Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Mar 1975

Vol. 79 No. 11

Social Welfare Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the extensions and improvements of the social insurance and social assistance schemes which were provided for in the budget. The Bill also provides for increases in occupational injuries benefits and for improvements in the scheme of voluntary insurance and the school meals scheme operated by urban local authorities.

While representing a further advance in the Government's social programme, the provisions of this Bill also fulfil the undertaking given in the White Paper on A National Partnership, which stated that “the Government believe that those who are dependent on social welfare payments should be cushioned against price rises and should also be assured of at least an adequate maintenance of their position vis-à-vis other sections of the community”.

The increases in social welfare payments provided for in this Bill do not just keep pace with inflation. They represent a real increase in the value of these payments and they are in line with the Government's policy of improving the position of all social welfare recipients.

Total Exchequer expenditure on social welfare, that is on the services administered by the Department of Social Welfare in 1975, is now estimated at approximately £210 million, compared with £92 million in 1972-73. This increase of more than 125 per cent far outstrips the increase in the cost of living over that period and is an indication of the very substantial expansion and improvement of our social welfare services and of the Government's concern for the disadvantaged and less well-off section of our community.

In particular the provisions of this Bill provide for a substantial increase in the rates of non-contributory old age and blind pensions, a further easing of the means test and a further reduction in the qualifying age for pensions from 68 to 67 years. The maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory pension is being raised from £7.30 to £8.85 for persons under 80 years and from £7.85 to £9.55 for persons aged 80 and over. The maximum weekly payment for dependent spouses who are not themselves entitled to pension is being raised from £3.65 to £4.40 so that the overall weekly payment for a non-contributory pensioner with a dependent spouse will at maximum rates be increased from £10.95 to £13.25 or, if the pensioner is aged 80 or over, from £11.50 to £13.95. In addition increases of pension for qualified children of pensioners are being raised by 40p a week to £2.35 for each of the first two children and by 30p a week to £1.80 for each further child while the payment for a prescribed relative looking after an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £4.15 to £4.95.

I have already mentioned the further easing of the means test. The disregard of the first £6 of assessed weekly means, instead of the first £5 at present, will again improve the position of 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. The increase in the amount of means which can be disregarded for pension purposes will apply only in the case of means in the form of current income. Generally it will not apply where the means take the form of ownership of capital as the existing provisions in regard to the assessment of means in that respect are sufficiently liberal.

In addition the reduction in the qualifying age for old age pension from 68 to 67 years will enable some 10,500 new pensioners to qualify.

I may mention here that in consequence of the reduction in pension age to 67 all persons of that age, whether pensioners or not, will now become entitled to benefit from free travel arrangements. The free electricity and free television licence concessions will also be available to qualified pensioners over 67 years.

The rates of non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions are being similarly improved. The first £6 of a widow's weekly means will be ignored and the maximum weekly personal rate of pension will be increased by £1.55 to £8.85. The weekly amounts payable in respect of qualified children are being increased by 55p to £2.95. Together with the existing amounts of a widow's earnings which may be disregarded in assessing her means, the ignoring of the first £6 of weekly income will allow a widow greater scope for supplementing her income by earnings. Thus a widow with no other means who has two children could earn up to £9 a week and still draw the new maximum pension of £14.75 for herself and her two children.

The increased weekly rates and the easing of the means test will apply also to the allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives.

The weekly rates of non-contributory orphan's pension are being increased by £1 bringing the maximum rate to £5.75.

Senators will no doubt recollect that a scheme of social assistance allowance for single women who had attained the age of 58 years was introduced last year, the maximum rate of allowance being the same as the urban rate of unemployment assistance. The weekly rate of allowance in this case is being increased by £1.35 to a maximum of £7.70 and will accordingly remain in line with the maximum rate of unemployment assistance for single persons in urban areas.

I come now to unemployment assistance. The maximum weekly rates of payment are being increased by £1.35 to £7.70 for persons in urban areas and by £1.30 to £7.35 for persons resident elsewhere. The amount payable for an adult dependant is being increased by 95p bringing the maximum rate for a married couple to £13.25 in an urban area and to £12.80 elsewhere. The additions for children will go up to £2.35 for each of the first two and to £1.80 for the third and each subsequent child.

There are increases also in the general scheme of children's allowances. The monthly rates of the allowances are being increased by 30p for the second and each subsequent child, representing in all some 720,000 children. The rate for the first child will remain at £2.30 but the rate for the second child will become £3.60 and will be £4.35 for the third and each subsequent child.

Substantial increases in the rates of contributory pensions and in the rates of unemployment and disability benefit and other short term social insurance payments are likewise provided for in this Bill. In the case of retirement pension and old age contributory pension the personal rates go up by £2 to £10.50 a week, where the pensioner is under the age of 80, and to £11.10 a week where the pensioner is aged 80 or over. The allowance for an adult dependant is being increased by £1.15 a week where the dependant is under 67 years, and by £1.40 a week in the case of a dependant who is 67 years or over. The payment for a prescribed relative looking after an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £4.15 to £4.95 as in the case of non-contributory old age pensioners. The personal rates of widow's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit are being increased by £1.70 to £9.50 a week. In the case of a recipient of widow's contributory pension who is aged 80 or over the increase will be £1.80 a week. The new weekly rates of flate-rate unemployment and disability benefit will be £9.40 for a single person, an increase of £1.65, while the allowance for an adult dependant will be increased by £1.05 to £6.10 a week. Maternity allowance is also being increased by £1.65 to £9.40 a week.

The additions to pensions and other benefits paid in respect of qualified children are also being increased. In the case of widow's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit the increase will be 60p for each child. In the case of the remaining pensions and benefits the increase will be 45p for each of the first two children and 40p for each other child.

Senators may be interested in some examples of the effect of the various increases in pensions and other social insurance benefits. An old age contributory pensioner, for example, who is married and whose spouse is aged 67 or over, will receive at the maximum rate £18.40 a week as against £15 at present. But if aged 80 or over such a pensioner will receive £19 as against £15.60 a week at present. These examples cover the case of a retirement pensioner also.

A widow with three qualified children will get £18.95 a week compared with £15.45 at present, while one with five qualified children will get £25.25 as against £20.55.

A married man in receipt of unemployment benefit or disability benefit who has two qualified children will receive £20.80 a week as compared with £17.20. A man with five qualified children will receive £27.40 a week as against £22.60 at present.

The qualifying age for contributory old age pension is also being reduced to 67 years. This reduction affects not only the qualifying age for old age pensions but also the maximum age up to which short-term benefits, such as disability and unemployment benefit, can be paid. The age reduction means also that liability for the payment of social insurance contributions will cease at 67 years instead of at 68 as at present. In this connection a number of "saver" clauses have been included in section 10 to protect the position of existing pensioners and persons approaching the age of 68 years. These saver clauses are similar to those enacted in last year's Social Welfare Act which reduced the pensionable age from 69 to 68 years.

In line with the improvements in the general social insurance system, the Bill provides also for increases in the rates of various benefits payable under the occupational injuries scheme. These increases will be broadly in line with those applicable under the other social insurance schemes.

I come now to the provision to be made to help meet the cost of the increases in the general rates of social insurance pensions and other benefits. I refer of course to the necessary increase in the social insurance contribution. This year the total increase in the contribution will compromise two elements, of which the first will be in respect of the increases in benefits and pensions and the other general improvements to be made in social insurance schemes as provided for in this Bill.

The second element of the increase is directly related to the current unemployment position. In the course of his budget statement the Minister for Finance indicated that in view of the likely trends in employment in 1975 the Government had decided that it would be prudent to make evailable an extra £15 million to meet the very greatly increased additional volume of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance claims arising from the present difficult and continuing economic situation. The Exchequer, the Minister stated, would provide £7.1 million of this sum and the balance would be raised by way of a special increase in the social insurance contributions. This special increase, I would like to emphasise, will be a strictly temporary one to meet the current abnormal unemployment position.

The increase in the ordinary rate of social insurance contributions required in respect of the first element will be 93p, to be shared as to 63p by employers and 30p by employees. The amount of the special increase to which I have referred will be 31p, to be shared as to 21p by employers and 10p by employees. Thus the total increase will be £1.24 of which 84p will be borne by employers and 40p by employees. Increases of less than £1.24 will be applied to those rates of social insurance contributions which do not cover all the benefits of the system.

To meet the cost of the improvements in payments under the occupational injuries benefit scheme a small increase of one penny in the amount of the contribution payable to the occupational injuries fund by employers only will also be necessary. The new rates of contribution will thus be 12p for a male employee and 9p for a female.

The new ordinary rate of contribution covering the social insurance services administered by my Department will accordingly be £4.23 for a man, of which the employer will pay £2.59 and the employee £1.64. For a woman the new ordinary rate will be £4.12, of which the employer will pay £2.54 and the employee £1.58.

I want, at this point, to say something concerning the financing of the social welfare and health services, and of the social welfare services administered by my Department in particular. The gross cost in the present financial year of the social welfare and health services will be in excess of £380 million. Where public expenditure is at such high levels it is obviously necessary to give careful consideration to all the implications. It is essential that we should seek to obtain the best return, in terms of genuine social service, for the money spent, and in particular we must study the effects of what we are doing in order to ensure that adequate funds are directed to the relief and eradication of particular hardcore problems.

In this country the major share of the cost of the social welfare and health services is borne by the Exchequer. It might be thought that this would imply a major element of vertical redistribution of income, but a very high proportion of the general taxation raised in this country comes from various forms of indirect taxation, and such taxation — as well as flat-rate social security contributions — tends to be regressive.

