Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 1974

Vol. 78 No. 8

Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to those major improvements in social welfare which were provided for in the budget in line with the Government's commitment to social reform.

The Bill includes provisions for increases in rates of assistance and benefits and for significant new schemes designed to broaden the scope and effectiveness of our system of social protection. These advances represent another stage in the implementation of the Government's undertaking made in the statement of intent, to bring "immediate assistance to those in need and lay the foundations of long-term policy that will root out the causes of low income...". They also continue the work begun in last year's budget and Social Welfare Act in giving effect to the commitment "to deal with the plight of the aged, deprived children, the widowed, orphaned and deserted" and other groups in need.

The Government are working systematically towards their declared goal of introducing a truly comprehensive system of social security covering all members of the community. The proposals contained in this Bill thus form part of a coherent programme of reform of the social welfare system.

This task is a long-term one, in volving as it does review and reform of a vast and complex system which will be charged in the year ahead with the expenditure of almost £300 million and which provides coverage of one kind or another for the great bulk of the population. I see the provisions of this Bill as a most significant and positive contribution to the evolution of our welfare system, strengthening the foundations upon which the Government can build the necessary structures for the future.

I should like to refer first of all to the non-contributory old age pensions scheme which caters for so many of our senior citizens and also for blind persons. The budget proposals included a number of provisions to improve this scheme—substantial increases in rates of payment, further easing of the means test, the further reduction of the qualifying age for pension from 69 to 68 years and, an important innovation, the payment of allowances for adult dependants who are not themselves entitled to pension.

Hitherto a pensioner whose wife was not old enough to qualify in her own right for pension did not receive any allowance for her in his pension and many thus suffered a severe drop in income on ceasing to be entitled to unemployment assistance when they reached pensionable age. The maximum weekly rate of this allowance for an adult dependant will be £3.65. The maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory old age pension is being increased from £6.15 to £7.30 for persons under age 80 and from £6.65 to £7.85 for those aged 80 and over. Thus the overall weekly payment for a non-contributory pensioner with a dependent spouse will, at the maximum rates, go up from £6.15 to £10.95 a week, or if the pensioner is 80 or more, from £6.65 to £11.50 a week.

The further easing of the means test by disregarding the first £5 of assessed weekly means instead of the first £4 as at present will again improve the position of all existing pensioners who have less than the maximum pension and will enable many persons who are at present debarred on grounds of means to qualify for pension. In addition the reduction in qualifying age from 69 to 68 will bring over 10,000 new pensioners into the scheme. Blind persons who are not affected by the reduction in pensionable age will benefit from the new rates of pension, the easing of the means test and the new allowance for adult dependants.

Non-contributory widows' pensions are also being improved; the maximum weekly personal rate of pension will be increased from £6.15 to £7.30 and the weekly increases for qualified children are being raised to £2.40. Taken in conjunction with the amounts of a widow's earnings which may already be disregarded in assessing her means, the ignoring of the first £5 of weekly income will further improve the position of a widow who supplements her income by working.

The new weekly rates and the easing of the means test in the case of widows' non-contributory pensions will apply also to the allowances for deserted wives and unmarried mothers.

Orphans' non-contributory pensions are also being increased under the Bill—the increase being 75p which will bring the maximum weekly rate for an orphan up to £4.75.

The maximum weekly rates of unemployment assistance for persons in urban and rural areas are being increased by £1 per week in the personal rate, with a further 70p where there is an adult dependant. This will raise the maximum rate for a single person to £6.35 in an urban area and to £6.05 elsewhere: the rate for a married couple will go up to £10.95 in an urban area and to £10.55 elsewhere. The rates for children go up to £1.95 for each of the first two and to £1.50 for each additional child.

Following the very substantial improvements last year in the general children's allowance scheme we have found it possible this year to make a further improvement. The rates payable for each qualified child are being increased by 30p a month. This will bring them up to £2.30 per month for the first child, £3.30 for the second and £4.05 for each additional child. The new monthly rates will therefore be £2.30 for a one-child family, £9.65 for a three-child family and £17.75 for a five-child family. These rates compare very favourably with the rates payable under the general family allowance scheme in Britain and Northern Ireland, where nothing is paid for a one-child family, £8.23 per month is paid for a three-child family and £16.90 for a five-child family.

I come to increases in the rates of pensions and short-term benefits under the social insurance system which are set out in some detail in the Bill and the explanatory memorandum. I will refer briefly to some of the main items. The personal rates of retirement and old age contributory pension for persons under age 80 go up by £1.30 a week to £8.50 and by £1.40 a week to £9.10 for persons aged 80 or over. The rates of widow's contributory pension, deserted wife's benefit, maternity allowance, flat-rate unemployment and disability benefits and invalidity pension are all being increased by £1.20 a week. In the case of a recipient of widow's contributory pension who is aged 80 or over the increase will be £1.30 a week.

The allowances paid with pensions and other benefits in respect of adult dependants and qualified children are being increased also. Thus a married couple with four children will get £20.80 a week by way of flat-rate unemployment and disability benefit compared with £17.50 at present while a widow with four qualified children will get £18.00 as against £15.20 at present.

In the case of retirement pensions and contributory old age pensions, a married couple both of whom are aged over 68 will get £15.00 by way of weekly pension or £15.60 if, in addition, the pensioner is aged 80 or over, as against £12.35 and £12.85 respectively at present.

Pensionable age under the social insurance system is being reduced to 68 years. This affects not only the qualifying age for old age contributory pension but also the maximum age up to which the short-term benefits such as disability and unemployment benefit can be paid. Liability for payment of social insurance contributions will, of course, also cease at 68 years instead of 69 as at present. Because of this the reduction in pensionable age could have undesirable repercussions on some contributory pensions. In order to prevent these there are some special provisions in section 11 of the Bill, including a number of "saver" clauses, to protect the position of existing pensioners and persons approaching the age of 69 years.

The extra cost of the improvements in the social insurance services provided for in this Bill must be met by the Social Insurance Fund, which is financed by contributions from employers and insured persons with the Exchequer meeting the annual deficit. It will be necessary to increase the rates of social insurance contributions payable by employers and insured persons to meet their share of the extra cost. As announced by the Minister for Finance in his budget statement, employers are being asked as last year to bear a higher proportion of the cost of improvements in view of the further relief which they are getting in their rates liability on industrial and commercial premises.

A total increase of 60p in the rates of social insurance contributions, which cover all benefits of the social insurance system, is necessary. I propose in the Bill that the employer should bear 40p of this and the employee 20p. Increases of less than 60p will be applied to those rates of social insurance contribution which do not cover all the benefits of the system.

The ordinary rates of social insurance contribution, including the occupational injuries contribution, will thus be increased to £2.98 for men, of which the employer will pay £1.74 and the employee £1.24. For women the new ordinary rate will be £2.87, of which the employer will pay £1.69 and the employee £1.18. These rates do not include the health contribution of 15p where that is payable. Neither do they include the redundancy contributions which are 13p for men and 12p for women, of which the employer pays 10p in each case.

In line with the improvements in the general social insurance system the Bill also provides for increases in the rates of benefits payable under the occupational injuries scheme. The increases in weekly rates will broadly be in line with those provided in the general social insurance benefits. It is not proposed on this occasion to increase the weekly contributions which are payable by employers only to the Occupational Injuries Fund from which the cost of occupational injuries benefits is met.

I am glad to be able to make provision in this Bill also for three new schemes to widen and improve the income maintenance services. The first of these is a scheme of allowances for single women who have attained the age of 58 years. Many of these women have never been in wage-earning employment because they remained at home as housekeepers and they can no longer be regarded as having a reasonable prospect of securing employment. Thus they cannot hope to come within the scope of the various social insurance schemes. The new scheme will be non-contributory and subject to a means test and the allowance will be paid in the form of a pension, the maximum rate being the same as the urban rate of unemployment assistance. The means test to be applied will be broadly on the same lines as for unemployment assistance.

