allowance in respect of their children? I wonder if the Minister has inquired into this circumstance and, if so, what is the result. We are very interested to know this because it is an obvious problem of a social nature which confronts everybody in the city and on which comment, particularly by visitors, is frequently made.

I should like to support Senator Keery's suggestion that the Minister and his Department might organise a systematic inquiry into all the circumstances in which people qualify for social benefits. He mentioned the case of deprived children. I think this is an eminently suitable case to be considered arising out of the report to which he has referred.

I should like the Minister to clarify the position in relation to these deserted wives and in particular in relation to the kind of deserted wives which we have to deal with every day.

Mr. Russell

I should like to begin, like the other Senators, by welcoming the additional benefits announced by the Minister and announced also, of course, in the recent budget. Everybody in both Houses of the Oireachtas welcomes any increase to the underprivileged sections of our community and, in particular, the aged, the young and those suffering from any form of disability. It is true to say that the mark of a Christian and caring community is the evidence of the care it shows to its less fortunate fellow citizens.

In this regard, we in this country can be reasonably proud of our record over past years. We must have regard to the fact that there is not, unfortunately, a limitless fund at the Minister's or at any Minister's disposal and that in the long run anything we pay out must come, either out of the employer's or employee's contributions or in the final analysis out of the taxpayer's pocket—sometimes referred to as the Exchequer.

I should like to comment on a few aspects of the Minister's speech before dealing with a few general points in connection with social welfare about which I have made some notes. I should like to thank the Minister for thinking of the very aged. It is a nice gesture that we have a special regard for the very aged citizens— those of 80 years and over—but I wonder, in thinking of these, would the Minister not agree that citizens, say, of 75 years and over can also be regarded as aged citizens? Now that we should be thinking in terms of reducing the qualifying age for old age pensions, we might describe aged citizens as those of 70 to 75 years and over.

It is a step in the right direction to consider those of 80 years and over. It is "a fine old age", as we say in this country. I should like to ask the Minister, when he is again thinking of improving these benefits, to have regard to those of 75 years of age and over.

Like Senator Jessop, I am a little concerned at the wording of the Minister's speech, which would give the impression that the consideration is being given only to deserted wives over 40 years of age without dependent children. We should give some consideration to the length of time wives are married. In this day and age, the average marriage age of both males and females is going down rapidly. It is now not unusual for young people in their early twenties—and in some cases less—to get married.

Anybody in public life will come across sad cases of quite young women —perhaps in their late twenties— suffering the consequence of being deserted. The Minister cannot do everything at once, and obviously he has got some statistics and information at his disposal which suggest that there is a particular problem for women in the minimum age group of 40 years and over. I should suggest that some consideration might be given to the length of time a woman is married, because it is possible that a woman married at 30 years of age and deserted within ten years can qualify whereas a young woman 20 to 22 years of age and deserted after the same length of marriage can get nothing under this scheme.

Like other Senators, I welcome the badly-needed increases under the unemployment assistance schemes and under the schemes for social insurance benefit. Unfortunately, these additions are already being eroded, even since they were announced during the recent budget. It is quite certain that before the next budget comes round that at least another 10 per cent will be added to the cost of living. This indicates that the additions which have been provided by the Minister will have already gone down quite considerably.

There is another fact in regard to the question of rents. Social welfare benefits, either under assistance schemes or under insurance schemes, are calculated when considering the rent of local authority houses, so that, for every 6p increase, one-sixth or one-seventh—as the case may be, is taken away by the local authority. That should be kept in mind, too. As a member of a local authority myself, I think it is quite wrong that certainly the entire sum for social insurance, such as old age pension or employment assistance, should be taken into consideration when assessing the rent of a local authority house.

I understand that the city or county manager, as the case may be, has no power to assess eligibility in regard to rent. There should be some scheme on a national basis where discretion should not be left necessarily to the local authorities. There should be a national scheme where a percentage of the social welfare benefits increases, particularly in the case of old age pensions and unemployment assistance, should be declared free of rent deduction under any circumstances.

I am quite certain that could be worked, if the Minister's Department, together with the Department of Local Government would get together and bring out a realistic scheme, which could be applied to all local authorities throughout the country. The public representatives who, time and again have had to make representations on behalf of people in the very low income bracket, would be delighted if such a scheme could be put into operation.

I have forgotten the reason—it may have been a very good one—why all the benefits cannot come into operation on the same date, that, is, the beginning of August. Why have some to be deferred to October next? It is unfair to the recipients of these particular benefits. Perhaps the Minister would explain the reason when he is replying.

