Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Jul 1972

Vol. 73 No. 4

Social Welfare Bill, 1972: Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

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

Yesterday evening I spoke about the increases introduced in the Bill and some innovations which I welcomed. I expressed some doubt as to whether the increases were sufficient to do anything more than maintain the standard of living which the social welfare class have had, because of the steep increase in the cost of living. We find out that the relative position of some of these classes of social welfare people will be little, if anything, better than it was.

We have to consider one particular item which imposes great hardship on the elderly, that is the great increases in the cost of fuel over the past few months. Indications are that there will be more increases before next winter. It is necessary to protect the old and infirm against these costs. If we were tempted to conclude that the social welfare benefits, in particular the old age pension, were sufficient to enable a person to exist, we would be forced to reconsider that opinion when we become aware of the numbers of these people who have to receive home assistance. Often they have to receive help from the local St. Vincent de Paul Society, especially in winter. I am sure that is a state of affairs which nobody in this House would like to see continuing indefinitely.

The Minister has made an innovation with regard to inducing a male relative to look after aged people; that is very welcome. It is a sad thing that down through the years so many old aged pensioners have been forced to go into hospitals and county homes. Every year, especially from October to March, we have the problem of these hospitals being overcrowded, all over the country, by aged people. It often happens that when a person is in need of medical attention and a particular hospital is overcrowded, the staff have the greatest difficulty in finding accommodation for him because the hospital is overcrowded by aged people who are there to escape the hardships of winter in their own home.

I am sure the Minister will give that active consideration to improving the lot of these people and reducing the numbers who might go into these hospitals by being more generous to relatives who give them assistance and help at home. What he has done in that regard is welcome. If we consider the facilities afforded by domiciliary nursing care and if, at the same time, we give an increase in the inducements to relatives to look after their aged parents we would have considerably fewer elderly people going into hospitals and institutions. I hope that we continue to make progress in that way and that as many as possible old people will be afforded the comfort of spending their last days in their own homes. We would all like to see that done. Every measure which contributes to bringing that state of affairs about will be widely welcomed.

It is a pity that an old aged pensioner who has had the foresight and thrift to have a home of his own should suffer a reduction. We are at the stage when a man is encouraged by State grants to build a home of his own but in the declining years of his life he suffers a loss of pension because he owns that home. This is an unfortunate anomaly in our society. Again, we have those who are thrifty enough to have a few pounds in the bank to provide for the rainy day, and, as Senator Reynolds stated yesterday, to have their funeral arrangements catered for, but as a result they have their old age pension reduced. The State wisely encourages people to save by depositing money in the post office, in prize bonds and so on, but then they are victimised because of that very thrift which the State encouraged them to practise.

This should be looked into and remedied immediately. If a person is thrifty enough to save for his old age and to ensure that the State will not have to bury him it is wrong to lower his pension for this reason. The next Social Welfare Bill should contain measures to abolish that system. If a person who is drawing a pension earns any money through doing some work they suffer a reduction in their pension. People do not wish to be looked upon as being useless just because they have reached pensionable age and so they continue to take light jobs. It is against the principle of social justice to victimise them for earning a few shillings in this way. If, when a man reaches age 70 years, he feels he is useless, is living on the State and serving no useful purpose by being alive, this causes depression and will shorten his days. On the other hand, if he is made more independent because of his pension and can add to it by earnings at light jobs, he feels he is still useful to society, doing his share for the community and helping to keep himself. This gives him a new outlook and optimism. Elderly people should be encouraged to take light jobs rather than be victimised for so doing.

There is the question of retiral age at 65 years and provision for superannuations and pensions for some sections of the community. People who are in full-time employment on reaching age 65 are entitled to a pension or superannuation because of contributions to a pension scheme or because of the number of stamps they have got over a number of years. There are sections of the community who do not come under this and they must continue to work on past the generally accepted age of 65 years until they are 70 years.

I am aware of the cost to the Minister if he were immediately to introduce an old age pension scheme for everyone at age 65 years. We must mete out the best possible treatment from our limited resources to the most deserving sections of the community. It is hoped there will be a general advance in extending the old age pension to people who are under 70 years. When the Minister is considering this he should pay particular attention to the numbers of people who are forced to continue to work past age 65 years to 70 years in order to receive the old age pension.

The introduction of an old age pension at age 65 years as soon as possible is a must if we are to deal fairly with that section of the community who are forced, because of circumstances, to work on past the normal retiral age. Pensions at 65 years should be a priority as soon as the economy can afford it. Those who are in the greatest need should be catered for first.

It is generally agreed that our entry into the EEC will have some increase in the cost of living but not so steep as those who are opposed to entry wish us to believe. But whatever increase comes will impose extra hardships on those entitled to social welfare benefits. It will be possible for the Government to save in agricultural subsidies because of our entry to the EEC to support agricultural prices. Because of a better prospect from agricultural exports in the EEC, it is thought that considerable sums of money will be saved. I hope the Minister for Social Welfare will impress on his colleagues in the Government that a large proportion of this money should go to the social welfare beneficiaries to cushion them against any increase in the cost of living, to extend these benefits still further to those we have not been able to cater for in the past.

The social conscience has become more aware in later years of our obligations to the less well-off section of our community. The extension by the Minister and the Government of further benefits to this section at the earliest possible date would have the whole-hearted support of the taxpayers.

Is mian liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille agus an tAire do mholadh as ucht a bhfuil déanta aige leis an méid airgid atá aige. Is mian linn go léir breis airgid a thabhairt do na baintreacha agus do na daoine nach bhfuil obair acu, do lucht sinsear sean-aoise agus na daoine atá breoite. Ach is baol ón gcaint atá ag gabháil timpeall nach dtuigeann a lán daoine nach faigtear airgead ar na crannaibh, agus ní foláir cánacha a leagadh ar daoine do réir an t-ioncam atá acu agus cánacha a leagadh ar earraí áirithe leis chun teacht isteach a bheith ag an Aire chun feabhas a chur ar an méid airgead atá le tabhairt amach aige. Is oth linn go léir nach bhfuil lán-fhostaíocht againn agus sin é an fá go dtiteann ualach trom ar beagán daoine. Mar a deirim, dá mbhéadh lán-fhostaíocht againn agus dá mbhéadh breis airgid ag an Aire, d'fhéadfadh sé an scéal a fheabhsú. Mar sin, tá leigheas ar an scéal. Má theastaíonn ó daoine áirithe breis airgid a thabhairt do na baintreacha agus do na daoine gan obair níl le déanamh ach na cánacha a ardú. Sin rud nach féidir a dhéanamh. Ní féidir iad a ardú níos mó i láthair na huaire ar aon nós. Mar a dúirt an tAire, ní bhaineann sé ach 5.68 faoin gcéad den ioncam i gcomparáid le 5.5 sa Bhreatain agus 15 faoin gcéad san Iseal Tír.

The Minister is doing a very good job with the limited amount of resources at his disposal. We are not a wealthy country and we have not full employment. The amount of taxation imposed and the amount of money at the Minister's disposal is fairly limited. Much of the field has been covered by other Senators who have spoken, but there is one area I would ask the Minister to look at again and that is those who are taking care of the aged. Whether they are caring for relatives, friends or neighbours, these people should get some help for the great work they are doing for the community. It would cost us far more if those aged people were in institutions. People who are taking care of the aged should get credit for their work when the aged die. They should be entitled to unemployment benefit rather than unemployment assistance because they have had no opportunity of taking up insurable employment.