The second new scheme will provide a social assistance allowance for the wives of prisoners serving sentences of not less than six months. This scheme will be parallel to the schemes of allowances for deserted wives and unmarried mothers. The rate of allowance payable to a prisoner's wife will be the same as the rate of widow's non-contributory pension which would be payable to her if she were a widow and there will be appropriate increases in respect of qualified children.

The third new scheme is designed to help the family of a social welfare beneficiary who dies leaving an adult dependant. Inevitably in such cases there is an immediate drop in the family income and thus the stress and hardship which are occasioned by a family bereavement are aggravated. To alleviate the plight of the dependants in these cases it is proposed that, where a person who is receiving benefit, including an increase in respect of an adult dependant, dies, payment of the benefit will continue to be made for six weeks to the surviving adult— normally the widow. As a corollary to this proposal it is also proposed that title to the appropriate widow's or orphan's pension which would be payable to the survivor will not commence until after the six-week period has expired, but regulations may modify this to save an individual from loss where the appropriate pension is greater than the benefit paid.

Detailed conditions of these new schemes will be prescribed in regulations.

The Bill also makes provision for a number of miscellaneous improvements in the social welfare code. The first relates to widows of retirement pensioners. At present the widow of an old age contributory pensioner is awarded a widow's contributory pension on the death of her husband without further reference to insurance records and I propose to extend this provision to the widows of retirement pensioners. This automatic entitlement will simplify procedure and expedite the award of pension to these widows.

In last year's Act widows, deserted wives and unmarried mothers who were receiving pensions or allowances as such under one or other of the Department's schemes were relieved of the liability to pay the employee's share of the social insurance contribution when working. I propose in the Bill to extend this concession to working widows receiving widow's pension under the occupational injuries benefit scheme or from a member state of the EEC.

Provision is included in the Bill for some improvements in the scheme of deserted wife's benefit which are designed to bring it more closely into line with the widow's contributory pension scheme on which it is based. The first of these will enable a prescribed relative allowance to be paid to an incapacitated recipient of deserted wife's benefit who is over pensionable age and requires full-time care and attention. The second improvement will allow a person who can qualify for both deserted wife's benefit and non-contributory old age pension to draw only the deserted wife's benefit except where the rate of non-contributory old age pension is greater, in which event the pension only will be paid. The third is concerned with the contribution conditions for deserted wife's benefit which are somewhat more stringent than those for widow's (contributory) pension. I propose to bring the contribution conditions of both schemes into line and, as a result of this change, a deserted wife will have a better chance of qualifying for the maximum benefit.

There are some minor provisions in the Bill, one to relax the waiting days requirement for unemployment assistance in certain cases and the others of a technical nature to clarify the position arising out of the introduction of pay-related benefit.

All the improvements proposed in the Bill are to come into operation at the beginning of July next or on the first pay-day in July. The substantial nature of these improvements can to a certain extent be measured by their cost. On the social assistance side, which includes children's allowances, it is estimated that the increase in cost to the Exchequer will be £26.23 million in a full year and £13.12 million in the current financial year up to the end of December, 1974. On the social insurance side, the gross increase in expenditure from the social insurance fund is estimated at £21.93 million in a full year, of which £17.92 million will be met by increased contribution income leaving just over £4 million to be borne by the Exchequer in a full year and some £2 million in the current year. The total cost for the full year will therefore be £48.16 million.

I have great pleasure, therefore, in recommending the Bill to Seanad Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Ba mhaith liom ar an gcéad dul síos fáiltiú roimh an mBille seo ar son na ndaoine ar an dtaobh seo den Tí. Tá athas orainn go bhfuil dul chun cinn déanta ann. Tuigtear dom gur fadó a thosaigh an Pharlaimint seo chun feabhas a chur ar slí bheatha na ndaoine a bhí breoithe, gortaithe nó aosta. Do dhein gach Aire iarracht an rud sin a chur chun cinn agus a leanúint go dtí go mbeidh sort cothroime againn idir na daoine go bhfuil an sláinte go maith acu agus na daoine nach bhfuil ar fónamh, na daoine nach bhfuil ábalta obair a fháil agus obair a dhéanamh.

I welcome this Bill. It is good legislation. People who enjoy good health always welcome any measure which is designed to help those who do not enjoy good health, whether through incapacitation, old age or extreme youth. A Government should ensure, no matter where they get the money, that people who are unable to fend for themselves are assisted so that they have a reasonable standard of living. All social legislation should be designed with that aim in view.

Because of our improved health services and the reduction in the qualifying age limit we will have an even greater number of old age pensioners. Eventually the qualifying age will be 65. People who have given service to the community but who were not insured in their employment should not be in want in their old age. In the past Governments have tried to provide them with some little sustenance which would make them independent in their later years. Very many old people find themselves in hospitals, homes and other institutions. While they have every facility as regards health services there, their existence can be lonely. They should have some money of their own which they could spend in whatever way pleased them. The Government should ensure that the old age pension will not be taken from them. These people have worked hard during their lives. They may be able to derive some consolation by spending their old age pensions as they like. It is unfair that in order to maintain institutions old people should be made give up their pensions. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey this request to the Minister.

Another problem which was mentioned was that of unemployment assistance. Principally because of our geographical situation, the areas of greatest employment are along the east and south coasts. Consequently in many other areas the people must depend on unemployment assistance. These people are not happy with the situation. They have welcomed schemes which were designed to bring industrialists to the western seaboard and so provide employment. It is difficult for a Government to persuade industrialists to set up industries in places where it may not be profitable to do so. Increased incentives should be made available. The largest cities and ports are on the east coast. It is difficult to get industrialists to set up elsewhere but the situation has been remedied gradually at Shannon and in the south. Any measure which will help to reduce the number of people receiving unemployment assistance would be beneficial both to the individual and to the nation as a whole. This assistance is regarded as a social stigma. The people in receipt of this assistance would much prefer to have a job.

The problems of widows were also mentioned. Very often women are widowed early in life. They may have large families. We should give them whatever financial assistance we can.

Children's allowances were also mentioned. These terms have become household words over the last nine or ten years. I remember a time when there was no social benefits in existence except the old age pension. That was followed by unemployment assistance. The introduction of these other benefits is a step in the right direction. The introduction of children's allowances was important. If there is no incentive to parents to rear families there will be no people in the country.

We should all do our best to ensure that our young people have all possible facilities. They are the men of the future, the builders of our nation and the people we look to to carry on where we have left off. We should try to ensure that they have better houses, roads and educational facilities. Governments should be concerned about the financial state of people who have large families in this country. It would be deplorable if the nation did not recognise that schools, colleges or other institutions would be unnecessary if there were not young people coming along. It is only right that the nation should try to give to these people as liberally as our finances will allow to ensure they will get a good start in life.

In the past many children have been both mentally and physically handicapped to such an extent that it has cost the nation a great deal of money to have them maintained in institutions and hospitals in an effort to remedy defects which possibly could have been remedied when the children were young had the finances been available at that time.

Provision is being made here, too, to ensure that these general allowances will be paid to the mother or to the father. It is important that the role of the mother should be recognised in the family. As we all know, the mothers of Ireland have a very hard life. They have to devote many of their years to rearing children. There is no substitute for the mother in the home. This has been proved time and again where mothers have gone out to work and employed somebody else to look after the children. It is not fair to deprive children of their mother at an early age.