In order to ensure a more equitable approach, to bring our systems more into line with the situation in the European Community and to concentrate Exchequer outlays more directly on areas of real need, it is now the intention of the Government that the present system of financing these services should be restructured over a period of years. Accordingly the Tánaiste has arranged to have this whole area examined and appropriate proposals will be formulated as soon as possible.

The fact that a Green Paper concerning a national income-related pension scheme and the question of providing social security pension coverage for the self-employed is to be published during the year will of course have a direct bearing on this matter.

Provision is also included in the Bill to rectify the situation which arose during the abolition of the remuneration limit for compulsory insurance of non-manual employees. Under existing legislation a voluntary contributor who becomes an employed contributor ceases to be a voluntary contributor. When the remuneration limit for compulsory insurability of non-manual workers was abolished with effect from 1st April, 1974, persons in the public sector who had until then been voluntary contributors paying contributions reckonable, inter alia, for old age contributory pension, retirement pension and death grants became compulsory insurable as employed contributors but only for widow's and orphan's pension, deserted wife's benefit and occupational injuries benefit. They were accordingly precluded under existing legislation from continuing to pay contributions as voluntary contributors for old age contributory pension, retirement pension and death grant. Provision is made in the Bill to enable such persons to continue as voluntary contributors so that they may continue their insurance cover for the wider range of benefits referred to.

In his budget statement the Minister for Finance announced also that the weekly rates of the various pension, benefit and assistance payments would be further increased with effect from the beginning of October next following a review of the position in the light of the rise in the cost of living. As Dáil Éireann may not be in session in the months immediately preceding October it is proposed to effect this increase by regulation and the Bill, accordingly, provides that the Minister for Social Welfare, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may by regulation increase the weekly rates of benefit and so on. Provision is included in the relevant section of the Bill to ensure that the regulations will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made. The regulations will of course be annulled if a resolution accordingly is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been laid before it.

As the Minister for Finance said in his budget statement, the October increase will be designed to maintain the real value of the level of payments established in April. The erosion of the purchasing power of welfare payments in a period of rapid inflation is a cause of concern and the Government are determined to protect social welfare recipients against such erosion.

The proposed further increase in the rate of pensions, benefits and assistance payments next October is in fulfilment of the commitment to that effect given in the White Paper on A National Partnership.

I am happy to announce also an improvement in the school meals scheme operated by urban local authorities. Under existing legislation such authorities are empowered to provide school meals for children attending national schools in their functional areas. With the growth of local authority housing on the fringe of their areas large numbers of children who are living in an urban authority area or in dwellings outside the area which are owned or have been provided by the local authority in question are attending national schools which have been built just outside the functional area of the urban authority. Consequently these children cannot be provided with school meals as the scheme stands at present.

To correct this I propose to amend the School Meals Act so as to provide that where not less than half of the children attending a national school outside the functional area of an urban local authority reside either in that area or outside that area in dwellings owned or provided by the urban authority, that authority may determine that school meals may be provided in the national school in question. In this connection the instance that will immediately come to mind is the housing area of Ballymun. In that district the corporation have built more than 2,000 houses in the county area and there are some 4,500 children attending national schools which are just outside the city boundary.

In the past two years the improvements in social welfare services announced in the budget came into effect from the beginning of July. Previously increases in the rates of social assistance payments were payable from August, while increases in the rates of social insurance payments did not become effective until the following October. This year, because of the change in the financial year which now coincides with the calendar year, all the improvements proposed in the Bill now before this House will come into effect much earlier, that is from the beginning of April next, and a second round of increases will, as I have already mentioned, be payable from October next.

These combined increases will add considerably to the overall expenditure on social welfare. On the social assistance side, including children's allowances, the increase in cost to the Exchequer will be £22.4 million up to the end of December, 1975. On the social insurance side it is estimated that the gross increase in expenditure from the social insurance fund to the end of December, 1975, will be £26.6 million, of which £23.7 million will be met by increased contribution income leaving £2.9 million to be borne by the Exchequer in that period. This means that the total cost to the Exchequer of the increased benefit and assistance payments and the other improvements provided for in this Bill for the period April to December, 1975, will be £25.3 million.

As I have already indicated, the Exchequer will, in addition, provide £7.1 million towards the estimated cost of additional unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance claims during the same period. The special contribution increase of 31p will provide a further £7.9 million towards the cost of the additional claims for unemployment benefit. The Exchequer will, of course, also meet the cost of the extension of the schemes of free travel, electricity and television licences which from April next will result from the further reduction in pension age. This is estimated at £430,000.

Bills such as this contain a number of provisions which are amendments of existing legislation and are necessarily technical. I hope that Senators will have been helped in their examination of the Bill by the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with it. In this regard I am more than conscious of the complexities of our social welfare legislation at this point in its development. The Bill's title of itself indicates the range of legislation governing this area — with reference being made to Acts including the Old Age Pension Acts and the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts and covering the period from 1908 to 1974. There are approximately 60 basic Acts and at least 350 regulations governing the various social insurance and assistance schemes administered by my Department.

I have had a start made in my Department on the codification of existing social welfare legislation. This will be a lengthy and difficult task, but one which should ideally lead to the production of a new consolidated Social Welfare Act. The work will be pushed on with all possible speed.

I am pleased to recommend this Bill for the favourable consideration of Seanad Éireann.

Mr. Lenihan

First, the increases in the Bill are in accordance with the policy of increased benefits of social welfare headings that have been a consistent feature of this State's activity and of successive Governments down through the years. The problem facing the Government now is to devise increases of a sufficiently high nature to offset the dramatic price increases and the galloping rate of inflation with which we are faced.

In the inflationary situation in which we find ourselves figures lose meaning. It would be fruitless to compare figures given this year with those for last year, the year before and so on. Inflation has made nonsense of any of these financial figures. The very fair increases here under the various headings in the Bill may by the end of the year just about deal with the inflationary situation, which shows no sign of ending.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say that they are ahead of inflation now as compared with inflation 12 months ago but will they be ahead of inflation in six months' or 12 months' time when these schemes will operate? At the present rate of inflation I do not think so. The central economic problem facing the country is how to combat inflation. It is the duty of the Minister for Social Welfare, as he has done here, to bring in increases to offset in some way, price increases and the inflation situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary refers to the necessity to codify social welfare legislation. There is such a need. Between the health board, county council and corporation authorities, urban district councils, and the Department of Social Welfare, there is such a complexity of assistance and benefit available to the citizen that he or she is in a state of utter confusion. I had the experience that the Eastern Health Board, Dublin County Council and the Parliamentary Secretary's Department were not able to make up their minds as to which one of them should pay a particular benefit the person was entitled to. I spent about three weeks letter writing before the lady got what she was entitled to from the Department of Social Welfare. At first this Department was inclined to load it on to the Eastern Health Board who in turn tried to load it on to Dublin County Council. Eventually it arrived back on the Minister for Social Welfare's desk.

This area of social welfare, because of the nature of the problem, itself, the people one is dealing with, unfortunate people who do not know their rights or how to go about things, requires a human face. It requires rationalisation in regard to administration, codification in regard to laws.

I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary on the feasibility of having citizens' advice bureaux established, liaising with the Department and the local authorities. There is a gross lack of personnel and centres available where the citizen can be told in simple language what he or she is entitled to under the various headings of social welfare benefits. I gather that is what the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind when he spoke about the 350 regulations governing the various social insurance and assistance schemes administered by his own Department, apart from the local authorities.

This all gives rise to the necessity for having a comprehensive scheme that will cover social insurance and health. Such a system operates in France where they have a most advanced scheme in this direction. In that country on a single card one is entitled to every form of benefit and assistance available from the State from the cradle to the grave; education, health, all forms of social welfare, are included under one heading. I know this matter has been under examination for some time between the Departments of Finance and Social Welfare. It is badly needed. It is not enough to do what we have been doing over the years, upping the various amounts generously and fairly within the ambit of the resources available annually. We have to get at the hard core of the problem of poverty. This is where a citizens' advice bureaux, social worker, personnel on the ground, could be a help and provide a more flexible approach.

What we have not got down to is the hard core of affected people. Some years ago we in Government, made an attempt at this but, candidly, it did not work. We brought in a two-tier system of old age pension in 1969 and gave twice the amount to a pensioner living alone with no dependants, or any property, as against another type of pensioner. That does not work, but it was an attempt at getting at the people who were in want. What sort of flexible fund can be devised to help people of that kind? The old home assistance code was designed to do this in some degree, and we need something of that kind but with broader terms of reference.

There are other methods also. A start has been made here in regard to free electricity and television licences for old age pensioners. I wonder whether it would be better from the point of view of helping people to eliminate or reduce bus charges substantially. Would this not be a better way of social welfare help than handing out an amount of money? Should there not be an investigation into what range of State services can be utilised at a low rate or free of charge by people in the various social welfare categories rather than handing them inflationary paper in the form of increases?

This area should be investigated because, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the real problem in regard to the money involved is: are we getting true value for the money? The Parliamentary Secretary says that the gross cost in the present financial year for social welfare and health services will be in excess of £380 million. Obviously we must try to get the best return for this money. We must make a study of how it is spent and whether we are getting value for it or not. The Parliamentary Secretary goes on, in so far as he can, to be critical of how social welfare and health services, as they are now administered, really benefit the people they are intended to benefit. I quote from what the Parliamentary Secretary said:

In this country the major share of the cost of the social welfare and health services is borne by the Exchequer. It might be thought that this would imply a major element of vertical redistribution of income——

This is the purpose of all social welfare redistribution.

——but a very high proportion of the general taxation raised in this country comes from various forms of indirect taxation, and such taxation, as well as flat-rate social security contributions, tends to be regressive.