Much has been said on the subject of deserted wives. We now have very young marriages. The Church could do a great deal in the field of pre-marriage courses. If young people were prepared to face the responsibilities of marriage we would have far less breakdowns and less call on the State for help for deserted wives and children.

Senator Russell referred to the pension committees. Perhaps the day has come when we should do away with those pension committees. I find it very embarrassing while serving on a pension committee to investigate the private affairs of my neighbours. I agree with Senator Russell when he said these things are not always kept in confidence.

Another aspect that could be looked into is unemployment assistance. The basis on which a person is entitled to unemployment assistance is his valuation. We know that whatever scheme the Minister will draw up will have some loopholes. There are at present very grave loopholes. I know of cases where people with ten acres and seven cows have a valuation of £10. As against that there are people with 40 acres of land carrying 25 cows with a valuation of less than £10. It should be assessed on the carrying capacity of the land rather than on the valuation. I hope the Minister will look into these points.

First I should like to welcome the Bill. What does an increase of 20p mean today? When I read about wage increase negotiations which are taking place and hear of responsible trade unions thinking in terms of £6 or £7 per week I realise how important it is to increase contributions to the people concerned. This is not possible at the moment but let us hope that the Minister will in the near future grant an increase in the benefits.

I should like to welcome the provision reducing the age limit from 50 to 40 years in the case of deserted wives. That reduction of ten years should make many a deserted wife happy. At the age of 40 years a woman would have raised a young family and would be unable to go out and earn a living. This is a step in the right direction.

I should now like to draw attention to the delay in payment of benefits. I know of cases where widows have been kept waiting a long time. During that time were it not for the kindness of area officers in allowing them a certain amount of very limited home assistance those widows and their families would be in a bad way. When the pension is paid the home assistance is deducted. This takes away from the generosity.

There is also a delay in granting a pension where a farmer hands over his farm. We hear daily that incentives should be created to encourage the farmer to hand over his farm. Very often it can take anything up to nine months as a result of delay in the Land Commission and in the Land Registry. This is an unreasonable way to treat a man who has indicated his desire to hand over his farm to his son by going to his solicitor. I wonder is there any way of dealing with those delays? It should be a simple matter for a solicitor to notify the Department in writing, and the Department should accept that the farmer in question is handing over his farm.

When somebody waiting for a pension or any social welfare benefit approaches a public representative who gets in touch with the Department of Social Welfare you receive an acknowledgment which is of very little use to the people concerned. Very few public representatives would send back that note to the person who has approached them. All you can say is that you have got an acknowledgment but there is no proof that you have approached the Department. A reply should be given stating that representations have been made on behalf of the person and the matter is being investigated. A reply to that effect would indicate to the person concerned that the public representative had made representations on his behalf.

I should like to raise another point in regard to a man leaving his job. If a man leaves his employment and makes an application for benefit the employer is notified and he has to state if the man is entitled to it. Very often it is as a result of a dispute. In all cases the employee has been the victim. He often has to wait for six or eight weeks before he qualifies for benefit.

I know a case where in 12 months four different people had left their employers. In a case like that there should be some closer investigation into the type of person you are dealing with because, if somebody wants to get rid of you, it is the easiest thing in the world to put you in such an impossible position that you have very little choice but to go.

It is not right in that case that the employee should be the victim. There should be some way of getting the facts, but too often the employer's version is taken. Then there is the problem of the parents of a handicapped child who has not attained the age of 16. The cross is great enough and it should be modified as far as possible. There should be legislation to give some benefit to the parents. A mother who has to mind a problem child for years needs some break, even it were only the wherewithal to make payment to a neighbour to look after a child now and then.

I welcome the provision bringing in the male relative. For many years men have looked after their fathers and often are deprived of the opportunity of any moment of leisure because at all times they were confined to the house.

I welcome this Bill. The increases it gives are a tribute to the social conscience of the Minister and the Government which has been so evident in many recent budgets in relation to social welfare, health and housing.

For years one of the arguments was that our social welfare benefits differed so much from those in the Six Counties. There has been a closing of the gap over the past years, so much so that the contributory old age pension in the Twenty-Six Counties has narrowed and is practically on a par with the old age pension in the Six Counties. Despite this fact is that the stamp here, even at the new rate, is a lot less than it is in the Six Counties. I welcome this continued closing of the gap in social welfare.

I should like to see some effort being made by the Department to reduce the age for the old age pension. The Minister might consider reducing it yearly in a progression until we get to 65, particularly now that the retiring age is becoming less and less. In some spheres of life men are considered to be redundant at 40.

I should like the Minister to look into the fact that recently, not because of an unwillingness to work but because of strikes in different bodies, people have been out of work and have been forced to go to the labour exchange. There are cases where people who have been forced to go to the labour exchange have been called for jury service and therefore unable to sign as a result of which they had to forfeit their day's pay.

The Minister should see that any person called for jury service who is drawing unemployment insurance should be compensated and not be at any loss. In our unemployment exchanges, it is terrible to see queues on wet days standing waiting to draw their money. There should be some arrangement whereby people could come at certain hours throughout the day rather than have a queue waiting, particularly in small towns where everyone is known, to draw their unemployment money, the insurance they provided for themselves and to which they are entitled. The Minister would do well to advise the labour exchange managers to call them for different hours to collect their money.

This is of necessity a measure on which there must be a great deal of repetition, and most of the points have already been made, so I shall not detain the House for very long. Nevertheless, we are dealing with people who look to us completely for their livelihood. These people looked at the budget not as something that would impose on them a few extra pennies taxation, but as something that would restore the value of money as far as they are concerned and relieve their lot.

This year the Minister has apportioned what money became available to him or what money he felt he could extract from the better-off sections of the community in various ways. The concentration this year has been towards families. This is a move in the right direction. While it is commendable, we must also admit that we condemn children of social welfare recipients, particularly children of widows, to a state of deprivation which we would not tolerate for our own children or for children of those people in various positions in the State.

All of us in the course of our activities as public representatives, meet these people who are constantly in want. Take the case of a contributory widow with two children. Can we imagine ourselves trying to keep a home and trying to rear two children on £8.60 per week? The basic over-heads—light, fuel, even the minimum rent—would dispose of £2.60 of that. Bread and milk alone would dispose of another £2. We are left with £4 to provide all the meals for the week and to clothe as well. To provide seven meals of meat and vegetable alone would take that whole £4.

Therefore we are not providing enough for a widow with two children, and are providing less still for a widow with three, four or five children.

None of us will deny that their position has improved, but by no means fast enough. These children can have no pocket money. It is not unusual nowadays to see children being handed £1. Children of the average middle income and higher income spend money freely, but for these children there is no such thing. While they may not understand the injustice in it, they feel it. Then when they go to school, there is the question of free books which they will receive on producing their medical card.

I am not going to dwell on that because it is a matter for another Department, but psychologically that is bad, too. As far as the mother of these children is concerned, one whose morale must be very low indeed, who works harder than most people in society, she has no morale boost. I cannot imagine how a mother living in such conditions could afford things like new outfits or hair-dos, things which are needed to boost the morale when it is low. The morale of these women must be very low.