In most cases the mother should receive the children's allowance. She spends most of her time with the children. They are more influenced by the mother than by the father. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. The mother plays a tremendously important part in the home. It would be degrading and wrong if a Government insisted on paying the children's allowance to the father rather than to the mother.

These are small administrative difficulties that may have arisen in the past. It is only right that they should be tidied up now, especially when we so recently had a discussion on the rights of women in general in society and in the world.

Senators on all sides of the House will certainly welcome everything that the Government, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been doing to broaden and strengthen our social welfare fabric. At the same time I respectfully submit that it is not enough. When we compare the increases which have been given now with the realities of the situation in this country at present we find, without doing any elaborate addition or subtraction, without a degree in higher mathematics, that the cost of living immediately eats up anything that has been granted. I do not mean any disrespect to the Parliamentary Secretary. Since the value-added tax was introduced money is flowing into the Exchequer. The higher the price the greater is the return to the Exchequer. No effort has been made to stem the increase that has taken place in the price of every single commodity that goes into the home at present.

I would be the first to admit that no Government has any particular control over the price of oil, rubber and a few commodities which are imported. I would be fair in an argument such as that and say they did their best in the circumstances. In the case of food, for instance, the loaf has been made smaller and dearer. The price of clothing is going beyond the reach of most people at present. When we have reached the situation where a suit of clothes is costing more than a fat bullock it is time for somebody to sit back and find out what is the real benefit of this well-intentioned legislation. When we look at what the housewife has to pay for sugar, tea, soap and various things like that, which have to be bought every day in homes in Ireland where there are families, and even where old age pensioners are living by themselves, I cannot see that any benefit whatever can be derived from any of these social welfare increases. Were they fortunate enough to break even in many of these cases these families would find that whatever little they had left over would go towards ESB bills. Some improvements are being made. People are being converted to the idea of a social welfare code which any developing nation should have to assist its less fortunate citizens. A much greater effort will have to be made if we are to convince any of our people who are receiving these allowances that there is really any benefit whatever in the increases that have been granted.

It is very easy for people on this side of the House to criticise. Those who are sitting on the far side have already learned that to their regret. At one time they were very vocal regarding prices and the ability of Government to change these things overnight, and so on. I am sure that as a result of being in office for a while they have found out that it is not as easy to do these things as they said then. I do not want to make anything more difficult for them. I only want to state the bare facts which are known to everybody in this country from Cork to Donegal. The price of cattle here has slumped completely. Yet the housewife has to buy meat at three times the price it was some years ago. There are not any parades up and down the city now about the price of meat. I remember the time when housewives were marching as far as Leinster House in Dublin city with flags raised. The situation is much worse today and there does not seem to be a word about it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is dwelling rather too much on details in regard to prices. They are certainly relevant in so far as they affect the person's benefiting under the Bill but it would not be appropriate to develop the debate into a full-scale debate on prices.

I appreciate that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It was quite relevant to mention prices in passing.

I was merely pointing out that prices are very relevant to any increases in social welfare benefits. We know that these benefits are being paid. We know that to many of them the recipients themselves have to make a contribution. That is true in regard to unemployment benefit. In all cases the people who receive benefits have to make a contribution to general taxation. Consequently when prices increase it is bringing in more money. It means that whatever cheque a man is getting is less attractive and of less value. Every time that money decreases in value it affects the social welfare recipient. I am afraid that there are far too many people in this country at present in various spheres of life who have not even yet realised that we are thinking in terms of the old penny. We should realise that there are now only 100 pennies in the pound instead of 240. When we talk of increases in the prices of food or clothing by a few pence we must realise that each of these pence is the one-hundredth part of a pound note and that there is a very big difference today in the meaning of the word "penny" compared with some years ago.

We, on this side of the House, on all occasions leaned over backwards to try to improve the social legislation and the social benefits that would go to those who were in need of them. We pioneered a whole series of social welfare legislation. There may have been some tidying up operations to do subsequently but we provided the finances for this.

I know and all of us know that money is flowing in to the Exchequer without any effort whatever. Some of it came in last year from savings that resulted from our membership of the EEC and it has been flowing in this year because of VAT. In other words, the tap is all the time turned on. Consequently it should be our aim to try to make these figures more realistic. I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary because when he drafted this Bill these figures might have been realistic but they are now changing from day to day. What might look very attractive today may by tomorrow be completely eroded by a new increase in some very essential commodity to some of the widows or old age pensioners.

Another point I should like to raise is the matter of persons who are taking care of old age pensioners. When the provision to make available an allowance to these people was introduced it was necessary for the person getting an allowance to be a female relative in order to qualify. Perhaps this has been amended in some way since. I should like to see this scheme re-examined again if at all possible. I know of cases in my constituency and in other areas where people are reluctant to go into institutions. There may be a lot of talk about psychiatric units and various other types of homes for aged people. I do not think that these places constitute the best environment for these people. I know it is not possible for all people to stay at home but there are many people who would like to stay in their own homes and in their own surroundings. Indeed, many of them are doing so, although they are suffering because of this. But they do not wish to go into these institutions.

This is not any reflection on the people who run the institutions. They are very good people who do tremendous work. The hospitals and institutions are clean and well kept and the staff working there are efficient and courteous but there is always some loneliness involved for a person who is taken from his own surroundings and moved to some other area. He finds himself in another world completely. While everything may be good there, the most essential thing is lacking: the bit of homeliness which cannot be substituted no matter what is done or what is given to him. The best place to keep him, if he is willing to stay, is in his own home. I expect this would be a little more costly. I admit that we would have to keep the other institutions in operation, that such facilities as central heating would have to be provided and that staff would have to be paid. It would be a problem for the Minister to try to get around this in some way and to try to help these people and their relatives who would be willing to take care of them. The local nurse may be willing to help but it would be necessary to have somebody residing with them. There is some difficulty regarding the insurance of a relative engaged in taking care of an aged person but this could be ironed out.

The Parliamentary Secretary has been working hard and has increased benefits across the board but these increases are being eroded because of increases in the cost of living. That is a problem for the Government.

This Bill is difficult to criticise. It contains many aids to help the family. It could well be considered a pilot project towards the elimination of poverty. At least, it is geared towards building structures that would eventually lead to the elimination of poverty.

I am not naive enough to think that this would solve a lot of the problems of poverty. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would be amused if I even suggested that. At the same time, you cannot take one area in isolation and say that something extra could have been given there.

As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the Government have made the decision to introduce a truly comprehensive system of social services. This Bill is a step in the right direction. One cannot just dip into the purse and take exactly what is needed under one specific heading at the expense of something else. When there is a range of subjects of family aids such as we have here one must be conscious of how much can be given. The Parliamentary Secretary must work within the terms of the budget, for his Department. The extension here of the social services is to be lauded.

The Government, realising that people sometimes have difficulty in ascertaining what are their entitlements, have decided to support the establishment and operation of the citizens advice bureaux, where information offices similar to those now in operation in the Department of Social Welfare can help to ensure that each citizen will not be deprived of his rights. This is important when one is dealing with legislation like this because I have had many cases— any other representative around my place will verify it—of people who come to me who do not know exactly what they are entitled to or what their rights are. When we have a Bill like this, where the range of things it covers is set out, we can be of greater assistance. When somebody says a Social Welfare Bill has been introduced or has been passed, you can definitely say it is a Social Welfare Bill because of the range of family aids it contains.

I should like to comment on one or two of the sections. Section 2 deals with old age pensions—new rates, extension of means limits and new allowances for adult dependants. I wish to cover one particular point on this. I do not know whether it is relevant to this particular section but I will be guided by the Chair. The age of qualification for old age pensions has been dropped to 68 years. I refer to people who were in outside employment, where their pension was made up by having so much from the company and then built up to two-thirds with the social welfare benefit. When the money loses its value the person who might be making some sort of gain is, in fact, at a bit of a loss on balance, depending on the type of pension system he is working within. I am not making a case for somebody who has a good pension system with automatic adjustments and no abatement. I am speaking directly about the effect of abatement on pensions under that particular section. I do not know if there is any way you can tell an employer that he cannot abate State benefit, particularly in the case of non-contributory pension. It is something worth thinking about.