We had a classic example of that in the increase of the contribution recently. When we have a situation where the employer is now paying £2.59 in respect of his male employee, the employee is paying £1.64 in respect of his contribution, and a reduced amount in the case of women, we begin to look at the whole system and see if we are getting value for money. Are the people who are working and investing in our society being overtaxed — that is what the contribution amounts to — at a flat rate across-the-board in order to ensure that we have appropriate social welfare benefits? That matter requires serious examination. When the Minister for Finance in the budget indicated that the Government were devoting an extra £15 million to deal with the unemployment situation people did not think that the increase in the ordinary rate of insurance contribution in respect of the first element would be 93p, 63p paid by employers and 30p by employees, or that the amount of the special increase to which I have referred would be 31p, 21p paid by employers and 10p by employees. That makes a total increase of £1.24 per contributor, of which 84p will be borne by employers and 40p by the employee.

When a situation is reached in which social welfare benefits must be raised in that manner, a clearly disincentive manner, a hard look should be taken at the restructuring of the financing of the social welfare services. That type of trend cannot continue indefinitely. I take it that is what the Parliamentary Secretary means when he says that the Tánaiste is having this whole area examined and that a Green Paper concerning a national income-related pension scheme and the question of providing social security pension coverage for the self-employed to be published during the year would have a direct bearing on this matter.

To impose savage increases of this kind, in a period of unemployment, on the contribution paid by the employer and employee is the worst possible way to go about financing the increased benefits necessary. As far as the economy is concerned, we will not be able to pay any social welfare unless the GNP rises in the coming year. We are depending for that rise on the people who are working and investing and on the employers being able to maintain and expand their factories to give more employment. We are also dependent on the workers putting their best into sustaining the factory in production. These are the people to whom every incentive should be given but they are being penalised and are being asked to pay substantially in the way of contributions towards financing the social area which is in the economic sense, non-productive. The social area cannot be improved unless the economic area is improved. If we are to cut off our nose to spite our face we are in a serious situation.

We have gone too far in this form of taxation, because, the employer now pays £2.59 while the employee pays £1.64 weekly taxation. This is coming from the people who keep the factories in production and from the workers in those factories.

We must maintain the whole level of social welfare payments and indeed keep ahead of inflation, because the less well-off section must be helped; but the tax must be levied on a wider basis. Other forms of taxation could be used for this purpose but the form of taxation chosen in this regard is highly regressive, to use the Parliamentary Secretary's own phraseology. It is not right to take from the pay packet of the worker or the small profits of the industrialist. There must be a contribution, but the increase involved here is away ahead of the increased percentage in relation to the benefits involved. Reading between the lines I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of this also. He stated that the real redistribution of income which is the purpose of all social welfare payments is not, in fact, taking place by reason of the system of taxation that we have to raise it.

The money is not reaching the proper people by reason of an inflexible approach in regard to administration. A local system of administration with a more flexible fund to help out hard cases at a lower level through various citizens' advice bureaux run by local authorities, would be a more sensible approach. In many instances the hardship cases are not being helped.

The school meals scheme is valuable. I am in favour of help in any form other than giving out paper money which is decreasing in value daily. Any help in kind, free transport, free electricity, from the various State organisations is the best and most practical form of help. It does not involve any charge on the Exchequer because the machinery is there. More social welfare categories should benefit by being brought in free or at a low charge into any service supplied by the State. School meals come under this category. This is an admirable form of help operated by local authorities.

I should like to bring in a matter which relates to another institution to which I belong, Dublin County Council. I am glad that the Minister has decided to amend the School Meals Acts to provide that, where not less than half of the children attend a national school outside the functional area of an urban authority, that authority may decide to provide school meals. This is an example of bureaucratic nonsense.

The Dublin Corporation area has long since passed any sense of reality. Greater Dublin is rapidly achieving the same population as the Dublin Corporation area. The Greater Dublin area outside the functional corporation area has a population of about 300,000 people. Because of the antiquated manner in which school meals are administered children attending schools in the Dublin Corporation area get free school meals while children attending schools in the Dublin County Council area do not receive school meals. Only urban councils and corporations administer school meals; county councils do not.

That type of nonsense has gone on for years. Dublin County Council have protested on varous occasions but this is the first attempt to remedy the situation, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary add the condition that more than 50 per cent of the pupils must come from the corporation functional area? Take, for example, a school in Blanchardstown or Ballymun where 30 per cent of the pupils come from the corporation side of the street, and 70 per cent come from the county council side of the street. That school is not entitled to school meals.

The Parliamentary Secretary said:

To correct this I propose to amend the School Meals Acts so as to provide that where not less than half of the children attending a national school outside the functional area of an urban local authority reside either in that area or outside that area in dwellings owned or provided by the urban authority, that authority may determine that school meals may be provided in the national school in question.

It seems that half of the children must attend schools in the urban area. It would also be far simpler and more sensible to recognise the reality — it was recognised in the local government paper issued by Fianna Fáil, which the Minister for Local Government, in a fit of pique, after the general election, abandoned — of a Greater Dublin and have a Greater Dublin County Council similar to the Greater London County Council, which administers for about 20 million people.

Is it not nonsense to have such a desirable scheme as the school meals scheme administered by Dublin Corporation, not administered by Dublin County Council, now amended by the Minister to say that if 50 per cent or more of the pupils come from the corporation side of the street they are entitled to free meals but if 51 per cent come from the county council side of the street the school is not entitled to free meals?

With all respect to the integrity of our Civil Service I find this type of bureaucracy infuriating. If a school meals system is in operation in the Dublin Corporation area it should also operate throughout Greater Dublin. The problems are the same in Blanchardstown, Donaghmede and Clondalkin as they are in the heart of the city. This originated in the days when County Dublin was a rural area; but it is no longer a rural area. It is a highly built-up urbanised area. The out-moded corporation jurisdictions which apply at present will no longer suffice. For the first time a start has been made in this matter but the Parliamentary Secretary could extend the scheme to include the greater area of County Dublin. A simple amendment of the School Health Acts will extend the provision of school meals to all areas. I propose to put down an amendment on Committee Stage to this effect and I should like to hear the Minister's views on it. The Bill is generally welcome, but I do not think it will cope with the inflation that lies ahead, and we are not getting value for the money being spent. We are not getting down to the hard cases that need attention. Greater flexibility is needed on the ground in the way of more social officers operating through advice bureaux. What is needed is a coordinated approach between the local authorities and the Department of Social Welfare so that we can humanise the administration of these services. There is a lot more to helping people than giving them pieces of paper that are rapidly running down in value. Money is important but services are much more important. The whole area of services provided to these people through the State apparatus need to be examined and these services could be provided free.

Mr. Russell

I should like to welcome this Bill which is further evidence of the Government's stated commitment to improving the lot of the disadvantaged and the less well-off sections of our society. It is a formidable Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary has not hesitated to point out, and warrants the most careful scrutiny to ensure that the people are getting full value for their heavy expenditures.

As some play has been made of the effects of our present high rate of inflation on the payment of social welfare benefits it is fair to point out that in 1972-73 the total expenditure on social welfare increased from £92 million to £210 million in the current year. This is substantially in excess of the rate of inflation. It should be recorded and emphasised that the Government have given a firm commitment that the improved benefits which all sections of the social welfare classes received on 1st April will be maintained by a review to be carried out in October, and the necessary adjustments made by regulation. I am sure this House will not have any hesitation in giving the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance the necessary authority to go ahead and make this review effective from 1st October, even though the Dáil and Seanad may not be in session at that time.

The Government who went to the country two years ago with a 14-point programme, which included a very special commitment to the sick and the aged and the introduction of new benefits, have honoured that commitment in a very difficult period for our country, a period in which we have had galloping inflation and high unemployment. Nobody denies that. But so far nobody in the Opposition benches either here or in the other House has come up with any constructive suggestions on how inflation can be abated or how the present unemployment can be reduced. There are, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, indications — although one, I suppose, cannot be too optimistic just yet — that we have reached the peak point as regards unemployment and that hopefully there will be a substantial downturn in the months ahead. This is to be most heartily wished for.

It is also important to point out that, in addition to the substantial increases under all social welfare headings, the Government have introduced some new benefits to certain classes which were disadvantaged and apparently forgotten in the past. I would particularly like to commend the payment to single women of 58 years of age and over. They are people who have been largely forgotten by our society, women who in many cases devoted their entire lives to looking after other people or who, for one reason or another, were not able to marry and have families of their own and lingered on well past marrying age with an apparently hopeless future until they could look forward to receiving the old age pension. I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this very encouraging beginning should be followed up by a regular reduction of the qualifying age in the same way that the Government are reducing the qualifying age for old age pensions. It would be greatly appreciated by a section of our society that have been forgotten in the past. The Parliamentary Secretary will be better able than I to judge the number involved and what the cost would be. It would be a generous gesture to women in this category.

There is no doubt that the increase in the social welfare contribution is a substantial one. Although part of it is of a temporary nature — I am not quite certain what "temporary" means in this case, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be able to elaborate on that — it is still a very heavy impost on both employer and employee. I join with Senator Lenihan in asking that there should be the closest scrutiny of social welfare expenditure to ensure that those who need it most will get most.

We hear from time to time of undeserving classes being able, through some method or another, to avail of social welfare benefits. It is easy to exaggerate these cases. A case which causes comment may be an isolated one, but we do hear from time to time of persons, who apparently enjoy a fairly comfortable existence, being able to drive up and collect social assistance. This is completely wrong. Money would be far better spent in increasing the benefits to those genuinely deserving of them than in paying them to people who do not deserve them or do not need them. They may be legally entitled to them but certainly do not need them. It would be far better if such people did not have the opportunity of availing of social assistance or social welfare benefits at the expense of people who need them far more. I do not think anybody can possibly say how widespread this practice is.