Towards the end of his speech the Minister gave some interesting statistics on the amount of the contribution paid by the employer and employee. Further on in his speech, he gave the percentage amount which this represented of the average weekly pay of a male adult industrial worker in December last at £27.99. Then he gave the comparisons with the amount paid by employers and employees in Great Britain and in the countries of the EEC. It would be helpful to the House and very informative if the Minister could have, in conjunction with giving these interesting statistics, indicated what the corresponding benefits were in Great Britain—with particular reference to the North of Ireland—and also the other countries in the EEC. It is one thing to compare our favourable rate of contributions from the employer and the employee, but it is another thing to compare the results of the benefits received by the different types of social welfare classes in other countries.

There is one change which I should like to welcome particularly, that is, the position of the approved relative who is prepared to give full-time care and attention to an old person; but I wonder if we are going far enough in this scheme. The Minister in his speech said:

The schemes under which old age (care) allowances and increases of pensions both contributory and noncontributory are payable in respect of certain prescribed female relatives—

—why does this only apply to relatives? An old lady may have no relative but only a friend.

—who gives full-time care and attention to incapacitated persons aged 70 or over, are being extended. From October—

—again why October?

next these will cover male relatives—

—a very welcome provision—

who will be prescribed and will also be payable with invalidity pensions and retirement pensions.

The Minister went on to say:

This is being done because cases have come to light in which it has been shown that the necessary care and attention is being provided on a full-time basis by male relatives and there is, accordingly, a certain inequity in confining the schemes to female relatives only. In addition the rates of payment are being increased in all cases from £2.75 to £3.00.

Would the House not agree that this is a very small payment to either a male or female who is prepared to give full-time care and attention to an aged relative or friend? I am sure the Minister himself would agree that it is not adequate. Persons who do this kind of work are prohibited from getting unemployment benefit or assistance. If they are not prohibited, they are certainly restricted in the amount they can claim. If they earn this small sum—the equivalent in old money of £2 15s or £3 per week—they must suffer a loss of income on their unemployment benefit entitlements. I have known cases where people who were drawing unemployment benefit suffered because they were looking after an aged relative. The Minister should endeavour to deal with this. These people are doing very good work. Anybody who has had experience of looking after old people—even members of their own family—will agree with me that old people can be very difficult at times.

I am glad to see gardaí are now being brought into the social insurance scheme. This is long overdue. The Minister is to be congratulated for including that in these provisions. Another welcome provision is that in respect of the dependants of social welfare beneficiaries who fail to provide for such dependants. We have all had experience of these cases from time to time. The realities of the situation are, that some men—not all, incidentally—in the social welfare class fail to provide for their dependants.

Apart from those matters which relate to the Minister's speech, I should like to mention a few other matters which relate generally to the provisions of the Bill because I think it can be dealt with in greater detail on Committee Stage. The few points I wish to make arise out of my own personal experience as a member of a local authority health board, and so on, for some years. One of the most frequent complaints coming to the Minister's Department must be the delay in dealing with social assistance and other claims. Virtually no decision—I do not wish to exaggerate the case—unless concerning something of minor importance, can be made at local level. The delays which occur, between the papers being sent to Dublin and returned, are often inordinately long.

I would urge the Minister, now that he is coming to grips very realistically with the whole question of social welfare, to consider establishing regional offices throughout the country. We are living in an era of regionalisation. We have regionalised tourism, industry and health. We could have regional offices in various centres which would be quite competent to deal with claims at local level. From my own experience of the office in Limerick city, the officers are both sympathetic and efficient in dealing with all kinds of claims. At present, their hands are tied due to the fact that virtually every case must be sent to the Minister's Department for decision. That can take quite long. Some months ago, these claims were held up for many weeks, because a large proportion of the staff of the offices of the Ministers for Social Welfare and Health were out sick due to an epidemic of flu. It would be a great improvement and would speed up considerably the process of dealing with claims of social assistance if the local offices could be given more power to make decisions at local level. I make this suggestion to the Minister both from my own experience and also from listening to other public representatives who receive similar complaints.

I can remember the old days—I am sure the Minister has been a member of a local authority—when the local assistance officer dealt with claims himself. If a claim came to him late in the evening—it may have been a claim from a person in a housing estate on the outskirts of the city—he got up on his bicycle and delivered the social assistance cheque or the disability cheque to the recipient. He brought not only a great deal of efficiency into the system but also a great deal of humanity and personal consideration that is very often missing nowadays.

Within these regional offices there should be some advisory services unit through which people could find out their rights under the various schemes of social welfare. We who have some experience in public life often fail to realise how complex the social welfare and social insurance schemes have become over the years. We often fail to realise how great a problem this can be to people living in small rural areas who would not be up to date with the various changes in the social welfare code. They often feel very frustrated in their attempt to find out their rights under the various schemes. I would suggest that some form of advisory service or PRO be provided in each regional office to deal sympathetically with people who come to those offices to find out their rights under the various schemes. I believe this would lighten the work of the local officials and the officials in the Minister's Department.