The other point I wish to discuss is the widows' non-contributory pension. This has been a great social evil for many years. Through negligence on the part of the husband, indifference on the part of the family in general, ignorance on the part of the woman involved, many people have suffered for years. I have experience of many people being in the position where they had to have things explained to them. They could never understand why somebody who lived on the other side of the house could get the widows' contributory pension while they were getting none. Again this is where the citizens advice bureau comes in. This is a great thing not only in the sense that somebody can advise them well on their problems and that they have somewhere to go, but also in the sense that it has a recognised value now. It is something of a right to the person. Section 6 deals with the question of children's allowances. The idea of making it payable to the wife was a stroke of genius. Speaking as an ordinary guy, there was a very funny name put on this allowance on the occasion that a fellow was short of a few bob. When he thought it was coming round to the time for the allowance he was generally able to say "Well, I will have a few bob tonight." The husband by and large laid claim to this allowance and many of the wives did not benefit from it. It is very good not only to see it converted into the wife's name but also to see the additional improvement in it.

Section 7 deals with old age (care) allowance. Here there was a question of pride, where people would not ask for assistance. This allowance, linked with the citizens advice bureau, can eliminate the pride that made people suffer. They will begin to recognise their rights.

Section 8 deals with the single woman's allowance. Here again—in a strike situation, for example—the single person very often had no income. Many people had husbands working or they had some income from some member of the family. But many single women, who had gone on a bit and were not looking towards marriage, very often had nothing to look forward to. They had no widows' pension or no dependant allowances. This is a very good piece of social legislation.

In section 9 we see another step in the evolution of the welfare system. The wife to a great extent was placed in the situation that her husband was punished but the actual nature of the punishment her husband got became punitive on the family, apart from the stigma. They were placed in a position where they had no right to an allowance or it was not satisfactory.

With regard to the new rates of occupational injuries benefit, a lot of people were in employment where they were afraid to take action against their employers. I am not giving the present Government the credit for the introduction of this particular provision. I am just drawing attention to it and pointing out that there is an evolving situation here. The benefit is growing and the value of that benefit is growing. The position was that when people had an accident at work they were afraid to take an action against their employers. They were afraid they would be dismissed or it would place their job in jeopardy. Many people are maimed or incapacitated to some degree. For total incapacity there is some sort of redress, but where a man has lost a finger or the joint of a thumb and where it has placed him in a position where he has to take on a lesser job, or a job where there is a diminution of the responsibility which he previously had, he was afraid to take an action. With this new occupational injuries benefit not only is he safe enough, but even after he resumes work he can still obtain the occupational injuries benefit. This is of great value. He is still in a position which does not debar him from taking action against his employer.

There was a time when an employer could not be sued if an employee was involved in an accident. The Fianna Fáil Government introduced legislation in which there was another obstacle. As there was no occupational injuries benefit there was a problem in that an employee might be afraid to take action against a company for fear of involving a fellow-worker.

Not only is this scheme directed towards helping the family but it includes other aspects of working life. I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for introducing this legislation. It is a great step towards a proper social welfare system, particularly in view of the need for developing towards EEC conditions. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply to give some particulars on the question of pensions.

The waiting period for unemployment assistance caused much hardship in the past. I am pleased that that situation has been eased. I welcome the Bill.

I, too, wish to welcome the Bill. While we would like to see greater improvements, we are all conscious of the high cost involved. The bill presented by the Minister for improvements this year is £48 million, of which £30 million is contributed by the State. The improvements effected in the Bill amount to approximately a 20 per cent increase. Inflation during the year has been running at 13 per cent and this leaves a 5 per cent or 6 per cent real increase in the social welfare system. While accepting that many of us would like to see more done on this, this is a case where specially designated taxation could make a real contribution. We have in mind the growing drink problem, with the high expenditure of £130 million. All would join in supporting the Government if there were special taxes on drink to make specific contributions towards improving the social welfare code over and above the relatively pedestrian increases we can make out of existing funds.

This would contribute in some way towards putting a curb on the spending on drink and on other similar expenditure. We have suggested this in the past, and the Parliamentary Secretary may be able in future legislation to see if specific increased taxation of this kind could be introduced to cover the improvements which would be made in the social welfare system. The increase for an old age pensioner with a dependent spouse from £6.15 up to £10.95 is substantial, yet with increased prices the position where two elderly people are living on less than £11.00 per week is not enviable. The increase which has been made in that connection this year should be continued in the years ahead. Our senior citizens must have their burdens eased and life made more pleasant for them in their declining years.

The Government could do more in easing the means test. The easing which has been done—£4 to £5 per week—does little more than keep pace with the devaluation of money. A substantial easement could be made there. Even if a couple have £10 per week between them on that limit, added to the £10 that is given, it does not make it a princely income per week. I should like to see in the coming year a spectacular improvement in that figure.

There should be instructions given to those investigating means and so on that they should not be over-rigorous in their pursuit of those concerned. This has a psychological effect on people and the investigation should be as humane as possible. At that stage elderly people are not in a position to cope with an in-depth investigation and are frightened. Even if this means that some elderly couples will get away with a few pounds per week on the means test, so what. We should not spend State funds in trying to prevent that.

I welcome the increases which have been granted in unemployment reliefs. I should like to know if there is any way of accepting partial employment —in other words one day's work per week. It would encourage the unemployed to do certain jobs if it were accepted that up to a certain level those jobs would not count. That might be difficult to administer, but it may be worth bearing in mind.

I welcome the fact that these increased payments will commence from 1st July this year. Many times in the past we have complained about the fact that these payments commenced from the 1st August, whereas the better off and more privileged sections usually get wage increases from 1st June and earlier in many cases.

We have been told that the increased payments cannot be made earlier because of administrative difficulties but I have asked in the past and I ask again now that the concept of lump sum back payments be brought in. I accept that the machinery may not permit making a payment before 1st July—indeed, I do not mind if it is as late as 1st August—but the increases should be backdated to some earlier time, say, 1st June or earlier and, in addition to getting the small increase in the allowance in the first week, the old age pensioner would get a very welcome lump sum. It would be a lump sum that a person in that category would not be able to gather together from his or her own resources. In the case of a pensioner who would get a £4.50 increase, if the increase was backdated for two months, it would amount to £40 and £40 means a great deal to an old age pensioner. I would ask that in future—it would not be necessary to strain the administrative system in trying to cope with the increase on 1st July—the increase would date from 1st June and a small lump sum would be given with it. Let that become a feature of all our social welfare payments. That would be a very humane and very worthwhile addition.

I welcome what has been done. I know, irrespective of what Government are in power, that the impetus to provide better social welfare payments will continue and will have the support of all citizens. The real support we can give is to contribute through taxes on luxury goods to making positive increases under this heading.

I think it would be very remiss of us on this side of the House if we were not to welcome this Bill constituting, as it does, the embodiment of the Government's commitment to the alleviation of poverty which was given such prominence in their statement of intent. It would particularly ill become Members of this party if we were not to pay tribute to the Government as a whole, particularly to the Tánaiste and his Parliamentary Secretary. The response last weekend to the Parliamentary Secretary's speech in the Dáil adequately puts his own personal commitment and that of the Government on the poverty question in a proper light.