Nowadays we regard £20 as rather a low wage for the average breadwinner of a family. We still have a dual standard in operation. This might be caused by the fact that the Irish people, in general, still do not know what constitutes a living wage. This is reflected in the fact that we expect widows, in particular, to keep homes on one-third of what we would expect them to live on and maintain their homes if they were supported by their husbands.

This also applies to both men and women who are social welfare recipients. The figures I have quoted would apply to contributory widows; non-contributory people are often in a worse position because they may have no other income. It is necessary that they should have another income; because it is not possible for them—on what we are giving them, even with the improvements which have been provided this year, to maintain a home on the rate of non-contributory widow's pension. In the interim which must elapse before we have full social insurance, we should not penalise these people if they go out to work in order to provide for themselves and their children the basic necessities of life.

We still have, unfortunately, the question of the restricted ceiling for disability benefit for widows who are working. It is blatantly unjust that a person who has paid a full stamp—and is drawing the widow's pension by virtue of the fact that her husband paid a full stamp—should still be penalised when she becomes ill. I would ask the Minister to remove this vestige of injustice in the next budget.

The free footwear scheme is the most blatant relic of Victorianism whereby we supply stamped footwear to the parents of children who need them. In this day and age, when people whose income runs into thousands of pounds are trusted with large sums, we could trust these people with a few shillings to buy shoes for their families. I cannot understand the mentality of people who suggest that these families may not spend the money in the correct way, therefore they must be furnished with vouchers which will provide only stamped footwear. This is another area where there is room for improvement and, in the interests of the dignity of the people concerned, we should bring it about very quickly.

Like other Senators, I also welcome the care allowance being extended to men; there should be no bias of that nature. We still have the problem of elderly people living alone—I know the Minister has difficulty in solving this problem—who have no dependants who will qualify for this allowance. They are dependent for the care which they must have in their own homes on neighbours. These old people feel very embarrassed that they cannot make even a token payment for the services they receive. It would be very helpful if those who needed care and are in their own homes could be given an extra allowance. I know there must be limitations, otherwise there would be abuses. But I would hope the Minister and his advisers would see their way to provide an extra allowance, so that they could, with dignity, ask others to provide that care for them. There are some people in hospitals who, if this care was available, would not be there, thus leaving room for people more in need of medical care.

I want to refer briefly to what is probably more an administrative problem than anything else; the long waiting periods for people claiming social welfare benefits, particularly, in the case of occupational injuries—people who, in addition to their disability benefit, are drawing disablement pensions. Earlier this year we had quite a backlog in that Department. People whose period of assessment had expired were due for reference to a medical referee and for some reason it was not possible to fix this appointment. They then had their money stopped on the date on which the assessment period expired. I know of two people who were without that money for as long as three months. In some cases, before the three months expired, the payment of the money was resumed, even without full assessment. I am not blaming anybody in particular for this delay; indeed, we receive from the civil servants in the Minister's Department a very high degree of courtesy when we bring a case to their attention. But there is suffering throughout the country as a result of these delays and this fact does not seem to percolate through to the Department. We should iron out these difficulties as quickly as we can.

I was pleased to see that the rate of retirement pension at 65 has been levelled up to the 70 rate. It is a step in the right direction and is long overdue. I join with the other Senators, who were disappointed that the extension was not also applied to those who are on non-contributory pensions. The Minister had indicated that this was in his mind. If pensions were available at 65, several people who are self-employed and find it difficult to continue would be glad to hand over their means of livelihood to somebody who would operate it. I hope this extension will be available next year.

We learned over the last few days that there were 1,750 deserted wives in the country. I am pleased that the Minister has levelled up their rate of benefit. The term itself is bad; I do not know whether we could think up a better term to describe these people. The regulations here are also bad, in so far as they place the onus on the person left to cope with and run a home on her own and to seek out the partner who has quitted his responsibilities. We should try to introduce a little more dignity into this scheme as has been done in other areas of the social welfare code.

In October the stamp will be increased to £1.03. Several people will feel that their reward for this increased payment is very slight. In social assistance we must have increased rates if we are to have increased benefits. There are, however, areas which might be covered and which might make people who are paying these rates of contribution better disposed to paying them. I am referring in particular to an area where there is a great deal of discontent, that is, applying to relatives of the insured person such benefits as dental and optical treatment and so on. Even today, when there is much better understanding of the whole social welfare code among the general public, there is disappointment in homes where the wife or one of the children applies for dental benefit or optical benefit and find that they are not covered under the husband's insurance. Generally there is disillusionment when this happens. If it were possible to extend the scope of these benefits to the dependants of the insured person it would help greatly in getting workers to willingly accept the increases in the rates of contribution.

We have greatly improved the standard of living of our people on social welfare benefits but, I feel, we have still a great deal to do. The Minister, in replying to a question in the Dáil recently, stated that, in 1967-68, 21.8 per cent of the total current expenditure by public authorities was spent on social welfare. In 1970-71 that figure was increased to 22.3 per cent, an increase of .5 per cent. It is a step in the right direction but it is a very small step indeed. We must bear in mind that it is important not just to narrow the gap but to double the rate of payments to those people. While we may feel a certain amount of satisfaction today at the increases, in a few years time we may look back and be horrified by the standard of living we meted out to social welfare recipients in the early seventies.

Fáiltím roimh an mBille seo. Taispeánann sé an tsuim a chuireann an Rialtas i gcás na ndaoine nach bhfuil comh maith sin as ins an saol seo is ba mhaith linn iad a bheith. An t-airgead a chuireann an Rialtas i leathtaoibh gach bliain chun cabhrú leis na daoine sin, buíochas le Dia tá sé ag dul i méid o bhliain go bliain agus, le cúnamh Dé, ní fada uainn an lá nuair a bheidh an t-airgead sin, agus na seirbhísí sin a éiríonn as, chomh maith, nó bhféidir níos fearr, ná mar atáid sa Bhreatháin féin agus ins na Sé Chontae.

I should like to refer to a few general principles rather than go into detail on each item in the Bill. Most of these matters have been dealt with more than adequately by those who have spoken before me. I wish to refer to deserted wives, widows and old age pensioners. The problem of deserted wives is, on the scale on which we know it at present, something new to us. There was always desertion at various times in the history of the world but it seems to have reached disquieting proportions in recent years. This is probably due to changing circumstances. It is a social and moral problem and probably arises from irresponsibility more than from anything else. We have immature spirits rushing into, not into bonded warehouses, but the bonds of matrimony and very often the results are disastrous.

As the Minister mentioned in the last paragraph of his speech, a scheme had to be brought into operation in October, 1970, to come to the aid of deserted wives. The Minister said, and I quote:

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.

That is perfectly true. I am very glad to see that he has dealt with the problem fairly and efficiently. He proposes to solve this problem by the provision, in section 19 of the Bill, which will reduce the minimum age limit for allowances for deserted wives without dependent children to 40 years.

As I have already said, the problem of deserted wives is a social and moral problem. The solution to it will probably be brought about by a better sense of responsibility among our young people growing up and by the creation of a condition of mind which will leave aside all thoughts of improvident marriages among immature people. This will lead to a steadier and more responsible generation of people.

Widows have always had a special place in human hearts. They were specially beloved of Almighty God because we all know they consist in the main of young women who lost their spouses in early life and who, for some unaccountable reason, seem to thrive and prosper and do very well for their children. Widowhood brings out the very best in womanhood. Widows are human beings of great courage and confidence and are usually fearless in their approach to life, but anything that can be done by us to ease the lot of the widow and her orphans ought to be done. I know that the Minister has this thought much in mind and that he is sympathetic in his approach to the cases of widows. Already some improvements have been made and we all hope improvements will continue to be made.