The reduction in the qualifying age for an old age pension is something about which public representatives and county councillors have talked for years. When will we see the day that pensions will be payable at 65 years? The age should be somewhat lower for women. I think I am correct in saying that in most European countries the qualifying age for old age pensions is 65 years. As we will become members of the EEC within the next few months, we should aim in the direction of bringing our qualifying age for old age pensions into line with that of our co-members.

I should like to refer briefly to old age pensions committees. I do not know the Minister's views on the need for those committees. I have quite strong views on them. I believe the whole system of old age pension committees needs overhauling. In fact, I am not quite sure that they should not be abolished altogether. I sometimes find it hard to understand exactly what functions they perform. As a member of one of them myself, I regard it as a matter of form to attend their meetings. Most of the work is undertaken by the pension officer who, in the main, makes the decisions and the members of the OAP committees have little or no function in the matter.

There is another aspect of this matter to which I should like to refer. Members of OAP committees—the meetings of which, in theory at least, should be held in confidence—have found that their comments, expression in confidence and in the interests of honesty and of preventing people who are not entitled to an old age pension from getting it, have been repeated outside to their detriment, particularly if they happen to be public representatives. I would be glad if the Minister could look into this problem. I am aware, as I am sure other Members of the House are, of memberships of OAP committees that have gone on for years and years. In fact, I recently came across the case of an OAP committee where two deceased members of the committee had been re-elected for the fourth or fifth time. These are the fellows who usually come out to vote at election times.

I mentioned earlier the desirability of giving a higher reward to relatives or friends of old people who are prepared to devote their lives — that is what it amounts to — to looking after old people. Every possible effort should be made to encourage old people to remain in their own homes. In that regard, there is something in the criticism that has been levelled at younger married people in their desire to get rid of old people and put them into what was formerly described as the county home. Old people do not like to be pushed around; they are set in their ways and they enjoy the surroundings, the furniture, the pictures and even the fireplace that they have known for donkey's years. During the remaining years of their lives we, as a community, should do everything in our power to allow them to enjoy those surroundings, even if that means substantially increasing the allowances to the relatives or friends who look after them, or giving them some form of subsidy, such as additional fuel or food. We should certainly do whatever we can to keep them in their old homes.

In this regard it is only right that we should pay a tribute to the voluntary organisations who look after old people. They are doing a wonderful Christian work as, indeed, are all voluntary organisations. In this day of State benefits and social welfare benefits of all kinds, it is a most encouraging sign to see the increasing numbers of people taking part in worthwhile voluntary work to help the underprivileged sections of our community, the old, the young and the disabled. I am sure the Minister would agree with me here. The number of additional voluntary organisations has increased greatly in recent years and the number of people, particularly younger people, who take part in the activities of those organisations is very striking. Whatever doubts we may have about ourselves we can still claim to be, basically, a Christian and humane society.

Senator Reynolds had some rather critical words to say about the cheap fuel scheme. He said that it should be abolished altogether and the equivalent sums of money given to the recipients. The cheap fuel scheme as it operates in Munster is an extraordinary scheme. There is no specific allusion made to it in the Department's booklet. It just mentions that there is a scheme carried on by the county boroughs and other boroughs to provide cheap fuel but this scheme was formulated mainly during the years of the Emergency when certain areas were scheduled as turf areas and certain areas were scheduled as non-turf areas. Limerick city was scheduled as a turf area, for some reason which I could not understand, and Cork city and Waterford city were scheduled as non-turf areas.

The cheap fuel scheme is referred to briefly in the Department of Social Welfare's booklet, "Summary of Social Insurances and Assistance Services". It reads:

Under the fuel schemes operated by local authorities with Government assistance, regular supplies of fuel (turf or timber) are made available for necessitous households in certain cities and towns. During the period from October to April, a weekly allowance of 1 cwt. of fuel...

and so on. With reference to the position in Limerick city, I referred briefly to the background of these cheap fuel schemes. They originated during the emergency years, with certain areas designated as turf areas and others as non-turf areas. Rather surprisingly, Limerick city was designated as a turf area and Cork and Waterford as non-turf areas.

As a result, the cheap fuel scheme in Limerick is at a very serious disadvantage in comparison with the schemes operated in both the Cork and Waterford boroughs. Representations have been made to successive Ministers for Social Welfare over the years. Some improvement has taken place in the amount of money made available, but as of now the pro rata allowance given to Limerick city is something like one-tenth of that given to Cork, and to a lesser extent to Waterford. I have an open mind on these types of scheme. As Senator Reynolds suggested, it may be better to give cash to the eligible people and allow them to spend it on fuel. If a cheap fuel scheme is to be operated in urban areas, at least it should be operated fairly and on the same basis in every urban area. That has not been the case in Limerick city for more than 20 years and I would ask the Minister to look into the situation there and see that Limerick gets a substantial increase in the amount allocated.