Unfortunately, we have in our society too great a proportion of people who are not able to help themselves, and it should be part of our philosophy of social welfare and social assistance that we do everything possible to help those who cannot help themselves. This is good, sound Christian philosophy. It is also good practical philosophy that those who can help themselves should be encouraged to do so.

I presume the contributions paid by employers on behalf of their women employees and by women employees themselves will tend to increase as the Government's commitment to bringing the wages and salaries of women workers closer to those paid to men is honoured. Presumably the cost of the stamp for women employees will equate with that for men when equal pay becomes an established practice.

The Parliamentary Secretary said — and he has a valid point — that due to the high proportion of money collected through indirect taxation, that is VAT and so on, and our system of flat rate contributions, the present system is to a large extent regressive. That must be accepted. In other words, it falls disproportionately heavily on the less well off sections of our community. If we had a higher proportion of direct taxation this would not apply. We have in this country, I think, a higher proportion of our taxes collected indirectly than most other European countries. Obviously some adjustment has to be made in this regard. In saying that, in accepting the validity of that argument, it must be pointed out that in the final analysis it is the people themselves who must pay for their own benefits. Whether they pay directly or indirectly through taxation the ultimate total sum will be the same. The Parliamentary Secretary must ensure that the burden is spread equitably so that the less well-off will not be called on to bear a disproportionate share of the burden.

I regard social welfare benefits as absolutely necessary. We have accepted that we must in our social welfare system first of all ensure that the less well-off, the disadvantaged, the old, the young, the sick and the helpless will be assisted to the maximum possible extent. The present Government have shown their commitment to that aim. Secondly, we must ensure that people in employment can feel that during their years of employment they will be reasonably safeguarded against the hazards of life — accidents, disease, unemployment anything that might terminate or interfere even temporarily with their opportunities of earning a full wage, even though they themselves contribute substantially towards that safeguarding and that when it comes to their retirement they will be assured of a reasonable income for the remaining years of their lives. If we want to have an effective, inefficient and contented work force we must accept, as a society, the obligation to make these provisions.

I say that with particular emphasis because I happen to be an employer myself and I know what a difference it makes to a man who is working when he knows that he is looked after as much as one can be, with the hazards of life during his working years, and afterwards in his retirement. But we must accept the fact that all this costs substantial amounts of money. By "we" I mean employers, self-employed people, workers in industry, commerce or agriculture. We must accept that unless there is a prosperous industrial sector, a prosperous commercial sector and a prosperous agriculture, it cannot be hoped to pay for all the very necessary social welfare benefits.

It must be the aim of the Government, and of any other Government, to seek to get the message across that prosperity can be assured, the ability to pay for the desired and necessary benefits, only if all sections of our community work together to provide the wherewithal. For that reason it is absolutely necessary that in our society we must be assured of industrial peace and we must have the closest cooperation between employers and workers. In other words, if there is no profit, benefits cannot be paid for. In the final analysis it is out of profits all our rewards come—employers' rewards, workers' rewards, the public's rewards, the shareholders' rewards. They must all get some share of the cake. That can be done only by expanding the cake so to ensure that everybody gets a fair share of it. That is a sine qua non of any scheme of social welfare benefits. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there cannot be one without the other.

I should like to conclude with a point which Senator Lenihan referred to — the question of the distribution of benefits. I am long enough in public life to recall in my own native city of Limerick when social welfare benefits — of most kinds were distributed on a local basis. I can remember the days when a social welfare officer went around on his bicycle in the evenings to the recipients' homes in order to ensure that the benefit reached their hands with the shortest possible delay. I regret to say that that system, which may have been antiquated but certainly was effective, no longer applies. With the centralisation which was decided on some years ago there has been a falling off in this service which recipients are entitled to receive. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, when they are considering such important matters as the codification of all the 60 or 70 various Social Welfare Acts, to turn their minds to the all important matter of the distribution of these services and to bring about some form of devolution which would ensure that these were done on a local basis.

In the old days there was a human content in the relationship between the home assistance officer, as he then was, and the person who was due to get the benefits. They were on Christian name terms. That no longer applies. I remember a couple of years ago spending a lot of money on telephone calls to the Department to be told that due to the fact that there was a 'flu epidemic all social welfare benefits would be held up for several weeks. That was perhaps a valid excuse but I suggest that if benefits were distributed on a local basis they would have got over the 'flu better.

As a member of the health board in Limerick and of the City Council I have asked, again and again, to have the matter put back on a local level again. The huge sums we are voting sound grand but in the final analysis they mean nothing if they do not get into the hands of the recipients at the earliest possible date. All of us who have been in public life for some years know the difference it can make to a household when the payment of the cheque is even a week late. The cheque can make the difference between reasonable provision for a family and near starvation. This is what it amounts to.

I do not wish to use extravagant language but I want to urge on the Parliamentary Secretary, who has shown himself so concerned — and all sides in the other House have paid him a tribute as I should like to do — with the plight and the requirements of the needy section of the population, to give the question of the distribution of benefits at local level his earnest and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. McGowan

I regret that I cannot welcome the Bill. As somebody rightly pointed out, we cannot have benefits without paying for them but I do not see this as a measure that will increase the security of the worker. It will do quite the reverse. This Bill will result in a loss of jobs and will leave workers very insecure. The raising of this money will bring about unemployment. We are having a difficult time in the employment field at the moment.

The major contribution under this Bill is to be made by the small businessman, farmer or shopkeeper who employs ten or 12 people. Out of a total expenditure of £26.6 million, the Exchequer is contributing only £2.9 million, which means the employers are paying £23.7 million. We have never in the history of the State had so many people unemployed. It may be argued that the total sum of £23.7 million will not come out of the pockets of the employers, but in reality it will because the worker will not be asked to go home with a smaller amount in his wage packet. The end result, I fear, will be a serious burden on the employer. It will certainly result in a greater number of people being unemployed.

I have spoken to a number of small employers. If an employer who has a hotel, a shop or any small industry with a number of people employed, has this additional burden thrown on him every week the first thing he will think of is whether it would be possible to reduce the number of people he employs, whether he could do with one less. While the introduction of this measure might appear to be a good thing it is certainly ill thought out. It is the same type of measure as was introduced in Britain and Northern Ireland where selective employment tax was imposed and one was taxed on the number of people employed. The introduction of that Bill was a blunder and it had to be discontinued. With selective employment tax, if a man employed 100 people, at the end of the first week the payment he had to meet was £3 per head, which is £300, before he started to meet his other commitments. This Bill will be proved to be as big a blunder as the selective employment tax was in Britain and Northern Ireland. In a short time it will be seen that it is not a Bill to help the growth of the economy.

One would welcome any opportunity to review the whole social welfare structure. Senator Russell referred to spreading the burden evenly. I see this as just not doing that. It is a grave injustice to consider a social welfare measure here and not to take into account the farming community. The small farmer who might qualify for unemployment benefit, the farmer's son or any other member of the farming community, is not being considered in this Bill. I should like to see a change in the system of valuing the income from holdings. I have advocated this on a number of occasions and I regret that has not been included in this revision of social welfare. The £20 per £ method of calculating income from holdings is totally unfair. It may be all right in County Louth or County Meath but the method is unfair in my county and in other areas in the west. It has been recognised as being unfair for a very long time. I am disappointed that this method of calculating income has not been changed. I would urge the Minister to take this up with his Department and I look forward to an improvement under this heading.

Widows and old age pensioners, contributory and non-contributory, will get marginal increases. The method of calculation for an old age pension differs from the method of calculating for a widow's pension. A widow can reach the age of 67 or 68 and qualify for the old age pension. Her widow's pension is automatically discontinued and, instead of getting her widow's pension at the full rate, she finds herself having to switch over to a miserable £1 per week extra or something so small that it is hardly worth her while applying. The method of calculating the income is different and I do not see anything in the Bill to remove that anomaly. I am disappointed that the Minister and his officials did not see that and bring in legislation to change it.

One could welcome the provision in the Bill regarding school meals if one did not have experience of the working of local government in a rural area. The amount of £430,000 to provide school meals throughout the country is ridiculous. Many schools are not equipped to provide school meals. They have not got canteens, or electricity. The amount of £430,000 to provide the structure within which school meals could be effectively supplied is totally inadequate. It is only a heading in the Bill to give the impression that this is being implemented. I would welcome this if there was a realistic amount provided. I would see it as a much greater amount. This amount would not even survey the needs. It is regrettable that there is not a more practical approach to this. The principle of providing school meals is a good one. The £430,000 might cover Ballymun or somewhere like that. I think I would have to be around a good while in order to see the benefits of that measure being applied in a small school in Donegal. I would not like to see children hungry, waiting on their meal until it arrived. This is only a gimmick to claim credit for the introduction of school meals. The intention may be good enough — perhaps I am being unfair — but certainly £430,000 is totally inadequate. It would take about £10 million — I am not projecting myself as an economist — to tackle the problem. I would rather see the money being spent in an area in which the infrastructure is there or the vehicle is there to deliver the benefit to the people. I would rather see the money being spent on providing or improving our school transport service.

I cannot welcome the Bill. It is much like the Bill we have had introduced by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It covers a lot of ground but it does not do anything constructive. On the face of it, it can be accepted that there is a genuine intention of helping the worker, but I feel it will do the reverse. It will make the worker's job more insecure. I hope that amendments will be accepted and that the Minister will see that this is not the best way of raising money — taking it from a section that is already hard-pressed. The queues of unemployed are there staring us in the face. This Bill will take nobody from the queues but it will add a few to them.