Reference was made by a number of Senators to old age pensions. The suggestion was made that the age be reduced from 70 to 65 years. I have thought about this point and I believe it would raise a number of problems. First of all, the age expectancy nowadays is much higher than in former times. It certainly is much higher now than it was when pensions were first introduced. In that regard a case could be made for increasing the age for pensions rather than reducing it. However, it is an advance that will undoubtedly come in time. It cannot come immediately because the cost of giving old age pensions at 65 rather than 70 years would mean an increase in expenditure of £12½ million or £13 million. That kind of money cannot be provided at the moment. So many improvements could be provided for everybody if we had a bottomless pool into which we could delve to bring out millions of pounds every time we needed it.

At present the cost of social assistance is made up of almost £4 million for old age pensions and blind pensions, £600,000 for widows and orphans pensions, £165,000 for deserted wives allowances and £2¾ million for unemployment assistance, which gives an approximate total cost of £7½ million a year. That is a sizeable sum of money. Along with that expenditure we have the expenditure on social insurance benefits. They cost £13½ million a year and of that sum the Exchequer has to bear £3,171,000. The figures are very high and we are a country with limited means. The Minister has done a most commendable job in doing so much for so many with the funds at his disposal.

There is a very interesting section in his speech where he gives comparisons between the percentages as regards contributions on the part of employees and employers. It was certainly most enlightening. On a basic of £28 a week, which is the average earning of a male industrial worker in the Republic, the employee's contribution is 3.68 per cent, in Britain it is 5.54, in France 6.58, in Belgium 13.15 and in the Netherlands almost 18 per cent. The discrepancies as regards contributions from the employers is still more noteworthy. In the Republic it is 6.5 per cent, whereas in Italy it is 30.66 per cent. It is a pity that could not be made known to all those who, with a fair amount of justification, grumble at the cost of the stamps.

Perhaps at a later date a pamphlet could be issued, giving the figures in tabular form, of the benefits that are available in the various countries mentioned. I commend the Minister very highly for incorporating in this document lists of all the benefits available —the former benefits and those which will be available as from 1st October. It is useful information to have because rates of benefits change so often it is very difficult to keep up with them. There was a suggestion from a previous speaker that a small simple pamphlet or booklet be made available, giving all these figures and facts, in post offices throughout the country.

Another speaker referred to something very basic in this discussion, that is, the whole problem of social welfare benefits and social assistance. Basically, everybody should be proud to work. The Almighty said: "By the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread". Unfortunately, there are many people nowadays who want the bread but no sweat. There is nothing that gives a human being more satisfaction than doing a good day's work. The problem arises immediately of what can be done, or can anything be done, to get value for the money that is being given to those people who are out of work. Suggestions have been put forward many times that perhaps they should do a half day's work or a day's work for local authorities, and so on. I ask the Minister to speak on that particular point when he is replying. I notice that he has given a lot of thought to this problem and if there is anybody who will evolve a scheme to deal with that particular aspect, I am sure the Minister is the man.

I was very glad to see that the Garda Síochána have been included in the social welfare scheme. I know that they are generally pleased with it and have given it a very favourable reception. The Minister is to be congratulated on what he has done and when sufficient money, please God, becomes available, more can be spent on this Department. He is to be commended for doing so much for so many with what money has been available to him.

Most of what I proposed to say has been said already and I will not be repetitive. I am therefore afraid my contribution may be a bit disjointed because I shall take points at random.

As far as this Bill goes, we welcome it, but has it gone far enough? As the last speaker said, there is a limit to the economic cake that can be distributed and each Minister vies with the next one to see how many pieces of that sake he can get, and one Department vies with another. However, there are certain Departments, such as Social Welfare, where, if extra money is spent on them, the long-term effects will eventually increase the country's annual income. It will prevent institutionalisation of many people. It applies mainly to the Department of Health but also to Department of Social Welfare. It may be shortsighted on the part of the Government not to give them sufficiently large benefits in certain cases. It would prevent institutionalisation of certain sections of the community.

For example, many speakers have referred to the transfer of property, mainly land to their offspring and the delays that have occurred. Any incentive given to a farmer to transfer land to his offspring at an earlier age would very likely result in earlier marriage, and perhaps prevent emigration as well. Marriage at a certain age will produce children and I believe as a medical practitioner that there is a certain age where human reproduction will result in a far more stable and mentally fulfilled child. I also believe that children of marriages at what I might describe as a suitable age are less likely to be mentally defective. I am afraid that children born of old parents are more likely to be somewhat retarded mentally than those born in the main productive era of parents. Therefore, if the incentive were given to farmers to transfer land it would be os some value.

I welcome the inclusion of the Garda Síochána in the ambit of the Social Welfare Acts. There is a handbook in existence which explains what a garda's duties are when he is on and off duty. I presume that this will be covered in this. There is an area of dispute as to when a garda is on or off duty and when they would be covered by these benefits. The Minister probably has had dealings with that himself.

If somebody asked me to break down the social welfare stamp at the present time I would not know how to break it down. A year ago we brought into it a certain class of people who come under the Health Contributions Act in regard to limited liability and these people pay their health contributions through a social welfare stamp.

I read in the Bill or the Minister's memorandum a provision in regard to the costs of burial. I am not sure if it is brought into this at all but the Minister put a figure of £25 before us a year or so ago and I referred to it as being too low at that time. It would hardly cover the opening and closing of a grave, never mind the funeral expenses. I think he increased it since to £37. I forget the figure.

It is still a bit low, but I welcome this. The other was useless. I agree with everything that has been said about orphans, widows and old age pensioners. I think the question of deserted wives should occupy the Minister a little more. I foresee when we go into the EEC migration of labour, not alone to England and America as at present, but to the countries of Europe, may lead to far more deserted wives, unless consciences improve. This may be a levy on the Department of Labour in future years. I want to endorse practically everything that has been said up to now.

In any legislation dealing with social security a number of questions have to be answered. The first one is what are our general national aspirations? Do we consider, as a people, in our own consciences that the level of benefits given to persons who through no fault of their own are unable to earn, is adequate? The next question which will have to be considered is whether we are prepared as a nation to pool our resources and our risks so that people who suffer from the consequences of death, illness, unemployment, against which no civilisation can be immune, will have reasonable provisions made for them. The third question is whether from the payments which are now being made the greatest benefit is got by those for whom the payments are intended.

On the first point I appreciate that the demand in such circumstances can be limitless. The resources are strictly limited. It is a matter of how tender are the consciences of the people towards the less fortunate. The rates which we pay are low compared to any reasonable standard. In this country the rate of sickness benefit or unemployment benefit for a single person works out at approximately 30 per cent of what one would calculate as being the earnings of a labourer. In the EEC countries almost without exception they work out at approximately 50 per cent. In this country the rate of compensation for a married person who is unemployed, or prevented from earning through illness, is approximately 45 per cent. In the Netherlands, West Germany and even in Austria, which is not a member of the EEC, it is 75 per cent. Let us hope that when we enter the EEC the money we anticipate we will save in no longer having to pay the large farming subsidies and the large assistance to agriculture, or a great proportion of it, will be contributed towards pooling our risks and our resources so that the maximum help and assistance can be given to those who are less fortunate.