Whatever criticisms one may offer, it is a very welcome scheme to many old people and to people in less fortunate circumstances. Unfortunately, in recent years difficulties have arisen regarding the delivery of this fuel. Many fuel merchants understandably find it very costly and very inconvenient to deliver, say, 1 cwt. of turf to a housing estate on the outskirts of the city. For this reason, the scheme needs to be examined very closely, particularly in regard to the amount involved in Limerick city and generally in regard to the question of distribution. I would ask the Minister to look into that because it has been a very sore point in Limerick city for a number of years.

One aspect of the general social welfare position here, and one which will become more relevant as the months pass, is the comparison that is being made between our level of social services in the Republic and those available in Northern Ireland. It has been suggested many times during past years that a practical contribution to the ending of the division of our country would be an equating of the standard of social welfare services in both parts of the country. I am not naïve enough to believe that that can be done overnight. The sum involved would be very substantial indeed, probably in the range of £100 million a year, perhaps even more. The Minister may have the figures.

We must now be thinking along the lines that one day—we all hope in the not too distant future—this island will be united, and whether you live in Antrim or in Kerry, the rate of social services will be equitable in each county. I wonder if the Minister when he is replying would say something on this subject. It is particularly relevant now, not only in the context of a united country but also in the context of our impending membership of the European Economic Community.

Finally, regarding the general question of the payment of social service benefits, it is very important—I am sure the Minister is very aware of this —that in making payments of this kind there should never be any suggestion that the recipients are in any way being treated as second-class citizens and that they are getting something only because they fight for it. People should be able to feel that they are getting it because we as a community have decided collectively to make proper provision for all our people and that those who are unfortunate enough to require some form of assistance from the State seek it because they have a right to it and not because someone feels kind or sympathetic enough to give them a hand-out. This may require some revision or redesigning of the agencies that distribute these funds so that the people will not be treated as second-class citizens, in other words, to ensure that they will not have to queue up to get their weekly entitlements. They should feel that they are getting something which they are entitled to, in an atmosphere of humanity, because they have made their contribution to the welfare of the community just the same as the wealthiest man in the country.

In conclusion, I welcome the effort the Minister has made to improve the lot of our less fortunate citizens. He has a long way to go yet; I am sure he appreciates that himself. The best way to ensure that he can go further is to expand our economy to the extent where we can compare favourably with our co-partners in Western Europe in the payment of our social welfare benefits.

Mr. McGowan

The Bill is most praiseworthy. It marks a major advance in the overall social welfare benefits in this country. Senator Russell mentioned that it was important for our long term hopes that we might have social welfare benefits brought into line with the benefits in the North of Ireland. At this stage the Bill and all its benefits should be spelled out to those people who use this argument because I never want to see this country going overboard in the matter of social welfare benefits to the point when it is actually more attractive not to work than it is to work. For that reason I should like to see it getting the maximum publicity. I hope that the people of Ireland, North and South, understand exactly what the contributions and benefits are. This country is advancing reasonably well and I am delighted to be associated with the welcome for this Bill.

There are a couple of aspects of the Bill which I should like to comment on. When the Minister seeks the support of his Government colleagues to advance further the social welfare benefits, I hope he will be successful in securing the long awaited revision in the system of calculating income on valuation. It is fair in some parts of the country to calculate the income on valuation but it can be unfair in others. I would have no difficulty in convincing the Minister that in his own constituency in Donegal the method of calculating the income based on £20 income per £1 valuation is unfair—a man is calculated to have earned £400 if he has a £20 valuation. In many parts along the western seaboard I know of cases where the valuation of a small mountain farm has deprived many people of social welfare benefits. The system should be revised.

I suggest to the Minister and the Department that they might look at another aspect of this. Where a man is granted 55p per day unemployment assistance there should be a basic allowance of not less than one half day's pay because it would take a man at least a half day to go to sign on at the employment exchange.

The Minister should examine closely what a retired worker can earn because this is arising now when we have the retiring age being reduced continually. I should like to quote one instance where a retired railway worker is now doing an excellent job as a traffic warden. He would be paid £5 per week for that job but because of taking it he would lose his pension. That is a disincentive to work and is against the best principles of social welfare.

There is a differential between urban and rural areas in the amount of unemployment benefit a single person can get. In an urban area he gets £4.35 as against £4.05 in a rural area. This is an unfair differential because many dwellers in urban areas have advantages that the rural dwellers have not. In an urban area a man has a better chance of a job or casual work, yet the rural dweller is deprived to the extent of 30p a week. It is not a very big differential, but it is against the rural dweller.

I hope that in the next budget the items I have referred to will be examined closely by the Minister and his colleagues in the Government. In the meantime the Bill goes a long way to balance the scales and close the gap between the social welfare benefits here and in the North.