Mr. Moynihan

I welcome the introduction of this legislation. It has many good aspects to commend it.

We have at present a high rate of unemployment due to the economic situation. It was necessary that the social welfare recipients, the unemployed and the sick got priority in the Government's consideration and in the disbursement of public funds.

The increases being paid as from April not only keep pace with inflation but go beyond that to give some real increase and real dignity to the social welfare recipients.

Another major and welcome departure was the introduction, for the first time, of the escalator clause in the field of social welfare. For a number of years such a clause has tended to protect workers against unreasonable increases in the cost of living during the term of national wage agreements. That gave workers some protection. However, the social welfare recipients remained on fixed allowances determined by the Department, and regardless of the increase in the cost of living there was no compensation in that field. Therefore this new development is very welcome. I know social welfare recipients are less worried now when there are announcements of cost of living increases. At least they are guaranteed some protection by the current social welfare code.

The reduction of the qualifying age for old age pension to 67 is a very welcome development. This is in keeping with the Minister's and the Government's proposals and determination to continue this on a phased annual basis until we have been brought into line with the European standards of payment at 65 years.

Coupled with that, in the field of non-contributory old age pensioners' and widows' pensions, we have the generous easing of the means test. This has brought new status and new dignity to these people. Over the years, even at 70 years of age, when such people made formal application they were hounded by officialdom to ascertain whether they had any little package of savings, or any little property, that yielded them any income. Now, to the extent of £6 per week they are independent, dignified citizens capable of enjoying and getting the maximum pension. This is as it should be.

It is good to see that the free travel facilities have been extended to the age of 67 and over, even where the old age pension does not apply. A major anomaly has finally been removed, something which trade unions and others had sought over the years. Where a non-manual worker has to opt into voluntary contributions, his previous long years of contributions, in many cases, towards full benefits are now being preserved. He can go in as a voluntary contributor and that contribution will cover not only widows' and orphans' and deserted wives' allowances but will also go into the field of retirement pensions.

Free television and electricity facilities are to be welcomed for those who will come under the extended old age pension code. I would respectfully suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is one section of our community who are very genuinely deserving of the free television licence facility, that is, a family who are entirely dependent on social welfare income with one or more handicapped persons in that home. I know of one home where there are the father, mother and one son. The son is permanently confined to a wheelchair and the father and mother are seriously physically handicapped. Such cases should be sympathetically considered for the provision of free television licences. A television to such a family is possibly the only source of entertainment and diversion from their very sad plight. I would sincerely ask the Department to take such families into account, with the very determined guidelines that the family is solely dependent on social welfare and one or more of the inhabitants are handicapped.

I should also like to deal briefly with the handicapped children's allowance. While this is mainly controlled and directed by the Department of Health, it could be more usefully and effectively controlled by the Department of Social Welfare. Like social welfare, health is a national charge generally. We have eight health boards at the moment determining eligibility. Eight health boards do not determine the same yardstick for eligibility. This is annoying. If such a scheme were administered under the Department of Social Welfare, we would have one national eligibility criterion. At the moment the handicapped children's allowance is paid in one health board area to the parents of those who are attending special schools. In another area it is felt that, if they are attending special schools, they do not qualify for it. This is an unreasonable and unsatisfactory situation.

It is only right that during a discussion on this legislation I should comment on references made to the pay-related benefits introduced recently in regard to unemployment and illness. Some people have commented that this is going too far, and that it is undesirable that such people should enjoy such incomes during periods of unemployment or illness. What amazes me is that on examining the credentials of such commentators we find they never had to face unemployment and during any periods of illness they are very well cushioned with full salaries for very protracted periods. It ill becomes such people to reflect on long delayed benefits in respect of industrial and service workers who, during periods of unemployment and illness, have had it both rough and tough in the years gone by. Any such comments or any such criticisms should not distract the Department from continuing with this well-deserved scheme.

Another favourable aspect is the decision to introduce a pay-related pension scheme to industrial and service workers. This, again, has been long delayed and will be welcome. In addition, there is the proposal to provide insurance retirement policies for the self-employed. They represent a substantial segment of our population, about 31 per cent, but in the latter years of their lives, when their employment ceased, despite the contributions they had made to the economy, no provision was made to provide them with any retirement benefit. This will be welcomed and I am sure the discussion document on the Green Paper will be of considerable interest to this important segment of our population.

It is about time that the Minister did some real thinking in the matter of integrating the existing home assistance code in to the social welfare code. Home assistance has brought relief, undoubtedly, to many hardship cases in the past. In view of its multiplicity of management, in view of its different degrees of eligibility, it carries a stigma of poverty which should be obliterated. This scheme could be operated more effectively, more efficiently and with more dignity under the social welfare code. We have two yardsticks for benefit: the urban and the other areas. It is time the Minister and the Department had a look at what determines the urban and other areas. There is some confusion here. There are towns of 6,000, 7,000 and possibly 8,000 inhabitants where housing costs, living costs and general costs are equal to those in any other area. It is illogical and unrealistic that there should be a differential in the payments between such areas and other urban areas.

Many of our personnel in social welfare in the smaller towns and rural areas, work in conditions that are very objectionable. The office accommodation both for the officials and for the recipients of social welfare benefits is deplorable. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that the office accommodation for the officials and the recipients is brought up to modern standards. I concur with Senator Lenihan who said that one would require to be an advanced legal adviser to interpret all the social welfare services with which a public representative has to cope. Some simplification of the regulations is long overdue. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to expedite this. In expediting this he will be helping to bring more expeditious benefits to the community and making life easier for applicants.

Mr. Keegan

The contents of this Social Welfare Bill are a true reflection of the inflationary situation in which we are all living at present. The fact that these new increases are necessary bears out the view that this inflationary trend will be with us for many years to come. The increases, to which this Bill proposes to give effect, are necessary because of the cancer of inflation which has been gripping this country in recent times. I doubt if these increases will enable the recipients to enjoy the reasonable standard of living which the Bill anticipates. Senator Moynihan and I share the same views on many aspects of our social welfare code.

I should like to see a service which would cover all aspects of the social services. The Department of Social Welfare administer 95 per cent of our social services. The health boards administer different forms of social services. The local authorities also administer forms of social services. The result is that there is duplication in some areas and complete neglect in others. That is the fault of the system as it exists. I fully realise all the problems in the administration of a social welfare service. Problems are not solved overnight. They require a great deal of forward planning, forward thinking, and unlimited access to capital. If we are to plan for the future, we must try to perfect the system, through our experience over the years. We must try to eliminate all the duplication in our social welfare code at present. Like Senator Moynihan, I should also like to see home assistance administered entirely by the Department of Social Welfare. At present, the local health boards and the local authorities are involved in this scheme with the result that it is becoming unwieldy and costly to administer. Any proposal to amend that scheme will have my full support.

With regard to the school meals scheme mentioned in the Bill, a start is being made in the wrong direction. Mention is made of the urban dweller but children from rural areas should be considered first because they have to travel long distances to school and are expected to bring their lunch with them. School children in urban areas can go home to a hot meal. Again I realise all the problems involved. No rural school is equipped to administer any sort of school meals scheme. Like all schemes, a beginning must be made somewhere and they must be commenced in a small and limited manner. As experience is gained the schemes can be broadened and more children made eligible. Any proposals which the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department have in that area will have my full support.

We must start to think of providing a free television licence service for invalids under 65 years of age. There are many permanent invalids who must live out their lives at home provided they have someone to look after them. I was disappointed, therefore, to discover there is no provision in the Social Welfare Bill to cover the granting of free television licences to invalids. If the regulations which the Parliamentary Secretary seeks in order to give further increases in October are to be effective, serious consideration must be given to free licences for invalids who are confined to a wheelchair, or to a bed, or to a chair by the kitchen fire. The disability allowance which is payable to many of those invalids, should be administered by the Department of Social Welfare. At present it is administered by the different health boards. It is a costly scheme to administer because of the many inspectors engaged in the field. Like the home assistance scheme, the disability allowance scheme could be administered by the officers of the Department of Social Welfare. In most areas now we have permanent offices established and they are staffed by qualified personnel capable of administering the different schemes. Therefore I cannot see any additional administrative costs being imposed on the Department of Social Welfare by the transfer of such schemes to them. The Parliamentary Secretary and his Department should, and I am sure will, give serious consideration to my proposals.

Another problem which is a common one in our social welfare services is the long delay in many cases in the payment of benefits to the various applicants. People in public life are more conversant with the activities of the Department of Social Welfare than any other Department because of the numbers of people eligible for social welfare and the enormous number of problems which can arise in connection with delays in the payment of benefits. It is not uncommon for people to have to wait ten to 11 or 12 weeks without receiving benefit. There may be many reasons for this: lack of information with regard to the implementation of the means test, and so on, but the unfortunate result is that it is the applicant or his dependants who suffer most. They have no alternative but to seek home assistance to tide them over until the application is processed by the Department of Social Welfare.

There will be a serious impact on employers as a result of the proposal to increase the social welfare contributions. That impact will be greatly felt. Many employers are finding it difficult to keep going because inflation is affecting them as it is affecting everyone else. They are finding it difficult to remain competitive in their line of production. Many employers will give serious thought to maintaining people in jobs. Before profits can be earned by any industrialist or employer, the employee will cost him approximately £8 per week. That is made up of social welfare contributions, insurances, office administration, and so on. I am subject to correction on that. It may not be as high as £8 but that is a round figure. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government must take this into account. At a time like this, every effort must be made to maintain employment. When we compare the number of people in gainful and productive employment with the number of people on social welfare, we realise that the work force is not adequate to maintain a proper social welfare code.