Despite the fact that we are in a situation of continuing high inflation, and in some respects hyper-inflation, this should not permit us, even from the point of view of being critical, to hide the point that the increases in social welfare payments in general contribute a real increase in economic terms. Speaking from memory, I think the increases ranged on average from 27 per cent to 37 per cent. Even taking the last 12 months, the rise in the consumer price index has been in the region of 16 per cent. In real terms the increases in social welfare payments have not only compensated but have added as much again.

The Parliamentary Secretary, when giving a Press conference on this matter subsequent to the budget, gave us the benefit of a comparison of the various percentage increases with the consumer price index. Perhaps he might wish to do so again in view of some of the remarks that were made earlier. I should like to comment very briefly on three of the new provisions that have been introduced in this Bill and which characterise the sensitivity and imagination which has been so evident in social welfare legislation over the past 15 months. It has given particular pleasure to many people to see included for the first time the category of the single woman, who will now be given a pension which will become operative at a period of ten years less than the old age pension. I presume the age limit for that category will keep in step with the diminution of the qualification age for old age pensions.

I welcome, too, the inclusion for the first time of the wives of long-term prisoners and their children. It is a remarkable thing that we are now beginning to develop a philosophy of the right of the wife to an income from the State whenever the husband, for one reason or another, is not in a position to look after her welfare and the welfare of the children. Clearly in the cases of widowhood, unemployment, desertion and here also in the case of the husband being unable to provide for his wife because of imprisonment, we have enlarged significantly on this philosophy. In the case of desertion we have made it something against which insurance is taken out by virtue of the fact that a deserted wife can get the equivalent of the contribution benefit. I welcome this extension to include the wives and children of prisoners. Lastly, we have the inclusion for the first time of the adult dependants of non-contributory old age pensioners who are themselves not of pensionable age.

As a central feature of this Bill we have also the continuation of the Government's commitment to lower the old age pension age to 65 years by bringing it down by one more year this year to 68. However I wonder if, in bringing the age down eventually to 65 and taking it in conjunction with the introduction of pay-related social welfare benefits, we are approaching the point where serious consideration will have to be given to the fully comprehensive social security system which has been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, particularly in relation to pay-related pensions. That may be some distance away in the future but it is obviously a question that is beginning to loom very large now in the context of the pattern and network of social security benefits which we have now evolved. We are reaching the point where the more obvious gaps have been closed by the sensitive and imaginative approach of the last two budgets and where we begin to see that the existing structure is in itself not sufficient and must be replaced with a structure that is more fully comprehensive.

The means test has been eased somewhat further but it is the only point on which I would direct with some trepidation a modest criticism in the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary. The increase from £4 to £5 more or less keeps pace with rises in wages and salaries. It is, in fact, an increase of 25 per cent and constitutes a slight improvement. I know the difficulty here is the lack of statistics and one does not know precisely how many people would come within the net if one increases the means test up to £7, £8, £9 or £10 a week. It was a very courageous lead in the dark in the first instance to go from zero to £4 a week. It would not only be of interest but of great sociological value if we could have pushed the means test that bit further up the income ladder. Perhaps in the next budget it might be given more prominence in terms of improvement than was the case in the last budget and in this Bill.

One of the central features of last year's Bill and of this Bill has been its concern for children. In last year's Social Welfare Act there was the commitment to giving the child dependants larger allowances for the one-parent family. Again on this occasion there are increases in children's allowances: I think it is the first time in the history of the State that children's allowances have been increased in two Acts. Perhaps greater emphasis and consideration could be given to the problem of the large family. Poverty to a great extent is concentrated not only in low-income families but also in families of large size, even where the income is of average or mid-average level. It might be possible to direct increases for the child dependants specifically to the children beyond the third and, even if that were not financially possible at this stage, ultimately to the fourth and fifth subsequent children so as to take into account the very real problems that exist in larger families. This should apply not only to children's allowances but also right across the board to all other benefits and allowances for which children are eligible.

The Parliamentary Secretary at one stage quite correctly pointed out that the rates to which he was referring were flat rate benefits. It brought to my mind his very welcome reference last week to a possible reform of the home assistance scheme. There is a possibility therefore that in some future Bill we shall see the full development and embodiment of a family income supplement scheme. In any system such as this it is inevitable that there can be rigidities which may be born of bureaucratic necessity. I am not criticising or disputing that; it is necessary to be very careful when one is disbursing public moneys. However we all recognise that there are occasions when speed, sensitivity to the needs of an individual or of a family, call for something above and beyond what is laid down and which can be applied without a great deal of imagination. A projected reform of home assistance offers us this hope that what is required in certain circumstances in terms of humanity will be done quickly and speedily. In that regard I should like to add my voice to that of Senator Harte, who spoke about the importance of information centres. The Parliamentary Secretary himself has been responsible for getting across the point that it is not sufficient for people to have rights: they must also be made aware of them. I agree with him not only in terms of their importance but in an appeal that these information centres should constitute a new departure in Government architecture and in the whole approach to the use of governmental offices, by being sited in places amongst the most important of any town or city. They should not be placed in the existing complexes of Government buildings, in side streets, or in inaccessible places. In fact they should be placed right in the very heart of our cities and towns and should be imaginatively planned, attractive in themselves and should in no way interfere with or minimise the dignity of the people entering those places because they are getting their just desserts and what society has laid out for them.

Lastly, I should like to welcome the new trend, which is again embodied in this Bill, of greater contribution coming from the employer to the social insurance fund. It has been a feature of our social insurance system and that of the British that the State made a contribution far above and beyond what was commonplace on the Continent. Of course this was with the corollary that our social welfare benefits were much less than what they are on the Continent and in other developed Western countries. Therefore this particular development of the ratio of two to one is to be encouraged. I hope that it will be explored even further in view of the fact that businesses, industrial and commercial, have been relieved of a very substantial body of costs by the continued removal of the health and housing subsidies from the rates.

As I said at the beginning, this Bill is the embodiment of the Government's commitment to the elimination of poverty. It is a subject that does not generate a great deal of public interest or of political interest. The attendance in this House is in itself evidence of that. We could all easily bring to mind other subjects that would evoke larger audiences and more contributions. Yet we are talking of approximately one quarter of our population who suffer real deprivation every single day. We are trying to create attitudes whereby all of us make a contribution to the diminution of that evil. It is not simply the supposed 5 per cent who dispose of, or own, three-quarters of our wealth who are called upon to make the contribution: the other 70 per cent and the middle, too, have to make it through taxation.

In this Bill and in the general framework of the budget we have begun to see political expression of what I hope will be a much wider public commitment now to make a real and genuine effort to eliminate poverty, to admit that it is there, to admit that one has a personal responsibility to end it, and to admit too that one has a responsibility, irrespective of one's political outlook, to support any Government initiative or any Government measure such as this that will go some distance towards eliminating it.

Naturally when anything concerned with social welfare comes before the Houses of the Oireachtas it brings an awareness to a public representative of the thoughts he should have in regard to the underprivileged and the poorer sections of the community. When increases are brought about in benefits in the social welfare code itself, naturally they are to be applauded. On the other hand, particularly in regard to the increases that have been brought about through this legislation, we have to compare the increases with what benefit they will bring to the individuals concerned. We are all well aware of the very high inflation at present. Indeed since those increases were announced there has been a steady growth in inflation and in the cost of living. We must, therefore, relate that situation to the benefits that will accrue to the recipients of those increases. The figures given here today for the percentage increase in social welfare benefits against the percentage increase in the cost of living cannot be reconciled in the present situation.

I welcome the increase but I should like to know what real benefit will accrue to social welfare recipients through this particular Bill—it will be very small. With the continuing increase in the cost of living further increases will be required in 12 months' time.