Every country has its own problems. Here we have more than our share of them in so far as social assistance is concerned. In the Republic if we take 1,000 of the population, we have a much higher number under 15 years and over 65 years than most other countries. In Ireland every 100 people in gainful employment have to support 73 people by reason of those who are unable to work because they are too young or too old. That is completely irrespective of health, death or anything else, which make further claims. The corresponding figures in other countries are, as against our 73, Germany 48, Italy 51 and England 52. Germany, Italy and England have much greater resources than we have. Therefore, I can sympathise with the Minister in his problem, but I strongly recommend that the level of assistance which we pay is not at all in accordance with what should be our aspirations and I hope will not be in accordance with what will be paid when economies have been made on entrance to the EEC.

Another problem is that we are a country of small farmers to a great extent. We were told here yesterday that approximately 78 per cent of the farms in Ireland have a poor law valuation of £20 or less. We are a country of small shopkeepers and also of small self-employed tradesmen. They account for more than one-third of our earning population. No provision whatsoever is made for them. I can visualise that this would need great administrative changes but if our practice is to measure up to our ideology and our theory we must show initiative and decide whether we are prepared to exchange old machinery for new— whether we have the courage to face new ideas and put our aspirations into practice.

To insure these people may mean insuring them against risks of a particular kind which would be peculiar to them. That is not an impossibility. In various countries of Europe social services tend to lean in one direction or another. In Britain the national advantage is obtained from the health service. In Sweden and Austria the advantages are obtained from pensions. In the Netherlands it is from housing and in France from family assistance.

The self-employed farmer or tradesman here, except to a limited extent, will be concerned with unemployment because while he can stay on his feet he will work. He is very concerned with a retirement pension and to a lesser extent with sickness benefit. There should be provision whereby these people, even on a voluntary basis, could insure against those risks.

One must appreciate the problems of the Minister. In a wealthy country it is simple to provide maximum social services. The greater the gross national product of the country and the richer it is, the greater the services it can provide. This is why in countries like India, which are very poor and where social services are most required, they are inadequate. In wealthy countries like Sweden where social services are less important, they are higher.

I sympathise with the problems facing the Minister, therefore. We should be prepared to investigate the peculiar circumstances of our own country. We should break away from tradition, from the administrative practices of other countries and make the provisions which are essential to the special circumstances of our own people.

In considering whether what is available is distributed to the best advantage I should like to emphasise that in a democracy a person's rights should be fully known and clearly understood. If a person is entitled to social services there should be no such thing as having to go to the local county councillor or TD to know what his or her rights are or to obtain those rights. In every small town there is an office where one gets social welfare stamps, obtains a social welfare card and hands up one's cards. The official in charge of that office should be adequately instructed to give full information to each social welfare employee who calls on him. That should be part of his duty and responsibility. Before he is employed, it should be clear that he has this knowledge and that he will retain it and use it. It is humiliating for any man or woman who is entitled to social services to have to go to the local county councillor or Deputy to try to obtain rights to which he or she is entitled. It is unfair also to the public representatives to place them in the unfortunate position of pretending they are doing a favour when they are doing nothing. That is the first simple change I would suggest.

Very often what is paid by way of social benefit is not administered by the recipient to the best advantage of those for whom it is intended. Many people have a psychological antipathy to work. They may be addicted to drink. They are for all practical purposes, and to a limited extent, drop-outs. They draw social welfare benefit from one end of the year to the other. They do not spend it to the advantage of their families. They spend it in doing what keeps them psychologically incapable of working, such as drinking, putting the odd bet on a horse, et cetera. The unfortunate wife who has not only to tolerate an unemployed husband but has to try to support the family is the person who is hardest hit.

There should be provision whereby social welfare benefits should be paid to the mother of the family. It is something to which the workman has contributed only to a minimal extent. The State has made a substantial contribution to the benefits and so has the employer, but the workman gets them and spends them as he sees fit, or misspends them as the case may be. The amount payable is increased or reduced depending on whether he is married. It is increased or reduced according to the number of children he has. The unfortunate wife who has to meet the bills, obtain the groceries, perhaps on tick, and humiliate herself, gets no part of it. I strongly recommend that where the mother of a family applies for the social welfare benefits to be paid to her and where she can give reasonable cause for that, the benefits or a substantial proportion of them should be paid to her.

There is for the contributions made an inequitable sort of distribution. A woman who is employed in a factory has to pay practically the same amount as a man, but her rate of benefit is very much less. A flat payment of social welfare contribution but different rates of benefit are not equitable. A man who earns a certain amount pays for his social welfare contribution the same amount as a person who earns only two-thirds of that. There is something wrong about that.

Likewise, a man who is earning considerably more, whose standard of living is higher and who pays more, is entitled to receive more. There are many cases where both the father and mother of a family are employed in an effort to do the best they possibly can for their children. They are both paying social welfare insurance and making contributions towards this. They and their respective employers are making their contributions.

If the husband dies the wife, as a matter of right, is entitled to a contributory widow's pension even though she continues earning, but when the wife dies the man is not so entitled. He may find himself with a large family for whom it is difficult to provide. The contribution towards the upkeep of that family, which was heretofore made by his wife, is no longer available. She had perhaps for ten, 15 years or more made substantial contributions towards their funds. Now she has died. She has fortunately made no claims against it. All her unfortunate husband is entitled to is a death benefit. He is expected to support his family and provide for his household out of an income which is possibly reduced to 60 or 70 per cent of what it was heretofore. I would throw out that idea for consideration.

More than one-third of the earning population are covered. We have been told that the State makes a vast contribution towards this. I have no doubt but that is correct. I am prepared to admit that the contribution of the State towards social welfare, percentagewise, is much higher than in any other country in Europe of which I am aware. I further admit that increasing taxation to an undue level is bound to cause a deterioration in production, effort and in many other ways. There should be some method whereby the self-employed, at least in the initial stages, should be allowed to contribute voluntarily. They should be permitted to contribute against risks of death or illness.

I should like to make just a few brief comments on the Bill before us. We all welcome what has been done. This year's Bill marks a step forward in that the increases given are proportionately greater than those given in any other period. In the same period we had about 8 per cent inflation. Consequently, a great deal of the increases will be swallowed up. None of us can be satisfied with the provisions that are available for the less fortunate members of the community. As the previous speakers have stressed, we are aware of the difficulties within our economy.

We hope, in view of our proposed entry to the EEC, that the Government will in the next budget honour their commitments by making positive increases in the social welfare benefits. I would hope that increases necessary due to the devaluation of money should be met from other sources. We should not be using the savings on the EEC subsidies to pay for inflation. They should be used solely to make positive increases in the social welfare benefits.

The whole thing is set within the framework of the manpower policy of the Department of Social Welfare. This policy needs very critical examination in the time ahead. It is too negative; it does not encourage work. Some real effort should be made in this regard. Unemployed persons should be encouraged to work in voluntary schemes. There is need for voluntary work in all areas. Within the framework of these voluntary schemes payment of a nominal amount to unemployed persons drawing unemployment assistance should be encouraged, and the facility to work would be made available at least for some portion of the week to many unemployed persons. This would result in a slight increase in income. It is not usual for voluntary bodies to do this but, with the encouragement of the State, they would be glad to do this at local level.