We cannot compare ourselves with highly industrialised countries like Britain, France, or Germany. If figures were available we would discover that the percentage of people in gainful employment in those countries, as compared with the number on social welfare, is much lower than it is here. Therefore I can always see social welfare posing a problem. We have a small work force and nothing should be done to debar people from taking on new staff or to debar industrialists from establishing new industries. I am convinced that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Government are fully aware of all the problems associated with that aspect of our social welfare code.

I am disappointed that there was no reference by the Parliamentary Secretary to the butter voucher scheme or to the beef voucher scheme which could have been implemented during the latter part of 1974 or in this year. We have a surplus of beef. Very often old-age pensioners, widows and orphans have not got a properly balanced diet. They lack protein. We have an ample supply of protein in beef. I would welcome any proposal the Parliamentary Secretary made in regard to the reintroduction of the butter voucher scheme or the introduction of a beef voucher scheme for these people. I hope that at some future date some thinking will be done along these lines. It is a scheme that would not be too difficult to implement.

I should like to refer to the difficulties experienced by people in part-time employment. We have many people employed on one-day, two-day and three-day weeks. Many of them in rural areas are not eligible for unemployment benefit despite the contributions they make towards the social welfare stamp. I refer to people who work in marts, many of whom have small farms, and who cannot draw social welfare benefits. There was redundancy in some marts and many people discovered that they were not eligible for any type of unemployment assistance. They could not obtain any income. They could not sell their young cattle. One day's work in a mart is inadequate to maintain any family in any kind of reasonable or decent living standards. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could look into this. I have been making representations to the various officers of his Department without success for quite some time. That is another aspect of our social welfare code which needs to be simplified. Our entire social services system needs simplification. It is possibly one of the most difficult services that can be implemented in any country. I would put social welfare before income tax when it comes to complications. We would welcome any efforts made to simplify the social welfare code.

Senator Russell referred to the time when the social welfare officer travelled around on a bicycle and paid out the benefits. New thinking would help to simplify the social welfare code and help to speed up implementation of claims. I realise all the difficulties involved. Despite all the efforts made over the years, we have not got an entirely equitable social welfare system. We still have the odd person who, through no fault of his own, finds himself excluded from many of the benefits available.

In many cases it is more profitable for people to stay at home than to continue in employment because of the introduction of the pay-related benefit schemes, and so on. The Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure, realises this as do the officials of his Department. Nothing should be done that would encourage laziness or that would encourage people to stay at home rather than engage themselves in gainful and productive employment. Social welfare needs to be kept under continuous review. It is important that we do nothing to promote continuous unemployment or to promote the growth of laziness. This is demoralising for the recipients themselves. About 90 per cent of those unemployed would be more than anxious to engage in gainful employment. The most discontented people today are the unemployed. They become depressed and disenchanted with our entire system of democracy. We must at all times try to ensure that no Department do anything to make it more profitable to stay at home than to continue in employment.

The time has come when an effort must be made to have some form of revival of employment in rural Ireland. The fall-off of employment in agriculture is a serious cause for concern. At some time some incentive must be given to the farmers and those engaged in agriculture to induce them to give greater employment. After all, if a factory is established the promoter can get grants from the IDA and AnCO step in and help them to solve their training problems. They receive massive injections in order to create new jobs. Agriculture should receive some similar form of assistance if it is to maintain employment or even to endeavour to increase employment.

With regard to the prescribed relatives' allowance, this is a difficult piece of legislation to implement and it is one that is causing many headaches. We have many cases where fathers and mothers are invalids. A son or a daughter who may be living nearby. If they take up residence with the invalided parents they discover they cannot qualify for the dependent relative allowance because they do not fall into the prescribed categories. The result in many cases is that old persons are placed in a home or an institution and are then a greater liability on the general public than would be the case if they were maintained at home with the help of the prescribed relative allowance. Greater liberalisation of that Act is necessary in order to ensure that more of our aged people are looked after in their own homes. We must all bear in mind that nobody wants to end their days in an institution not if they can avoid it.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at that scheme and see if its scope could be broadened.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the suggestions I have put forward.

Mr. W. O'Brien

This is a very important Bill because it caters for the poorer sections of our community — the unemployed, the sick, the aged and the handicapped. While I welcome many of the increases across the board we must all agree these people are getting only what they are entitled to. We have heard it said that it is not possible to have a decent standard of living on social welfare benefits but in the past these people did not have any standard at all. They depended solely on their sons and daughters for a living. Now at least there is some standard of independence. They can depend on their income. I would say, in fairness, that the vast majority of the speakers on the other side of the House are satisfied with the situation. The only criticism I heard concerned the stamp contribution. There is real merit in this legislation. Before an Opposition or a Government agree on something like this they determine the feelings of the people throughout the country.

I welcome all the increases across the board but there is one section more than the others I welcome and that is section 10, which provides for a reduction in the qualifying age from 68 to 67 for the non-contributory and contributory old-age pensions. People in this age group now are those who began work 50 years ago. At that time they worked for a very limited income because our State was then in its infancy and naturally wages were low. It is nice that they got some reward now. In addition this provision will bring another 10,500 persons into the scheme. That, too, is something we are all happy about.

Section 5 modifies the existing means test so that now the limit is £6. It is about time we had a decent contribution in that respect because for too long the woman who sold a dozen eggs was disqualified, because the pension officer got to know the position. A woman now can earn a few pounds by selling a few dozen eggs and at the same time qualify for a full pension.

I was disappointed with the children's allowance increases. We might have had a little more because this allowance helps to bring the income of a married man more in line with that of the single man. For that reason I would be hopeful that at the first available opportunity the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister would increase the children's allowance.

The Minister has stated that the situation will be reviewed in October. This is a welcome innovation. Some years ago one got a few shillings as a result of the annual budget, but after that one was left to keep going for another 12 months irrespective of whether the cost of living increased.

It is nice to know that the people who come under this section will receive the same treatment, so to speak, from the legislators as will other sections of the community. In general I would say the Government are doing a good job in that respect. Admittedly, there is inflation, but this is a world-wide problem.

This Bill is a credit because at a time when money is not plentiful the Government see fit to give such increases. This is something of which we, on this side of the House, are really proud but the people on the other side of the House are not satisfied that we are doing the best we can.

I should like to make reference to old age pensioners who are institutionalised. A person in this category finds that he gets for himself roughly £2.50, which is approximately 25 per cent of his income. It is not easy for an old age pensioner, perhaps a person who has paid insurance for 50 years, to find that he must hand over 75 per cent of his pension to the matron. There should be some progress made in that respect between social welfare and the health authorities. I am sure the Department of Social Welfare and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, who is, I believe, dedicated to the underprivileged, will agree with me.

As regards unemployment assistance, I notice that in an urban area the payment is £7.70 while in a rural area it is £7.35. I have always been at a loss to understand why there is such a difference. There is possibly a valid explanation of which I am unaware. It can be more difficult and more expensive to live in a rural area than in the city. First, people in the country must have transport and this can cost more in rural areas. Also, in the city people would be in a better position to get bargains than they would in the country. For that reason I should like to know why the difference exists. It may be only 35p, but I could never satisfy myself why there should be a difference at all. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will let us know what the position is.

Regarding school meals, again, we find a difference between the rural and urban positions. It may be that rural schools are not geared to cater for meals but very often a child in a rural area would have to walk a long distance to school — sometimes as far as three miles. If anything, there should be a greater effort to cater for such a child. However I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary will have an answer for that.

It is encouraging to see such increases being given across the board, but even those increases are not yet adequate. Nevertheless they will be of much help to the poorer families. Some years back if a father of four or five children became ill, he might return to work before he had recovered fully so that his family would not suffer deprivation as a result of their very much reduced income. I was speaking to a doctor recently who told me that some years back he was very often pressed to give certificates of fitness because the father of a family could not afford to remain out of work until such time as his medical adviser considered him fit to return to work. We have got away from that situation. Although a person on sickness benefit may not be in a position to live in luxury at least his wife and children will have enough to eat.

Mr. McGlinchey

Despite Senator O'Brien's contention that everyone in this House is satisfied with the increases proposed in this Bill I should like to assure him that I am not so satisfied. He boasted that recipients of social welfare benefits can now depend on the income provided in these payments and he expressed pride that in a year when money is not plentiful the Government saw fit to provide what he called "generous increases".

I do not accept the claim that recipients of old age pensions, widows' pensions, disability allowances and so on can live adequately on the amount of money provided by this State. Certain branches of the Labour Party in this city do not accept it either. In yesterday's edition of the Evening Herald I read with interest a short article on this subject which states that for thousands in Ireland the phrase “I'm starving” carries a ghastly ring of truth.

The article continues and I quote:

They are poor, cold, unable to pay their light bills, undernourished, hungry ... in fact starving!

City dwellers appear worst hit. In one relatively small section of Dublin, 12,000 out of a population of 64,000 are living below a defined poverty line.

The area comprises Clontarf east, Raheny, Harmonstown, Edenmore and extends to Howth and Baldoyle. It is in fact, the Dublin-Clontarf Dáil area.

This problem of poverty in that area was discussed at a meeting organised by the Raheny branch of the Labour Party and the attendance included the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. One definition for the poverty line was given as a man and wife and 2.5 children on £24 per week exclusive of family allowance and a single adult without dependants at £9.40. If it is true that the poverty line is defined at £9.40 for a single adult without dependants, then all recipients of old age and widows' pensions are below the poverty line.