We are well aware that there was £30 million available to the Government for the provision of those social welfare increases. This was wisely spent in trying to improve the lot of the underprivileged. In this budget the increases given are not in line with the increases given last year. The recipients will not benefit as much as they did previously because there was not as much money made available for social welfare increases.

When we speak of social welfare beneficiaries we think of old age pensioners along with all the other categories. The reduction in the qualifying age is welcome. From now on we will have more contributory pensioners. Non-contributory pensioners will be decreasing. I do not like nor can I understand why there is the discrepancy between contributory and non-contributory pensions in an overall sense. A non-contributory pensioner should get the same amount as a contributory pensioner. Those involved in public life should endeavour to have the distinction between contributory and non-contributory categories abolished. Social welfare recipients should be on an equal footing.

This discrepancy exists also in unemployment assistance, where there is the social welfare benefit versus the social welfare assistance. The person who qualifies for social welfare assistance is more underprivileged than the person who qualifies for social welfare benefit. The allowances should be equal.

Similarly, in regard to widow's pensions, there is also a variation. Most women qualify for a non-contributory pension but very few, especially in rural areas, qualify for a contributory pension. Widows who have non-contributory pensions are being deprived of their benefits. The Government should introduce legislation to make contributory and non-contributory widows' pensions equal.

The increases in children's allowances in this Bill are very insignificant. The underprivileged are again being neglected in this category. The increase is in the region of 7½ new pence and in 1974 this is very insignificant. The Minister could have done much better.

The Parliamentary Secretary has made some new additions to the scope of social welfare such as the single woman's allowance. A single woman qualifies at 58 years of age for this benefit. The woman who would qualify for this allowance would have been entitled to a home assistance previously. Home assistance allowances should be abolished and the beneficiaries brought within the scope of the social welfare code. It is the very poor people who qualify for home assistance. They have to queue up and wait for the office to give them a very small amount of money which is supposed to keep them going from week to week. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has introduced this scheme to help the single woman who does not have much money to qualify for social welfare allowance is a step in the right direction. Eventually, I hope the home assistance allowance can be the same as the social welfare benefit. I would sincerely ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter and arrange for these benefits to be paid by the Department of Social Welfare.

We cannot give deserted wives too much help. I know of one particular case and when I got in touch with the Department it seemed that such a person did not qualify for the deserted wife's allowance until a six-month period had elapsed and proof had come before the Department that the woman was actually a deserted wife. In the meantime the poor woman who finds herself in that position has to settle for a very small sum of money. Naturally the home assistance officer comes to her aid. Some arrangement could be brought about to quicken the payment to such a woman. It is something the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary could look into very deeply. The home assistance allowance is very much more than what the same woman would qualify for as a deserted wife's allowance.

Extension of the means allowance for widows' pensions and for non-contributory old age pensions is to be welcomed, but here again the extension of the means limit is very insignificant when we take into consideration the present inflationary period we are going through. I doubt very much if the extension given is enough. I would hope that whichever Minister for Social Welfare will be in power when the next budget comes before the Dáil will see to it that by degrees he will do away with this means test in regard to widows' pensions and non-contributory old age pensions.

As I said at the beginning, I welcome the increase but I doubt very much if the recipients will benefit from them. This is the big problem and it is a problem that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will have to take into account. When increases are made we always look at the past year in regard to increases and say what those increases can do. When we look at the past year we can see the steep increases in the cost of living and the inflation that has taken place and is taking place at the present time and more than likely will take place during the coming 12 months. The allowances as they stand even at present will be of very little use to those people at the end of this year. I conclude on the note that while I welcome the increases I doubt very much if the underprivileged, the poorer sections of the community, have benefited much from the proposals in this legislation.

I wish to speak briefly on this Bill. In common with the other Members of the House, I welcome the principle behind it, which is to increase the rates of benefits for people who are due for social welfare and also to widen the categories of those who qualify. I think we have something to be proud of in that through our own efforts and with making use of our increased prosperity in this part of the country we have managed to raise our social welfare benefits more or less to the level of those in Northern Ireland. Nothing is more effective in our efforts to come together with people in the North than to show that our social security system is on a par with theirs. If, as I believe, in the ultimate—may it not be a far away goal—we will join with the people of Northern Ireland it is a feather in our caps that the economy in this part of the country is so developed that we can bring our social security system into line and on a par with that which is financed in Northern Ireland mainly through the British Exchequer.

I wish to refer to some of the categories for which provision is made in this Bill. I welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has made a considerable improvement in the condition of single women who are not or who have never been in wage earning employment. This was a category of people who particularly in rural areas had worked at home as housekeepers or indeed people who had been employed domestically but who never had cards stamped or who never had come into the categories of those in wage earning employment. It is encouraging to see that something is being done for them. The fact that their allowance is being granted at an earlier age than in the case of some other contributors is also to be welcomed because they are a group of people who have suffered and for whom the State has done little. It is a very important step forward and is to be welcomed.

The scheme for helping wives of prisoners is another very welcome one. The Parliamentary Secretary and his Department are to be complimented on doing something for wives of prisoners serving sentences of not less than six months. I take it that this applies across the board to all types of prisoners—it is a pity that we have to have categories of prisoners; there seems to be class distinction in our prisons just as there is outside. Some people wish to categorise themselves differently. However, I think they should all be treated similarly. The scheme giving allowances to their wives and the fact that it is in parallel with the scheme for deserted wives and unmarried mothers is certainly to be welcomed. I take it there is no case for making special social assistance allowances for husbands whose wives have been imprisoned. I am not sure what proportion of women in our prisons today are married. I imagine that the people who are in difficulty really in this situation are the unmarried women in prison. Their problems really relate to the problem of employment when they emerge. I presume that single women in prison are eligible for the normal unemployment benefits when they emerge in the normal course of events. So at least they would be covered.

There is one further group of people whose problems I raised with the Parliamentary Secretary when I mentioned them in the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, 1973. I should like to raise it with him again. Perhaps something has already been decided in their case. I am not sure what the present position is but I know that the Department were investigating the situation. It concerns the categorisation as far as social welfare is concerned, of the clergy. They were categorised as being self-employed. The problems are different for the Protestant clergy and the Roman Catholic clergy because most Protestant clergy are married and, I regret to say, receive ridiculously small salaries. However, as they are being categorised as being self-employed they are debarred from the main benefits of the social welfare system.

I know that representation has been made to the Department that these people who are married and who have families and who have very small salaries by present day standards should be eligible and should be able to have cards and have them stamped and therefore qualify for the normal benefits for which people who have employers normally qualify. When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying perhaps he could indicate what is the position of the clergy, particularly of the Protestant married clergy, as far as social welfare is concerned and what steps have been taken in the Department to deal with their problems in the field of social welfare.

This is the first opportunity I have had of doing so and I rise rather to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary than to praise the Bill. We are all aware of the sincerity, the dedication and commitment of Deputy Cluskey to the amelioration of the plight of the sick, widowed and the other needy and deprived categories of persons. Anything he does— unfortunately, he does precious little in this Bill—towards that desirable goal will be welcomed by this House, certainly by this side of the House.

I should like to make a few brief comments on the Bill itself. Like Senator West and Senator Halligan, I should like to welcome the innovations, which are in the right direction. There is the new scheme for payment of benefit to single women reaching the age of 58 years. That age may be a little too high. These women usually are persons who dedicated most of their lives to working in the home, very often looking after sick parents or sick members of other families.

The second scheme, in regard to prisoners' wives is also very welcome. I think that the time at which the payment of benefit should commence should be the date of the commencement of the sentence. At the very least it should be reduced from six months to something like two or three weeks. The first six months of a prisoner's sentence is the most difficult for the unfortunate widow and other dependants of the prisoner. For that reason I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider reducing the waiting period to something less than six months.