The second category to which I would like to draw attention is the unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 30 years. Every effort should be made to get them to spend part of their time re-training either in trades or in technical schools. The Government should make a positive effort to encourage this. By this I mean that anyone who is drawing unemployment assistance for more than six months would be required to enrol in a suitable development course, which a welfare officer would regard as beneficial to him. While this should not be essential for drawing unemployment relief, the Government could well consider introducing a category of bonus or extra payment based on evidence of an effort in the period to re-train in order to have better prospects of employment in the future.

This makes good economic sense also. If a person avails of some of the re-training facilities available it follows that he is much more likely to get a job and get off the unemployment list. It follows that, when he gets a job, he will make a better contribution to the economy. In trying to adjust to EEC conditions, we should put the whole emphasis on the younger age group, encouraging by every possible means all forms of self-development such as re-training and use of vocational education classes. I hope that the demands for these will cause the State to considerably increase the facilities available.

I am not over-happy with the redundancy situation in that I do not think our facilities for re-training are expanding fast enough in this area. I do not think that AnCO are expanding nearly as rapidly as is necessary. I should like the Minister and the Government to considerably increase the resources available to AnCO.

I should also like to see the convertion of redundancy payments into a type of honourable retirement, in other words, the lowering of the age for the old age pension and other schemes would be a very positive contribution. Many of the older groups brought up in an age less technical than ours would find great difficulty in retraining, especially when they are likely to have only a few years left after retraining. We have pressure already on our jobs and employment opportunities. It would make sense to encourage the older farmers to retire, likewise encouraging older workers within certain industries to retire or, when they become redundant letting them move into honourable retirement rather than have them continuing looking for jobs for which there are younger and better trained men available.

The time has come now when we should have a real look at our manpower policy, set our policy aims and let the resources of the State be then put to developing those aims. It seems to be very unjust that, while other categories avail of all benefits from the date of the budget—tax concessions and so on—generally social welfare groups have to wait until either 1st August or, in this case, 1st October before they get the benefits that have been promised the previous October or April.

The Minister will plead that there are difficulties in implementing this, that the reason why the increases are not made available earlier is that paper work has to be done. Have we not got an element of retrospection in all pay claims? It is quite common to find pay increases granted with retrospection for six months, a year or more. All increases granted under the Social Welfare Bill should be retrospective to the date of the budget.

This would be excellent in many ways because it would provide for those groups something even more valuable than a small increase in the weekly rate. It would provide a small lump sum coming, say, on 1st of October. For instance, if the present payment of 50p per week to the old age pensioners had this retrospective in it, then on 1st October next there would be five months or over 20 weeks lump sum to be paid. It may not seem much—it is just £10—but can anyone imagine what a £10 lump sum payment could mean to any old age pensioner?

I would ask the Minister to bring the payments in this regard into line with the awards made to other classes and to include in future a lump sum payment. All payments could then be standardised from 1st October to ensure that the lump sum would be a reasonable one, something that would bring great joy and comfort to all the social welfare classes.

There are certain other irksome differentials in this Bill, as in every other Social Welfare Bill. I cannot understand why we should penny pinch in many of these matters. For instance, the amount paid to non-contributory and blind pensioners in respect of qualified children are increased by 40p for the first two and by only 25p for every additional child after that. I would have thought the number of additional children who would qualify under this as dependants of old age or blind pensioners, could not be more than 100 or 200. I cannot see how the injunction and the declaration in the 1916 Proclamation that we should cherish all the children of the State equally can be reconciled with this difference between the third, fourth and subsequent children as compared with the first two. The amount involved is trifling. A great deal of unnecessary book-keeping is involved. Such discrepencies should be removed. The same goes for other children's allowances.

I welcome what has been done. I hope that, when the next Social Welfare Bill comes, that we will have a real indication of the Government's thinking within the EEC framework and that we will have a far more dynamic and positive manpower policy than our present rather static and largely negative policy.

I would like to make a few points in welcoming both the order and the Bill. First of all, the Minister's comparisons of percentages of rates payable here and in other countries are very useful. They serve to illustrate a fact which we are inclined to ignore. When people talk about the levels of social benefit, they are inclined to say: "They only pay so much and others pay more." The fact is that the level of benefits, in any community, arises out of the level of development and the degree of economic energy and drive which the entire community is putting into the business of life. Where the levels of social benefit are higher in European countries, so too are the contributions from both industry and workers, apart from the contributions coming from the taxpayers in those communities. Our social benefit situation here depends on how far we are willing to go in developing our economy.

Senator Desmond said that in future years we would be looking back in horror at some of the levels of social contribution but that is merely looking on one side of the coin. One can look back 50 years to a level of social contribution in which there were no contributions whatsoever. The level of contribution depends on the amount of money payable to the Exchequer from the taxpayers and on what both industry and workers are able to pay.

Reference has been made here to the disparity between ourselves and the North of Ireland, in particular. This is an area in which there is some degree of misunderstanding. There is a good deal of propaganda on this issue. Too many people in the Republic are inclined to accept, without any question, that our situation is vastly inferior to that pertaining in the North.

We are, as is evidenced from this Bill, going ahead. It is proper to draw attention to the gap which is being closed in our general standards, as between here and the North. We should also take account of some of the differences because, again, propaganda, accepting statements as being true which are to some extent exaggerated, is a fault which lies with ourselves.

With this Bill the level of unemployment benefit here is equal to, if not in some areas a little above, the British rate. We have here also benefit which do not apply in Britain. For example, the benefits of free travel, free light in certain categories and free television licences. Nobody can estimate the benefit of free travel. It cannot be estimated in money; but, from my own experience of people who are enjoying this benefit, it is something incalculable. When people who are retired are able to travel free it is a wonderful escape from the relative boredom of retiring years.

In making comparisons of this kind, it is not unfair to suggest that there are other benefits which we have and which our less fortunate countrymen in the North do not have. We have the benefit of a stable political situation, the prospect of improving our economy, the prospect, as a member of the European Community, of going forward and of making tremendous advances in our economy, if we are willing to do so. We have the great advantage, which the less fortunate people in the North do not have, of a sense of security and a freedom from fear. Although one would not wish to emphasise these points too much, they are all advantages which could not be spelled out in terms of money.

By referring to these matters I wish to convey the idea that we should not accept, all the time, the type of propaganda which is emanating from some elements in the North of Ireland that we are in some sort of an inferior situation, that the standard of life up there is better. We, as a community here in the Republic, should be very grateful that we have succeeded in maintaining a normal type of life over recent years; that life, as it exists at the present time—whatever the social benefits may be—in the North of Ireland is not, in any degree, comparable with the standard of life which we are enjoying here.

I quite understand, from the economic point of view, the necessity for the means test. I hope that at some stage in future years the administration will be able to take a look at some of the problems which arise out of the necessary application of the means test and at what appear to be the frustrating anomalies which develop. I refer to cases with which I have had personal experience.

It is rather unfortunate that a retired person should find it necessary to spend any capital he may have in order to qualify for benefit. Although the means test is essential, it creates a type of situation which is somewhat abnormal. It is rather discouraging for people to find that because a widow owns a house—her husband during his lifetime may have been able to provide a home for her—she cannot qualify. I can understand the thinking behind this situation but we should, in future years, look into the matter and find out what changes can be made to improve it.

I am not quite sure if the matter of retired persons comes under this Bill. It is also rather discouraging to find people who have retired—they are discouraged from working because of the provisions associated with benefits —are not allowed to earn even small amounts of money. Perhaps in future years we may look into their case and allow people of 70 years and upwards to earn some sort of weekly wage without deducting from their benefits. In a Christian society people should be encouraged to work as long as they can and, of course, it is better for their morale than sitting around at home.