Mr. Boland

This Bill, as we all know, is a hardy annual which we discuss annually at this time to give effect to certain provisions in the budget. In so far as increases in benefits are concerned this year, as other Senators have said, in various fields they represent relatively substantial improvements on the situation which existed previously. To that extent they are to be welcomed. I was disappointed when I read back on the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, 1971, to see that, while some of the points which were made by various Members of the Seanad at that time have now been met and appreciated obviously by the Minister, some of the more important points which were put to the House and the Minister at that time have not yet found their way into the social welfare code.

It is no harm for us, when we are looking at the various increases right through the broad field of social insurance and assistance, to appreciate that we are still a long way away from having in the social welfare code the principle that there should be a minimum national income. Irrespective of whatever benefit or assistance an applicant is entitled to under the social welfare code, taken in conjunction with his earnings from any other source the two together do not come to a level that would keep the person and his dependants at what is officially regarded as the subsistence level. There should be an additional subvention which would ensure that the State or public authorities at local level would step in to give an increased payment to a man and his family which would bring his financial assistance up to the subsistence level which obtained in the country at the time.

This system has operated in England for a number of years and obviously has many merits and is one which I urge the Minister and his Department to consider introducing in some form in the near future. We are still talking about the same things we talked about in July, 1971, such as unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit which are far from being the most satisfactory ways of helping those who are either unable to work because of physical infirmity or unable to find work due to a lack of employment in their area. This has been a matter of considerable concern to Members of both Houses and has, I am sure, exercised the mind of the Minister for Labour.

There is a great pool of potential workers who are receiving unemployment benefits which they need, but would prefer not to have to take. Rather than doling out assistance every week to these people, there should be devised a productive system of work, preferably in conjunction with the local authorities in their area, to gainfully employ these men.

I should like to remind the House what the Minister stated in replying to the Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill last year. I am referring to volume 70, No. 12 of the Seanad Official Report, Thursday, 8th July, 1971, Col. 1169. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that there were certain people who were unable to work and for these people some form of unemployment assistance would always have to continue but that, in his opinion, it ought not to be referred to as unemployment assistance or dole but should be given a new title. He also pointed out that there is a large number of people who want to work but cannot obtain employment. The Minister stated:

I hope to present to the Government at the earliest possible date a scheme dealing mainly with what is commonly known as the dole and this may incorporate some drastic changes in the system. It is a big scheme and will be, I hope, a marked step forward in the social welfare code.

Obviously it would be a marked step forward in the social welfare code, but unfortunately the words I have quoted were uttered a year ago and we are still talking about the systems of unemployment assistance and benefit as they have obtained for a number of years. I should like to have thought that a year later that step forward might have been given legislative effect. Perhaps, in his reply, the Minister will refer to this and will tell the House when some operation of this sort may be brought into existence.

There is still a great need for an information service to properly place before those who are entitled to social welfare payments exactly what they are entitled to and how they should go about applying for it. The type of person who is entitled to receive social welfare benefit under the various headings is quite often the type of person who is least competent and able to find out for himself what he is entitled to, least competent to fill in the various forms and pursue his case to its logical conclusion. I again urge on the Minister to place increased emphasis on the provision of such an information service throughout the country, backed up, if necessary, by an advertising campaign in the media. A great service could be given if the Government accepted the principle of setting up in the various town centres citizens advice bureaux which would give advice not just on social welfare but on other codes and practices.

The Minister's Department and those entitled to social welfare benefits have suffered through our failure over the years to provide sufficient opportunities for trained social workers to take up employment in this part of the country. Many of us know of the exodus which takes place about this time every year when those who qualify in the social sciences usually go North to obtain more gainful employment and better experience in the social field. There has been a welcome change in this regard, however, during the past 12 months. The Minister should appreciate the great part social welfare workers have to play in educating people as to their entitlements under the social welfare code and in providing a useful feedback to his Department on methods whereby the whole system can be improved.

The Minister pointed out in his speech that the system of social insurance was based on the principle that the employer, the employee and the State should make equal one-third contributions so as to finance the social insurance services. He pointed out that the cost of the improvements which he is proposing for this year would amount to £13,595,000 in respect of social insurance and the increased contributions which he was providing for in the Bill would amount to £10,424,000. This leaves a deficit of £3,171,000. This represents the one-third which the State is to provide and, as the Minister pointed out, the State's contribution has been tending to run at a level higher than one-third.

The Minister has taken steps to correct this. On my calculations of the Minister's figure in relation to the cost of improvements in the social insurance side this year, the amount to be contributed by the State will amount to 23.5 per cent of the total and not 33 per cent, which the Minister states is the aim of the Government. I should like the Minister to explain that in his reply. I might be wrong in my arithmetic.