I do not believe the Government in this Bill are doing as much as they could have done to provide a sufficient standard of living for pensioners and for holders of disability allowances. The finance was provided not alone in the budget but in this Bill to give them sufficient money to provide extra increases. There is no point in comparing the payments now with the payments of three or four years ago. Fianna Fáil have a proud record in the social welfare field. They pioneered the payment of widows' pensions, not just in this country but in the world. They introduced children's allowances, pay-related benefits, prescribed relative allowances, free electricity, free travel, free television licences and displayed in all their social welfare schemes over the years their firm desire to help those most in need.

In the International Labour Organisation Ireland always measured up to its commitments in social welfare. Where other countries in determining their contribution in the social welfare field included such items as army pensions, police pensions and so forth, the Irish figure included only what was dealt with in the Department of Social Welfare. When Ireland applied for membership of the EEC we had no difficulty in persuading our friends in Europe that this country's record in social welfare commitments was sufficient to justify its admission to the EEC. But when Fianna Fáil were doing all this we listened to continuous criticism and continuous griping from the parties now in this Coalition Government. We were given to understand that if only they had an opportunity they would steer a completely new course and completely revolutionise the entire social welfare field.

At this stage perhaps we should ask what revolutionary schemes have been introduced by this Government in the field of social welfare during the last two years. What has been commenced that is new in this field? I tried to think of it this morning and I came up with only one new scheme — the single woman's allowance — payable to women between the ages of 57 and 67 who are practically destitute. It is a worthwhile scheme, a commendable scheme, but we must remember that the number of single women in this age group who would have no means and who would qualify for this allowance is very small indeed. I am told that it is in the region of 2,000 people in all. I know of only one woman who applied for and was granted the allowance. However, if we are to point to this scheme as the only record of this Government in pioneering a new field of social welfare, that record is a very poor record indeed.

The benefits provided in this Bill will cost the State £51.25 million but the increase in the social welfare stamp will give the State £40.5 million. When the Minister for Finance was introducing his budget in January he got by way of extra taxation £44.5 million on the pretence of paying for the social welfare increases provided in this Bill. In other words, he is getting £34.5 million from the budget and this morning he is seeking £40.5 million by way of an increased social welfare stamp, giving him a total of £75 million.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. McGlinchey

When the Minister for Finance introduced his budget last January he sought an increase in extra taxation of £34,500,000. He gave us to understand that the balance would come from an increase in the social welfare stamp. This means that the Minister for Social Welfare, or his Parliamentary Secretary, should in this legislation be seeking an extra £16,750,000 to put to the £34,500,000 provided for in the budget in order to get the £51,250,000 required to pay for the increase in social welfare benefits. The Parliamentary Secretary is seeking a lot more than that; he is seeking £40,500,000. When the money provided in the budget is added to that provided in this Bill we find the Government will have a surplus of over £24 million to devote to other purposes. This money should have been given to the recipients of old age contributory, non-contributory and widows' pensions and to the recipients of disability allowances. The Government were in a position to provide that extra £24,500,000.

One would imagine, listening to the boastful speeches of the supporters of this Government during the last two months that this Government did something worthwhile for social welfare recipients in the last budget. When one studies the increase which amounts to an average of between £1.35 to £1.55 per person and compares the increase in the cost of living in the last 12 months, one will see that the increase in the budget and that proposed in this Bill is a mere pittance. It does not go anywhere near meeting the increase in the cost of living that the recipients of these benefits have suffered from so drastically in the last 12 months. When one considers the plight of an old age pensioner living alone or with his wife and the extra cost imposed on that pensioner during the last 12 months, one is justified in expressing indignation at the failure of the Government to provide for them in the way they should have.

During the last 12 months there has been a savage increase in the price of coal, electricity, bread, butter, tea, and all other household commodities. If these increases were put together, and added to the increase in television licences and so on, one would agree that the increases placed on these pensioners and recipients of social welfare benefits is far in excess of the proposed increases in this Bill.

Considering the number of budgets this Government have had in the last six months they were in a financial position to do better than they have done. The 15p rise in the price of petrol will bring in about £30 million and the increase in health contributions will bring in £3,500,000 while the withdrawal of the subsidy on butter will save £3,500,000 to £4 million. The extra taxation in the budget will realise an extra £34,500,000 and this Bill proposes to give an extra £40,500,000. If all these "budgets" were added together one would find that in the last three months the Government have provided for an extra £110 million to £115 million in one form of taxation or another but the increases in social welfare benefits will cost only £51,250,000 in 1975, leaving the Government with a surplus of some £65 million for other purposes.

A Government so committed to social welfare increases when in Opposition should have done more to improve the lot of these unfortunate people when in a position to do so. Through the clever manipulation of the media, the Government have managed to persuade many people that they have done something worthwhile for social welfare recipients. Under this Bill the Government intend to pay out £51,250,000 but they intend taking in in section 16, £40,500,000.

Once again the employers and employees are being asked to subsidise Government schemes. The employers during the last 12 months have had too much of a financial burden placed on their shoulders. Every week this Government approved financial increases that have deterred economic progress. Last night in this House the Minister for Labour told us that in his budget speech the Minister for Finance had provided £26 million for Irish industry and in order to accelerate industrial expansion he, the Minister for Labour, was injecting £26 million into the industrial field. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare proposes to take £27½ million out of Irish industry to help the Government increase social welfare benefits. In one day one Minister boasted that the Government were putting £26 million into industry and the next morning the same Government are withdrawing more than £26 million.

This is another example of the failure of the Government to encourage industrial development at a time when, because of the international situation and other factors, it should be imperative on any Government to provide financial incentives for industry. The members of the Cabinet seem determined that every act of theirs should be one to slow down the economy and reduce employment. Every increase introduced by this Government in the last 12 months has played a part in helping to cripple industrial development.

The new tax proposals have resulted in a loss of confidence in the Government on the part of the people who control money here. We had many examples of this during the last year. This morning we have a further example in this Bill where industrialists and business people are being asked to pay an additional £27,500,000. In my hotel this morning I met the managing director of a firm that employs 500 people and when I told him the Government's proposals he informed me that it would cost his company an extra £420 per week they had not budgeted for. That company's only solution would be to lay off 15 employees. The 15 employees will receive redundancy and unemployment benefit and the cost to the State will grow and grow.

That is the reaction that every proposal of this Government seems to have on industry and business. No matter what spokesmen for this Government say and no matter what certain sections of the media write, the clear facts are that business and industry are frightened at the actions of this Government. They are terrified at what financial proposals the Government may think up next in order to extract more money from them and to discourage them from whatever expansion they visualised.

Fourteen years ago the social welfare stamp cost 7/6d per week; today that same stamp will cost more than £4 per week, £4.11 for men and £4.03 for women. When we compare that figure of £4.11 to the £2.87 which is being paid at present we see that the Government's proposal means an increase of almost 50 per cent in the price of the social welfare stamp. In future employers will have to pay £2.47 per week for men and the employee £1.64.

When I spoke on the Health Contributions (Amendment) Bill I expressed surprise that the Coalition Government, dominated by the Labour Party, should attempt to extract from the workers a considerable amount of money to ensure that the 5 per cent who control the nation's wealth are given free hospitalisation. These proposals will extract from the workers an additional £13 million. From 1st April the pay packets of workers will be reduced by 40p per week as a direct result of the Coalition Government's policy. This must have been taken into consideration during the deliberations on the national pay agreement. The workers would be justified in seeking compensation in future wage increases for the loss of this 40p per week.

Indirectly, industry and business have to foot the bill for the £40,500,000 being sought in this measure, at a time when business and industry badly needed financial encouragement and financial incentive the Government, through their incompetence, appear to be once again bending over backwards to close as many industrial establishments as possible in this land. I certainly would not subscribe to the claim made by Senator William O'Brien that we should be proud of the increases in a year when money is not plentiful. Eighty per cent of the cost of the increased benefits is to be met directly by the employers and employees, and the Government are providing only an extra £10 million for this purpose, despite the fact that they already received in the budget in January £34,500,000. We want to assure people who believe that the increased tax on spirits, cigarettes and so on in the budget in January was intended to pay for increases in old age and widows' pensions that this is not correct. This is another example of the political dishonesty of the present Government. They have once again managed, quite successfully I must say, to convince many people that the savage increases in spirits and so on in the budget were going to a good cause — to help the old, the weak and the infirm. Anyone who takes the trouble of studying the Bill before the House today will realise that the employers and employees are being asked to pay for 80 per cent of the increases provided for in the budget and the extra £24,500,000 surplus is yet another bonanza which the Government will put with the £30 million they are getting from the petrol, the £3,500,000 in health contributions and the £4 million from butter subsidies, giving them a grand total of some £70 million to be spent in a way that none of us can understand. At the same time they manage to create the impression that the sacrifices the people were called upon to make in January were for this very needy cause.

I would submit that the recipients of social welfare benefits are much worse off today than they were two years ago. The Government can quote statistics until they are sick but the fact remains that there are more people living below the poverty line today as a result of the inaction and the failure of the Government to realise the situation of many sections of our community.

Earlier this morning I quoted a statement by a member of the Labour Party in this city who claimed that a single adult without dependants at £9.40 per week was on the poverty line. That member of the Labour Party must be greatly disillusioned by the Government of the Just Society who are giving that single adult the princely sum of £8.85 per week or 55p per week below what he claims is the poverty line.

I have read many statements by spokesmen of the present Government during the last few years on the intention of the Government to declare war on poverty; but, in effect, what has been happening is that the Government appear to have declared war on people who are suffering from poverty. Irrespective of our political beliefs everyone in this House wants to relieve poverty. I was shocked, as I am sure everyone else was, when I read the article in yesterday's edition of the Evening Herald, to discover that in one area of 64,000 people in this city of Dublin it is claimed that 12,000 are living below the poverty line.