In conclusion, I should like to welcome the many excellent improvements contained both in the Social Welfare Bill and the order on redundancy payments. They are a very clear indication that we are moving ahead.

I welcome the Bill because it gives increased benefits, no matter how small they may be, to our most needy sections. I believe that a percentage deduction from wages and salaries towards social welfare would be of greater benefit to all concerned. More money would be collected by such an arrangement and, consequently, greater benefits could be paid to the people who are in need. I would suggest that a 5 per cent deduction be made from wages and salaries. This would amount to a deduction of £1 in a weekly wage of £20. I am sure there would be no objection from people earning £2,000, £4,000 or £10,000 a year to paying 5 per cent towards such a deserving scheme. It is a scheme that everyone should, in conscience, examine closely. There is no reason why a person earning £2,000 a year should not pay £100 towards the scheme even though he may already be paying part of his salary in income tax or in other types of taxation.

Social welfare should be to the forefront of everybody's mind because it is an absolutely necessary scheme. Some of the people receiving social welfare are in dire straits and they deserve to receive more attention from all of us. As a person earning over £2,000 a year I would have no objection whatsoever to contributing my share and I believe anybody earning that salary would feel the same. Such an arrangement would help the Minister to bring our social welfare payments more closely in line with those paid in Northern Ireland or the UK. It would be one way of getting closer to reunification because people in Northern Ireland cite this as one of the reasons that are keeping us apart. If I were a social welfare recipient living in Northern Ireland I would have reservations about joining a United Ireland, even though I may basically be a Republican, because I would realise that by joining the Twenty-six Counties I would suffer a financial loss.

I believe that industry should pay its share towards social welfare schemes and pay pound for pound. I know industry is already contributing but the amount industry is paying is not sufficient to give social welfare recipients a just allowance. In giving social welfare benefits we must have regard, of course, to a person's home situation, such as whether he is married or single and whether he has a family or dependants. I agree entirely with Senator Nash that some arrangement should be made for a wife to receive some substantial portion of the benefit where the husband might not be giving her a proper proportion, due to alcoholism or some similar illness. I know that such a scheme would greatly increase administration costs but, taking everything into consideration, this would be offset by the suggestion I have made with regard to wage earners paying a percentage of their wages towards social welfare.

I hope that our social welfare payments will soon be brought closer to those paid in Northern Ireland, the UK and the EEC countries. Now that we are about to enter the EEC we must have regard to the social welfare payments in those countries and bring our payments into line with them so that we can avoid any friction afterwards.

I am very grateful to the Members of the Seanad for their contributions to this important debate. I also wish to thank them for the many suggestions they made. As I said in the Dáil, this Bill, which is virtually an annual one, always gives me an opportunity to listen to the views of the many people interested in the wide field of social welfare. Criticisms are made where justified but many suggestions are made which I have found extremely helpful. If Senators have taken notice of the tidying-up process each year they will have observed that we often, from time to time, incorporate many of their suggestions in our annual legislation.

This Bill provides for all the changes envisaged in the budget, but it also contains some other matters not mentioned in the budget. The debate in the Seanad gives me an opportunity for tidying up some less important matters which are not really of budgetary concern. I noticed that every Senator, and indeed every speaker in the Dáil, started off by saying that he welcomed the improvements but then went on to say that he would like them to have been better. So would I. It is often said that no Minister will ever stand up in either House and say: "I am afraid we have given too much to these people. We will have to reduce it." That stage will never be reached. We shall always say that we should do more and we should do better.

Most Senators realised—particularly Senator Russell—that the resources available to the nation at any given time must set the necessary limitation to what can be done for the weaker section. There is no shortage of social conscience; it is the most plentiful thing we have. The vast change that has come over the country within recent years makes it possible for the Minister to dig more deeply into the pockets of the people and take money to distribute to the less well off. Some years ago public opinion and the public conscience would revolt if we went to the extent we are now doing in order to meet the requirements of what is social policy. In spite of that, we are being blamed for not going far enough.

This year's budget was a significant one in that it did not, contrary to what Senators said, impose any taxation, although there is an increase in the social insurance stamp. I think it was Senator Boland who said that when he estimated the amount we were taking by way of social insurance, by increasing the price of the stamp, it would reduce the Exchequer contribution much less than one-third, which is the traditional figure at which the Exchequer comes to the rescue of the fund each year. I would like to point out to Senator Boland that, while that may be true of the figures immediately before us in relation to this year's computation, overall we will be paying much more than last year, that is much more than one-third out of the Exchequer to make up for the disbursements from the social insurance fund. Such a large increase is an effort to bring it a bit more into line.

All speakers who made reference to the need for a comprehensive social insurance scheme and for an extension of the scheme should remember that we have, at all times, a continuing process of examining the expansion of the social welfare code and its improvement in particular directions. There are a number of plans, about which I shall speak later, to be carried out in the immediate future. However, in examining the whole social welfare code it is noticeable that most contingencies are covered. Anybody talking about the restructured social welfare code must keep in mind that not one comma of the legislation that has been enacted time and again in relation to our existing social welfare benefits would have to be altered in order to bring about any improvement in the scheme.

While Senators were speaking, I was scribbling down some of the obvious things that are covered in our social welfare code at present. Starting appropriately with maternity allowances and maternity grants, there are then invalidity pensions, disability payments, occupational injuries benefit, payments for widowhood, unemployment, deserted wives, sickness, redundancy, old age, blindness, and for the dependants of all these people. There is hardly a contingency that is not covered in our social welfare code.

To increase the rates is a simple matter if we have the resources, and to expand the scheme to cover the few things that are not covered will not present any great difficulty. However, one difficulty existing at the moment is to get around the immediate problem of collecting social insurance from everyone. That is a formidable task and one which I had hoped to have in operation now but I find it is not easy. When comparisons are being made with payments in Northern Ireland, indicating the amount that would be required here to bring our payments into line with those in the Six Counties, one should always put on the other side of the ledger the amount of money that would be paid in a comprehensive social insurance scheme to which everybody would contribute, from school-leaving age until retirement age, as is done in the Six Counties. That amount would have to be set against any Bill in comparing the two schemes.

If we extend our social insurance payments to cover all the categories covered in the Six Counties, then the amount needed to equalise the two schemes would not be so much. In order to do one's sums properly, in making comparisons, one must take that into account. How soon can we get down to extending our social insurance code to include everyone? That is a problem that is worrying me and Senators, too, I am sure. Last September I went with some of my officials to London to sign reciprocal agreements with my opposite number there. We took advantage of the occasion to visit Newcastle-on-Tyne to examine the computer system there. Every facility was afforded us by the officials there and we spent a few days looking into the process of their gigantic computer system of dealing with millions of people every week. From it we were able to make a certain amount of progress and to make preparatory arrangements. The Minister for Finance has recently made reference to computer facilities being made available to us, hopefully, early next year. This would enable us to get down to pay-related benefits and the extension of the social insurance code to take in everybody.

This is the last remaining item in the social welfare expansion scheme here. It is laid down in the Third Programme for Social and Economic Expansion, and we must implement it as quickly as possible. This is the remaining big important step forward in social welfare. I am not guaranteeing that we shall be able to do this next month, or next spring—I hope it will be done next spring—but we shall do it as soon as the facilities available to us will enable us to do so. We shall then be able to extend our social welfare code in different directions by improved rates.