I welcome the step which the Minister has taken to secure preference for the payment of social insurance contributions from the assets of a firm which goes bankrupt and which has not kept its employees insurance cards properly up-to-date. In this regard it is no harm to remind the Minister that there is, to a large extent, a failure on the part of employees to appreciate how very important it is that their cards are kept up-to-date and are stamped on a weekly basis. It would be a useful exercise if the Minister's Department were to engage in a publicity campaign, reminding employees of their duty and right to see to it, by inspecting their cards from time to time, that their employers are carrying out their statutory obligations in this regard.

I should like to welcome the provision whereby the category of people caring for aged relatives and receiving assistance is now widened so as to include male relatives. It is no harm to remind the Senate that in this House the point was made in a debate two years ago that the scheme ought to provide for assistance to male as well as female relatives. At that time the Minister handling the Bill, who is now the Minister for Finance, said that this provision might be widened at a subsequent date so as to provide for male relatives, but that, if that were done, exceptionally stringent regulations would be introduced. I do not understand why that should have been suggested. I am sure the House would be interested to know if, when the present Minister decided to increase the scope of the scheme, he decided to change the regulations in any way with regard to male relatives.

As other Senators have mentioned, while this is a useful scheme it nonetheless does not provide assistance at a realistic level to encourage sons or daughters to give up gainful employment and undertake the often thankless task of caring for an aged and infirm relative. The alternative that the relative should enter a home or hospital, which is provided for out of public funds, means that the State would end up very much the financial loser. The old person would end up a human loser, because he would have lost the comfort and security of his own home and find himself, at the end of his life, in a strange environment. The Minister has said on several occasions that he has been examining this aspect of the social welfare code in conjunction with the Minister for Health and others. In his reply he may have some suggestions to offer the House as to how improvements might be made in this aspect of the scheme.

In common with Senator Reynolds, I fear that the income limits in respect of non-contributory pensions are still by present-day standards at a completely unrealistic level. In reading the Bill and the Minister's speech, it struck me that, as far as any elderly person who was clever enough to investigate their implications was concerned, they would act as a very definite disincentive towards saving. If an elderly person realises that by investing some money from which he may receive a certain income yearly his pension will be reduced accordingly, he may decide not to save. This is another aspect of the scheme which the Minister might well examine.

While we all welcome the increases which have been granted to the various social insurance classes it would be well to realise that the increase in the maximum non-contributory old age pension will now bring it up to a rate of £5.15 per week. In other words, 515p for seven days or 72p for each 24 hours. Twenty-four into 72 goes three times. In 1972 we are providing for an old person at the end of his days, at the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension, 3p for every one of the 24 hours of the day. Out of that he has to feed and clothe himself, and provide light, heat and a roof over his head. I see the Minister smiling but nonetheless the figure is correct. It would be no harm for us all to sit back and reflect when last any of us here managed to survive on 3p for one hour of any one day.

In common with other Senators, I would urge the Minister to consider in the very near future reducing the age limit of 70 years for old age pensions to a more realistic level of at least 65 years. We are now the only country in Western Europe with the age limit for old age pensions running at such a high level. In view of our proposed entry to the EEC and of the basic justice of the case, the Minister should lose no further time in having this age limit reduced.

I would be interested also if the Minister, in his reply, could inform the House about the additional payment of 50p a week which is given to old age pensioners who happen to be over 80 years of age. How much will this cost the Exchequer in the course of any one period of 12 months? While this is an admirable gesture towards our very senior citizens, it applies only to a relatively small group of people. It would also be very interesting for the House and the general public to learn how much it costs the Exchequer to provide allowances to old age pensioners for their dependent children—for example, children who have not reached adulthood. I should imagine that the amount paid out to old people in respect of children who have not yet become self-sufficient is small. I particularly welcome the extra increases in allowances in respect of orphans and children of deserted wives. The Minister has approached this in the proper manner by giving a larger increase in these two sectors than in others.

The Minister told the House that the average Irish worker pays 3.68 per cent of his weekly income towards his social insurance contribution, as against 5.54 per cent by his British counterpart. It would be interesting to learn how many other social welfare and health services are provided for his British counterpart which are not yet provided for the average Irish worker. If our social welfare code and health services were as all-encompassing and as wide as those which operate in Britain, the average Irish worker would be happy to pay 5.54 per cent of his weekly wage in order to avail of those services.

There was one rather distressing aspect of the Social Welfare Bill here last year which is also in the Bill before us today. I refer specifically to the £1,600 upper income limit which still applies. I understand very definitely that it was the intention of the Minister that this upper limit should be abolished completely.

It is no harm for the Seanad to remember that at column 1176 of Volume 70, No. 12, just before the Seanad adjourned last year, I asked the Minister:

Could the Minister state what is his objection to extending it to an even higher income scale than £1,600?