With regard to the third innovation, which is also very welcome, I think the period of the payment of benefit which is proposed to be extended to six weeks, should be extended further. It should be extended to such time as bereaved persons become entitled to whatever benefit they are entitled. Very often the period of waiting for the payment of this benefit is extended to six months and sometimes it may be even longer. During that period there is great hardship to these unfortunate people.

I will conclude by asking the Parliamentary Secretary if he could do anything at all—there may be administrative difficulties—about the expediting of the payment of all social welfare benefits. I am sure he is aware from his experience as a public representative dealing with constituents that these delays cause more complaints and very often more hardship also to public representatives than any other feature of the social welfare code. If some changes could be made in the regulations governing the payment of all benefits I would be pleased.

Senator Cowan mentioned that unfortunately the benefits, welcome as they were, were being more than eroded by the increased cost of living. That, unfortunately, is true and it is my opinion that the Parliamentary Secretary and Senator Halligan, who tried to make the case that that was not so, have found out otherwise while they were canvassing during the recent local election. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary every success in his very important and onerous position.

Like the other speakers, I welcome the Bill. While I agree that there have been considerable benefits given in the Bill, I feel, as others have said here, that as a result of the huge increases in the cost of living the proposed benefits given are now useless. Unless the Government are prepared to do something about the cost of living the only alternative is to increase these benefits. At this stage it might not be too easy for the Parliamentary Secretary to do that, but I just want to make one or two suggestions.

Last year when we had a mountain of butter it was decided that a pound of cheap butter would be given to old age pensioners in the non-contributory bracket. I do not know why a pound of butter was not also given to the contributory section. It looked to be very unfair. I know of a case in my own area where a person on a contributory pension and living in a cottage did not get the pound of butter, whereas a farmer's wife who was living with her son who had about 50 cows got a pound of butter. To the man in the cottage it looked very unjust. I think that a pound of butter should have been given to every person in receipt of the old age pension, whether contributory or non-contributory.

Last year we had a mountain of butter. This year we have a mountain of beef. We are told that we are saving £30 million in subsidies to agriculture since we entered the EEC. Perhaps something could be done for the less well-off by giving them a voucher or something of that kind to get meat. In that way it might help in a small way to reduce this mountain of beef that we have at the present time. It might help the farmers to get an increased price for their cattle. I suggest that the Minister would look into that.

We are told that the means test will be abolished completely. Some of the politicians on the opposite side told us that before the last general election. We know that the means test has been reduced somewhat but I feel that social welfare officers when they are going around, to farmers in particular, assessing income are not inclined to take the present cost of living into account. In the case of a farmer who may have five or six cows, they take the value of his milk into account which today is much greater than what it was years ago. This reacts unfavourably against that man when his income is taken into account for the old age pension. The sooner that a means test is done away with the better as far as old age pensioners are concerned. All people when they reach the age limit to get the old age pension.

We have a lot of old people in hospitals and that is costing the State quite a lot of money. I suppose it is costing at least £30 a week per person. The question is asked why are they in hospitals. The reason is that a lot of them have nobody to look after them at home. They cannot expect their relatives to stay at home. We all know that in recent times people who are in employment and give up the job to go home to look after their relatives get some compensation. There is also the case of young people of maybe 17 or 18 years of age who have just finished school. If they stay at home to look after their father or mother they do not get any benefits. This is something that should apply to that section also.

Finally, I should like again to bring to the Minister's notice—and I am sure he has heard this fairly often— the delay in payments, especially sick benefits and unemployment assistance. Anybody who applies for those benefits has to wait at least six, seven or maybe ten weeks before he gets the benefits. I cannot understand this delay unless it is due to understaffing. Perhaps it is. If understaffing is the cause of this delay, then I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to make this right as soon as possible because it is most unfair to the person who has to go on unemployment assistance or on sick benefit to find that he is ten weeks waiting for anything from the Department. He has to go to his local home assistance officer and he will give him a few pounds which he will take back the very minute the man gets the social assistance, something I do not agree with either.

While I agree that old age pension committees should be there, I feel that they may be holding up old age pensions to a certain extent by reason of the fact that a decision has to be made by that committee before a person gets a non-contributory pension. Those pension committees often meet only every two or three months. I feel that the only purpose of the old age pension committees is when there is a dispute between the social welfare officer and the person applying for the pension. In all cases where there is no dispute and the person is entitled to the full pension, that pension should be granted straightforward without waiting for a decision from the old age pension committee. The old age pension committee should only be there for the purpose of deciding cases where there is no agreement between those concerned.

That is all I have to say on the Bill. I welcome the Bill but I regret that the benefits which were awarded are of so little use at the moment due to the increase in the cost of living.

I should like to make a brief contribution. I raised the same thing a couple of weeks ago and I was ruled out of order, and rightly so. I admit that now. I concur with what my colleagues have said and wish to add my own comments. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bear with me for a few minutes while I make my point clear. The position is that if a male employee leaves his employment on his own accord automatically he is out of benefit for six weeks whereas if a female leaves because she wishes to look after her parents and she does not come back, she is not recognised. A female is never recognised the way the male is. I think that is terrible.

I know of one particular case— the reason I am on my feet now is to make it known to the Parliamentary Secretary—where a lady with nine years' service who left her employment to look after a parent was debarred from benefit and not even allowed to sign on at the labour exchange. That is very wrong. This is something that should have been rectified long before now. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take this into consideration. Just imagine a poor unfortunate creature with nine years in employment who left her position to look after a parent and for that simple reason she was debarred. All she could get was £1 a week home assistance. That is disgraceful.

Having said that, I suggest that the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare should have an understanding in regard to the matter I now wish to raise. In the area I represent there is no chance whatsoever of getting into hospital. There is a waiting list for the hospitals there. They give very good care and attention but there is no chance of people getting into them. Take, for example, the case of one individual whom I know. If an understanding could be reached between the Departments to say to this man: "We will give you £10 or £12 per week to remain at home" would that not be better than having him in hospital where it would cost £25 to £30 per week to keep him?

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to bring this point to the notice of the Minister. I am not wrong in this. As I know in Waterford city and county, one would have to get knocked down by a car to get into hospital. If the Minister suggested giving £10 or £12 per week there would be plenty of room in hospitals. Too many old people are left in hospitals. Under existing conditions they have no chance. Nobody wants them and they must remain in hospital. If their relatives at home were given £10 or £12 per week for their upkeep they could be taken home. It costs £30 to keep them in hospital.

I wish to endorse the opinions of previous speakers. I am a councillor, as are most of the other Senators. Every day there are people approaching me for £1, £2 or £3. It has been stated on television that one will receive £3.50 for caring for an elderly couple. In my county of Kilkenny one might get £1 after six months for taking care of an elderly parent or relative. If it is the rule that they should receive £3.50 why do they have to fight to get it? We are told by the Minister that this is law and they should receive it. Why has the home assistance officer the right to decide the amount to be given? In Kilkenny some people receive £3.50 for caring for one person and others receive £1 per week for caring for two persons.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The matter the Senator is talking about is the concern of the Department of Health, not of the Department of Social Welfare.

What Department deals with this? A payment to a disabled person comes under the Department of Social Welfare. We are all interested in the plight of those who are confined to hospital because they have nobody to look after them. I know a woman who has ten children and is looking after her father and mother aged 90 and 85 years respectively. She receives nothing for this. When I spoke on their behalf they got £1 after six months and she received £2 after six months. They should have got £3.50 from the beginning. I am not speaking about the present Government only. Ministers in the previous Government stated that is the law and it should be paid. We, as councillors cannot get it for the people. Everyone should be treated equally in this.