We shall be including the higher income group—at the moment £1,600 a year is the limit—and the much better risks are those who do not contribute. Most of the people who contribute at present are those who withdraw more than they pay in. By not getting at the higher income group we are losing some of the best money that could be used in the whole social welfare field. There is a feeling among many people, when they pay social welfare insurance, that it is their money and that they are entitled to receive it. They forget that insurance is insurance at all times. The man who goes through his life and has never been sick, unemployed or injured in his job, or rendered redundant—and by that I mean he has not got back any of the money he paid—is a most fortunate man. He may complain that he has contributed all his life and did not benefit, but he is lucky he did not suffer any of the unfortunate occurrences for which this money is provided. The only exception in the social welfare code is the coverage for old age which is something that everybody would hope to have.

We hope to decrease the pension age as soon as possible. For insured people it has already been decreased to 65 years. The retirement pension at 65 for insured persons is really an old age pension. There is a difference which I want to point out to people who may be confused about the difference between the retirement pension at 65 and the old aged contributory pension at 70. A man at 70 who qualifies for contributory old aged pension can do any work he feels like afterwards. The man of 65 who opts to take his pension, if he goes into insurable employment, must forego his pension. He cannot have it both ways. There is only a limited amount of work he may do that will not be insurable or will not be over a particular number of hours or a particular rate of pay. He may do an inconsiderable amount of work which will only require an occupational injuries contribution per week. It is a definite step in the right direction in that he can have the same amount in his retirement pension at 65 as he would get in his old aged pension at 70, with the difference I have pointed out.

It may not be possible to go over all the points which have been raised, but I would like to deal with some of them to the best of my ability. Some people ask why do we not start these benefits the day after the budget is announced? They know perfectly well that we have to go through this process of legislation. Indeed, one time the assistance benefits came into effect in October and the insurance came into effect the following January. In recent years we have brought that forward so that assistance benefits come into effect in the first week in August and the insurance benefits in the first week in October. That is the earliest we can do it when we take into account the numbers we have to deal with. There has to be a complete reproduction of books, stamps and forms in relation to the different benefits which are covered in the different schemes. The officials in the Department of Social Welfare have to deal with 46,000 contributory old aged pensions. These are figures which have to be handled weekly. There are 112,000 non-contributory old aged pensions, that includes blind pensions; non-contributory widows pensions, 15,500; contributory widows pensions, which are considerably higher than the non-contributory pensions, 59,000. That is an indication of the movement towards contributory rates, which is a good thing.

There are 1,890 deserted wives. When I was being asked in the House to bring in the deserted wives schemes, the people advocating it said that there was only a few dozen of them altogether. On a weekly average, there are 45,000 unemployment assistance beneficiaries; unemployment benefit, 35,000; disability benefit, 56,000; invalidity pensions, 13,000; retirement pensions, 5,500; and maternity allowances, 1,800. These are some of the figures we have to deal with. There is staff working overtime in order to be ready to meet these payments by the first week in August. That is as early as we can do it.

Would the Minister consider a retrospective lump sum?

Retrospection is something we try to avoid as far as possible because it is a very big job of computation. Last year and the previous year the increase was from August and October, so that the year is covered. There is no overlapping. The extra benefits come into operation each full year, so people do not lose any money.

Does the Minister concede that a lump sum would be very much appreciated?

Indeed, it would. I would like it myself. Senator Quinlan suggested that the dependants of people over 70 would be only a few hundred. There are 21,000 dependants of old aged pensioners. When you go into figures in any category you always find a greater number than is anticipated. That is one of the big problems we have to deal with. It is a huge task to process all the claims which are made in respect of the various schemes. I do not think that the public generally fully appreciate what is involved.

One of Senator Reynolds' questions was: why not pay immediately? He said that the extra tax was put on immediately. There was no extra tax this year. With the improvement in pensions and other payments the means test is automatically relaxed each year. When the old age pension is increased each year more people qualify for the minimum rate.

A number of Senators raised the question whether a widow who changes over to the old age pension can lose some money. At one time the assessment was the same as for old age pension and many pleas were made that it should be relaxed. It has been relaxed time and again for the benefit of widows. That having been done, the other side of the coin is turned up and they ask: why does the widow lose when she is eligible for the old age pension? It is because we have improved the method of assessing the widow's income, particularly in relation to capital. Last year we improved considerably the amount of capital she can have and the amount she can earn in relation to her dependants. When she comes to the age for the old age pension she must accept the same means test as anybody else. This sometimes means that the widow loses some money.

It has been put to me frequently: why should we deduct something from the recipients of British or other pensions who get improvements in their pensions? It depends on what income showed up in their means test. While we have a means test we must take into account all the income of the claimant. We cannot make exceptions of any particular type of income and we must take into account what they are getting from other sources.

If they get 6/-, they lose 5/-.

Not necessarily. If the means test shows they have nothing, they need not necessarily lose 5/- if they get an increase in means because the increase might still not put them outside the limit. I have here a letter from a widow who is drawing a British pension in respect of her husband's insurance in England. Sometimes people in Ireland think that, if they put on a few stamps in the United Kingdom, they can draw a big pension all their lives. She is drawing the handsome pension of £1.27 on insurance paid by her husband in England. They state that, as Mrs. X's husband had an average of only 19 stamps, this is the appropriate amount of pension. An average of 19 stamps during her husband's lifetime in insurance was not bad but some people would lead us to believe that, if you had 19 stamps on average in England for your lifetime, you would be entitled to something like £50 per week.

These payments are not so wonderful when you examine them and meet those who are dealing with them. I am not stating this to justify what we are doing, but we should not make little of our own tremendous effort, with the resources at our disposal, to distribute the national income to the weaker sections of our people. We are doing a magnificent job and it is progressive. My responsibility is to decide to what extent I can put my hand in the pockets of the public and take out the money to give to others. This is the limitation set on the conscience of anybody who wants to do a job in so far as social welfare is concerned. I hope the new horizons we are looking forward to will give us the resources from which we should be able to do a much better job.

Time does not permit me to cover all the points raised, as there is some urgency regarding this legislation if the benefits are to be paid in the first week of August. I assure the Senators who raised particular points regarding some of the anomalies they have experienced in their working with constituents that I will take these into consideration and be glad to weigh them up, as I have always done, and endeavour to incorporate them in future legislation, making the necessary adjustments.

What confronts us now is the extension of the social insurance to all our people—to bring in pay related benefits. I hope to introduce a pay related scheme in this session of the Dáil and to have the Second Reading when the Dáil reassembles after the holidays. A pay related scheme in relation to some benefits is almost ready for the printers. This scheme will have been processed on the reassembly of the Dáil, but I hope to be in a position to introduce it perhaps during this session. This will bring us into line with the best. Then it is a matter of dealing with the rates of benefit. The rates can be made as high at any time as the public are prepared to pay. From all the appeals I receive one would get the impression that the public are prepared to go to any limit; yet when I raise the cost of the stamp a bit the eyebrows are raised and they say "What are you going to do now, are you going to put us out of business"?

We must have regard to the small number of people who are producing. The people who produce and create wealth are the people on whom we must depend for everything we do. I thank Senators for the passage of the Second Stage of the Bill and for their helpful contributions.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share