Mr. Brennan: I see none. I wish to abolish it altogether and have no limit. One of the reasons why I did not abolish it this year was that health grants for the medical scheme were based on the limits. On the education side, many education grants were based on the limit we used also, so that one could not throw the whole system out of gear too easily. Since then, as the Senator knows, the Department of Health have moved on to their own system, the Department of Education will find a new basis and we will abolish the limit.

At the next column 1177, I said:

There is one bit of good news. The Minister intends abolishing the limit completely in the forseeable future?

The Minister replied:

Yes. I intend to do it this year.

I assumed that "this year" referred to the calendar year 1971. We are still, 12 months later, operating on that income limit which the Minister told the House this time last year he had intended to abolish in 1971. I hope in his reply the Minister may be able to take the time to explain to the House why it has happened that this limit is still in operation and when he now hopes, in fact, to be able to get rid of it.

At that time also, the Minister pointed out to the House at column 1164:

However, there is a limit to the amount we can take from the employer and the employee at a given time. We must consider moving in the direction of expanding the scope of compulsory insurance to take in other classes in order that the fund may be augmented in that way.

In his speech today the Minister said:

It is necessary that the rates in social insurance contributions should also be increased substantially from the beginning of October next.

Now, one remark would seem to contradict the other, and yet we know that the second remark is necessary if the increased benefits which have been outlined are to be met. The only alternative to increasing substantially the amount of contribution from those within the social insurance net at present is to increase the compulsory social insurance of all wage earners, irrespective of whatever they may be earning.

This was my understanding of what the Minister assured the House last year he intended to do, and I know that other Members of this House also interpreted the Minister's remarks in that way. It has not been done and consequently the rates of weekly contribution this year are once again being substantially increased. I should hope that the Minister will deal at length with this when he comes to reply.

There is also a very definite need for the introduction of a scale of benefits on a wage-related basis. As is quite apparent, the present rate of social welfare payments is on a flat scale. The only difference is where a man happens to be married and earning £15 a week. If he finds himself out of employment and in receipt of social welfare benefit there is a very great hardship. The man who had been earning £40 a week and finds himself out of employment and receiving the same amount of social welfare benefit suffers greater hardship, and the amount of adjustment that is necessary is far greater. The House and the public would be interested if the Minister were in a position to give us any idea as to when he might be able to introduce the wages related scheme as has been proposed by this party for a considerable length of time.

I spoke last year about the fact that it was often very difficult for public representatives and members of the public to obtain adequate information and helpful service from some of the more junior officials of the Minister's Department. Having said that last year, it is only fair that I should say today that in the past 12 months I have noticed a remarkable improvement in the amount of information which can be made available to me as a public representative and a marked decline in the number of complaints which members of the general public have made about the service at the public counters of the Department of Social Welfare. I should like to place these remarks on the record of the House. It seems as if some notice has been taken of the various remarks made by people at that time, and that an improvement has resulted.

Basically, the most important aspect of what I said today and what I would hope the officials of the Minister's Department and the Minister himself would continue to consider with a view of incorporating some aspects of them into the social welfare code was that, firstly, we should commit ourselves to the principle of having a minimum income standard for every family in the country, and any family which in the knowledge of the Department of Social Welfare had fallen below that subsistence level should receive additional benefit and an additional subvention to bring them up to subsistence level.

Secondly, we should lose no further time in introducing a system of wage-related benefits. Thirdly, and most important of all, we should without delay introduce a compulsory insurance scheme for every wage earner, irrespective of his income. This could have the good effect of abolishing for all time the obnoxious and odious means test which applies at present.

Fourthly, there should be some system which would abolish unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit as we know them and replace them, for those who are willing and able to engage in gainful employment, with a system whereby they work for a certain number of days a week on special projects for the local authorities throughout the country and receive their financial assistance from the State in this way.

Fifthly, there should be an appreciation of the very important role and skills of social workers. There should be an immediate increase in the number of social workers involved in implementing and improving the social welfare code in conjunction with the introduction of citizens' advice bureaux and information offices which would readily dispense the information which today is perhaps, for some people, hard to obtain.

Finally, it might be no harm at all to suggest to the Minister that very often the least productive assistance that can be given to a family in the social welfare class is assistance of a financial nature. Unfortunately, very often a family finds itself in need of social welfare assistance because of the lack of attention or the carelessness of the person who should be the breadwinner for the family. To some extent, the money paid in social welfare benefits to persons of this type can go the same way as the money he originally received when he was earning.

We could make our social welfare code more comprehensive by introducing schemes—not merely of a direct financial nature—which would benefit and assist people by way of material and physical assistance from qualified social workers. I would suggest to the Minister that it might be a useful exercise for his Department to consider setting up a committee composed of people who are qualified in social science to advise on what aspects of social welfare benefits would be most productive and what other benefits might be introduced, without any extra cost to the Exchequer, which would prove more productive than a straight financial subvention.