This is a most important Bill and a most welcome one. A most important feature of the Bill, and of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, is a significant and positive contribution to the evolution of our welfare system. There is an admission there that our present system is not adequate, not equitable and not complete.

I am not criticising but we must hammer away at inequity. The improved unemployment benefit, for instance, is £7.75 for a single man without dependants. This gives him approximately £1.10 per day. It is impossible to live on this amount. It would not provide sufficient food not to speak of clothing, rent, fuel and so on. I have just come from a meeting of the Joint Restaurant Committee in this House. There was a discussion on the menu provided and the cost of the food. I suggest that £1.10 per day would not provide lunch for a Senator or Deputy. The same applies to the other improved benefits. The widows' benefit is increased to £7.30. The same benefit applies to wives of prisoners. It is costing the State a great deal more than that to support the prisoner. I do not mention these facts through criticism. The present Government with this Bill have done more to improve social welfare and to extend and expand it than previous Governments did during three or four years.

I do not hold previous Governments responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves in respect of social welfare. We are all responsible as we have permitted this situation to develop down through the years. The same may apply in most other countries. I wish to make the point that if we are not to become complacent we must hammer away and point out that our social welfare scheme is not adequate and does not permit any member of the community receiving welfare benefit of any kind to lead what might be described as a decent life. The social welfare benefit for the blind, the ill, the aged and the unemployed does not permit that person, man or woman, to lead what we might describe as a decent life.

We should aim at two levels in the future in respect of social welfare. The first level is to increase and to continue to improve benefits to the stage where we can claim that the individual in receipt of social welfare benefit may lead a decent standard of life. The second level is to continue to improve on that standard of decent living from time to time.

In saying what I have said I did so not as criticism of this Bill or of the actions taken by the Government in this field but because public attention must continue to be focussed on this major question affecting us all. If that is not done, we may sink into complacency.

I should like to thank Senators for their contributions on this Bill, which were quite constructive. A number of issues were raised. Some of them overlapped. I will very briefly try to deal with some of the matters raised.

Senator Dolan, in opening the discussion, spoke of the question of children's allowances. He indicated that it was very important that children's allowances be maintained because they had been proved to be a tremendous source of help to large families. I agree with the Senator in this. It is true to say that this is the first time there have been two consecutive Social Welfare Bills which provided for an increase in children's allowances. Senator Dolan also mentioned the right of the mother to receive children's allowances. As the Senator is aware, we were happy some three weeks ago to bring before the Seanad a Bill which enabled the children's allowance to be payable as of right to the mother. That Bill was, in my opinion, long overdue.

Senator Dolan also spoke about the cost of unemployment assistance and mentioned a few facts. I should like to relate this to something that was said by Senator Ryan. The cost of unemployment assistance in the present financial year—that is a nine-month year—including the increases provided for under this Bill is in the region of £19.2 million. I think all will agree that that is a fairly considerable sum of money. I am sure no Senator would seek a reduction in that sum if we were satisfied in our own minds that it was going to people who truly needed that type of assistance, but I wonder are we so satisfied?

It seems from some of the remarks made by Senator Ryan that some Members of the Seanad have doubts as to how that money is being spent. He mentioned the EEC cheap butter and seemed to be under the impresion that the scheme was administered by the Department of Social Welfare. That is not the case. The question of cheap butter is one that can only be dealt with under fairly strict regulations laid down by the EEC. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are the responsible Department. The Department of Social Welfare only administer that scheme on behalf of that Department. It is confined solely to people who are in receipt of assistance, not benefit. A man signing for unemployment benefit would not be eligible for cheap butter but a man who is signing for unemployment assistance would be eligible for vouchers.

Senator Ryan was not very happy about this situation. He pointed out that he knew of an agricultural worker living in a small cottage who was not eligible for vouchers but this man felt very aggrieved because his neighbour, who is sending the milk of 50 cows to the creamery, was eligible. With the amount of money, which is fairly limited, that we have available, in the field of social welfare elected representatives and all of us who have a responsibility should ensure that whatever money is available is spent in the most effective way to relieve need. I think all Senators will agree that £19.2 million is a fair sum. Our resources are limited and there is great need. There is social injustice in this country at present.

Senator Harte raised the question of poverty. He elaborated on the need for more activity in that field. The Government undertook to do two things in the field of social welfare in the 14-point programme put before the electorate. One was to alleviate poverty and the other was to eliminate poverty.

This Bill undoubtedly will not eliminate poverty, but we hope that it will in some measure alleviate poverty in our society. More sweeping and broader measures will be necessary if we are to achieve the other goal of eliminating poverty in our society. The commitment this Government have given and the evidence of the last two budgets, as well as other activities, have left me in no doubt that the Government have the political will to achieve these very desirable ends over a period of time. No one claimed that that could be done in the short term but I am confident that with the support of the more fortunate members of our society—that 80 per cent who do not come into the poverty category—it can be achieved.

Senator Harte also had some queries regarding the lowering of the pension age and its effect upon private pension schemes operating within industry. I have an idea that Deputy Harte had a particular industry in mind. If he had an informal chat with one of his fellow-Members of the Seanad he might be able to achieve more than I could in that direction. It would be a matter between individual employers and their employees, preferably through their trade union representatives. It would not be a matter that could be regulated by the Department as I understand the problem.

Senator Quinlan raised some interesting points. He wanted to know if it would be possible to pay social welfare benefits from 1st June or earlier. After the introduction of a budget, the earlier one can possibly pay the increases to the recipients of social welfare benefits the better. However, there is a limit and, as Senator Quinlan mentioned, there are administrative and other difficulties. A very significant advance has been made. Payment is now being made from 1st July this year as opposed to 1st October in previous years. As the Senator suggests, we should aim towards advancing the date somewhat further. If it is only an administrative difficulty, perhaps the suggestion of paying a lump might be taken into consideration. However, this would have to be considered against the background of our limited resources.

The question of the means test was raised by a number of Senators. They deplored the fact that it had only been changed from £4 to £5. This point was raised on both sides of the House. Frankly it is a criticism that I do not accept from anybody, when one considers that 18 months ago if one's means were not "nil" one did not qualify for full benefit. Within 18 months we have succeeded in introducing two Social Welfare Bills to bring about the situation where a person can have an income of £5 and still benefit. I am not suggesting for one moment that £5 is the ultimate and that it meets all the problems. But I am suggesting that from the figure that existed 18 months ago of "nil" means to one of £5 is reasonable progress. I look forward to the situation being eased further in the coming years.

A number of Senators raised the question of the cost-of-living. Senators Dolan and Cowen went so far as to say that no benefit whatsoever would accrue to people in receipt of social welfare benefit or assistance because of inflation. That is totally unacceptable to me. I am not suggesting that inflation is not a problem, nor am I trying to pretend that inflation is not a major consideration. But I do not think Senators or any public representatives are doing a service to the people who have to depend on social welfare payments by undermining their confidence by overstating and misrepresenting the facts. There is no doubt that the amounts of increases that will be paid are not as beneficial as one might have hoped. But to suggest that no advance has been made in this area and that the plight of the old age pensioners and similar persons will be even worsened in the coming months is not doing a service to anyone. The only way to make any advance in this area is to be objective about our criticisms. There are enough things to be objectively critical about without having to take off into the realm of fantasy on the question of the cost of living.

I am happy with the discussion that took place on the Bill. Some progress is being made in the whole field of social welfare. However, Senator Kennedy's remarks summed up my attitude. We are a long way from where we should want to go. It can only be done if there is a full realisation of the inadequacies that exist in our social welfare system as it has existed up to the present. There is a greater awareness in the public mind not only of the desirability of achieving our aim but of the necssity for achieving them in the coming years. feel confident that a reasonable start has been made in that direction and this has been contributed to by the introduction of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share