I will conclude by referring to the point made by the members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at their conference in Galway this morning in relation to the national wage agreement. On the assumption that they decide to renew their negotiations with the Government on behalf of those who are lucky enough to be wage earners, they doubted, very sincerely, whether the Government would be in a position to match whatever benefits they obtain in the national wage agreement on a pro rata percentage basis for the people who are in receipt of social welfare benefits. I should hope that the person who made that suggestion would be proved wrong. The Minister has shown sufficient understanding of the necessities of the social welfare code to convince the House that, whatever improvements are granted by way of a new national wage agreement, they will be at least equally matched by pro rata improvements in the social welfare field generally.

Mr. Walsh

Like other speakers, I should like to welcome this Bill and to say how much I appreciate the many benefits it contains. I should like to congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill to deal with these benefits. One of the benefits to which I should like to refer is the death grant. The death grant has been increased, but it is in respect of the application for its payment that I wish to speak. I have known of a number of cases recently where the payment of the death grant was refused because the applicant was short of one contribution. It would be impossible for the Minister to treat every case separately. If he were to reduce the number of contributions, somebody would still be affected. Nevertheless, I would ask the Minister if some flexibility could be introduced into this section whereby the record of the person concerned, in relation to the number of contributions, could be taken into account. A person may have had a good record of contributions but, due to illness or unemployment for some years prior to his death, he may have discontinued his subscriptions, thereby causing his widow to be ineligible for payment of the death grant.

Quite a number of appeals concerning old age pensions are on hand at present. The delay in dealing with these cases is far too long. I should like to know if any steps might be taken to improve the process of dealing with them.

A number of Senators have referred to the establishment of an information centre. Some of the people entitled to social welfare benefits are not capable of assessing the benefits to which they are entitled. Some type of information service should be available to them. I fully appreciate that a member of the public has only to contact the Department of Social Welfare and he will be given every assistance and information he requires but quite a number of people are not capable of assessing the benefits. If they do not meet their public representative for a few days, they become discouraged. If some type of service was available to them, whereby they could get this information immediately, it would be of considerable help.

Mr. A. O'Brien

In examining the increases proposed under this Bill it would help us to keep matters in their proper perspective if we remember that the 50p increase in a number of these allowances and pensions amounts, on £4.65, to an increase of 10.75 per cent. We should remember also that in the 12 months prior to February the cost of living has increased 11.2 per cent. The increases in this Social Welfare Bill fall rather short of keeping pace with the cost of living. The relative position of people who are entitled to benefit is in many cases little, if anything improved.

I do not say this as a criticism, but in the hope that when we objectively examine the social welfare benefits of various kinds, we will arouse the social conscience of the people to such a degree that they will accept from a Minister proposals to provide much greater assistance for those who are in need. For example, those who are incapacitated or unable to work or those who have reached a very old age need greater assistance. These are people to whom society owes a debt. The Minister today has apportioned the money available to him to the various classes in need.

As a society in general, we must ask ourselves if we are doing sufficient for these underprivileged people. Perhaps in ten to 15 years time we may be ashamed of what we were prepared to advocate for people in these categories in 1972. In order to avoid this, it is necessary that the public conscience should be made more aware of its obligations to the dependent sections of our community. This will result in a greater generosity by the Minister for Finance on Budget Day, when he decides it is necessary to collect a greater share of income from those who can afford it in order that he can give greater assistance to the poorer sections of our community. It is in that spirit I am examining the measure introduced today and not solely for the purpose of being critical or of trying to score any political points.

It would be a great achievement if the Minister and the officials of his Department could attain the day when our aged and infirm people would look forward to the visit of a pension officer and see in him a representative of the State appointed to assist them in drawing the benefits provided by society for them. At present, as most Senators will agree, our people have the very opposite approach to such officers. They live in fear and dread of the day when pension officers and departmental officials will come to check up on their means, whether or not they own their house, whether or not they have sublet a room in it and whether or not they have a few cows on their land and so on. People who should be in the role of friends coming to extend the benefits of society to people whom society feel they should help are, unfortunately, regarded as inquisitors or people who have come to pry or probe into their affairs and who give the impression that their function is to ensure that the person gets as little benefit as possible. In our new approach on social conscience and social awareness that should be one of the first matters to be remedied. There should be an entirely different approach by those officials towards the people whose cases they are sent to examine.

I welcome wholeheartedly a number of departures the Minister has made. It is good to know that the Minister realises that people who have reached the very old age of 80 years are entitled to some little extra assistance. I welcome that improvement and I join with Senator Russell in expressing the hope that, as time goes on, the upper age of 80 years will be reduced to the middle 70s. I want, without any qualification whatever, to express my appreciation of the Minister's action with regard to allowances for deserted wives.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would move to adjourn the debate?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I should like to inform the House that the debate on this motion will be adjourned until tomorrow morning. We resume at 7.30 p.m. with the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1972.

Debate adjourned.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.