The time has come when all of us, irrespective of our political beliefs, must not alone define poverty but identify it. Poverty means more than a lack of money; poverty means more than a lack of the basic necessaries of life. The vast majority of public representatives have many opportunities in the course of their public duties of meeting people who are suffering from poverty in one way or another. We can think of old people living alone with hardly a friend to speak to. Admittedly, voluntary organisations are doing tremendous work under severe hardship to improve their lot. Meals on wheels, Christmas parties, a party in the summer for the aged, all help to make life more pleasant for senior citizens but I wonder whether a party, which is subsidised by the State, at Christmas and in summer, is sufficient. We will have to go a lot further before we satisfy ourselves that society is playing its full part to make life more comfortable for the thousands of people of this type.

It is frustrating at times to discover that old people living in dangerous and unfit houses are not receiving the help they deserve as quickly as it should come from the local authorities. In my own county hundreds of people have been waiting for a number of years for demountable dwellings. I believe the Department of Social Welfare should intervene to ensure that such people, who are, after all, the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare, receive a fair and just deal from the State and from the various offices of the State.

Some years ago the Fianna Fáil Government introduced the prescribed relative allowance. In the proposals before us today this is being increased from £4.15 to £4.95 per week. Those of us who are in daily contact with the public know that there are many people in this land who should qualify for this allowance but who do not because of the present regulations. Most schemes introduced by the Government are improved as the years go on. A scheme must start somewhere but as each year goes by additions are made. As far as I remember, initially the prescribed relative allowance covered a son and a daughter and possibly one or two others. A few years later the scope of the scheme was widened to include a number of other people — daughters-in-law, grand-daughters and so on. From memory, I think there can only be one person living in the house of the pensioner — apart from children and other incapacitated people. The time has come when the Minister should have another look at this matter. If, for example, a daughter is looking after a pensioner she will not get this allowance if she has a husband; she will not get this allowance if she is not married and there is another member of the family living in the house. It could well be that this daughter, particularly with the cost of living being as it is, could decide that the pensioner should be left in a welfare home or in the county home. If that decision was taken then the cost to the State would be at least three times the amount of the prescribed relative allowance. It could be that the pensioner would be entitled to the services of a social worker. Again, the cost of this social worker would be much greater than the prescribed relative allowance. The Department of Social Welfare may say they do not pay the social worker, that it is the Department of Health. Nevertheless, the State must pay.

I should like to see the Parliamentary Secretary giving close consideration to the whole question of the prescribed relative allowance. Every week I have at least half a dozen people coming to me who, under the present regulations, have been refused this allowance, people who, I feel, if given the allowance would save the Exchequer money. I have no doubt that other Members of the House have had similar experiences. This allowance, when first introduced, was an excellent proposal but in the light of the experience gained the time has come to improve and expand it.

Another point that I should like to discuss is the failure of many married women to get unemployment benefit. Two years ago the Government abolished the requirement that a married woman had to work six months after her marriage in order to qualify for unemployment benefit. Experience has shown that while this decision may be recorded in writing it, nevertheless, in practice, is extremely difficult for a young married woman, particularly a young married woman with one child, to get unemployment benefit, a benefit which she has been paying for over her years in employment. The usual question is: who will look after the baby? I have known of many women who have had suitable arrangements made to have their children looked after by their parents or other people and who were genuinely interested in getting work and who having failed to get this work, failed to qualify for unemployment benefit. I feel this whole question of unemployment benefit for young married women will have to be gone into minutely in the time to come.

I object very strongly to the provision that a deciding officer has the final say in determining the eligibility of applicants for unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. This provision as far as I can remember, was introduced by the present Tánaiste when he was Minister for Social welfare in the last Coalition Government. His idea, if I am quoting him correctly, was to take matters of this kind out of the political arena. I have had many cases in the last few years of people seeking unemployment assistance whose applications would have received from the Minister for Social Welfare of the day, irrespective of what Government was in office, a much more sympathetic hearing than from a civil servant who is given, in my opinion, too much power for one official. There should at least be the right of appeal to a higher authority. That a deciding officer is given the powers of a judge is completely wrong. I should like to think that in the not-too-distant future the Parliamentary Secretary will examine closely this whole question of the appeals system.

I should also like to voice my objection to the type of letter applicants for pensions receive from pensions officers, in a case where the local pension committee recommends the pension and the pension officer disagrees. The letter he receives states that the investigation officer has appealed against the recommendation of the pensions committee and it has gone to the Minister for decision. The Minister for Social Welfare has as much to do with the granting of pensions as a paper boy in O'Connell Street. It is wrong to give the impression — I am not suggesting that this is done by this Government only; this has always been the situation — that the Minister has the power to decide this matter.

When the investigation officer appeals against the recommendation, his appeal goes again to the all-powerful and all-mighty deciding officer. No matter what the Minister's personal views on the matter might be, the deciding officer makes the decision. His decision is mandatory. I feel, and I suspect that the Minister himself would feel, that it is wrong to give the public this impression. It could be politically embarrassing for the Minister, particularly in the case of a constituent of his own, to have the constituent under the impression that he has the final say in the matter and, if the applicant is refused, naturally he will blame the Minister.

There is one other point, so far as payments from the Department are concerned, that is, that in the past couple of years, whatever has gone wrong in the Department of Social Welfare, they appear to have slowed up considerably in the payment of disability benefits in particular. I have known a number of people who suffered tremendous hardship as a result of their payments not being made in time.

I accept that the number of payments from this Department must be astronomical, children's allowances, and other various payments. I accept that it must have grown considerably during the past ten years and that possibly, the Department were not fully geared to deal with it. I also accept that where a man, his wife and children, are waiting for this disability payment to buy their weekly provisions, to pay their weekly rent, to pay their electricity bill, the failure of the Department to pay the cheque in time can cause considerable hardship to that family. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would give this matter very careful consideration in the future.

I read with interest the contribution made by the Fianna Fáil spokesman, Deputy Andrews, during the Second Reading debate in the Dáil, with particular reference to the plight of the needy and the poverty-stricken. He advocated that, instead of suggesting that young people should be called upon to do national service, they should devote six months, at least, to working for some of the many excellent voluntary organisations. When young people are appointed to the civil service, perhaps the best lesson they could learn, the best experience they could gain, would be to spend the first 12 months of their service working amongst the poor, and working with social welfare and health offices and, through them, with the various voluntary organisations. If they did this, they would learn many useful lessons which would be of tremendous advantage to them in their years in the civil service. They would learn the difficulties under which the other person lives. In this way they could identify poverty and define poverty.

It would be a mistake for anyone to claim that the Bill before this House today solves the many problems facing the underprivileged. I will repeat what I said earlier. I am firmly convinced that social welfare beneficiaries were much better off two years ago under a Fianna Fáil Government than they are today. I know the speaker who will come after me will quote statistics and tell us, as the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, that two years ago £92 million were spent on social welfare and that this year, this great Government of the just society, are spending £210 million on social welfare, and so on. The pure facts remain. The people two years ago were able to buy the basic necessaries of life in reasonable comfort. They were able to buy their coal, their bread, their butter. They were able to have meat on most days of the week, whereas now it is a luxury they rarely can afford.

I should like to hear the speakers from the other side who may come after me explain why it is that, if the increases in this Bill, the increases in the social welfare benefits, are costing £51¼ million, £40½ of that amount is being extracted from the employers and employees? There is no point in boasting about the great job of work the Government are doing by increasing social welfare benefits to the tune of £51¼ million. There is no point in claiming that this is a great feat by the Government when, in the very same Bill, employers and employees are paying £40½ million of that amount. The Government are adding £9¾ million to the £40½ million being provided by the social welfare stamp in order to provide the necessary increases in pensions this year. That is what it is costing this Government: £9¾ million.

I should like to hear from Senators who may follow me, why it was necessary, therefore, to extract £34½ million in the budget, when all they needed was £9¾ million. I would have no complaint whatsoever, if the £34½ million extracted in the budget were added to the £40½ million provided for in the increase in the social welfare stamp, making a grand total of £75 million, and that £75 million was spent on social welfare recipients. My complaint is that the Government extracted £34½ million in the budget by false pretences. They extracted this £34½ million, giving the people the impression that it was needed to provide extra increases for the needy sections of the community whereas, in actual fact, with the exception of £9¾ million of that amount, they did not use it for the purpose they claimed they would use it. The Government, if they are really concerned about the underprivileged, should spend the £25 million they extracted from the people and give it to that section of our society who need it most. This Bill is another typical example of the political dishonesty of the Government. I have proved this with the figures I have quoted.

Mr. Markey

I am always inclined to resist the temptation, when we come to speak about social welfare benefits, to indulge in either boastful or adulatory remarks about the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister for Social Welfare because social welfare benefits are something which any Government should attempt to pay to the maximum amount possible and as regularly as possible to meet increases in the cost of living. However, having listened to the last speaker proclaim that it would be a futile exercise to compare the social welfare benefit figure as of now with that which pertained two years ago — since he implied that it would show no increase in real value — I find it necessary to take up his suggestion that I would quote statistics. I do so only because it is necessary to refute the allegation that there has been no increase in real value in social welfare benefits. I will give Senator McGlinchey a choice of statistics and he can pick whichever he likes. If he still believes that statistics can prove anything one wishes them to prove, there is nothing much I can say to enlighten him further.

Between 1973 and 1975 the cost of living has increased by approximately 35 per cent. In the same period, social welfare benefits have increased ranging from 70 per cent at minimum, to 93 per cent at maximum. It is not the case that social welfare benefits have been increased to compensate, and to do no other than compensate, for increases in the cost of living. There have been very substantial real gains. I will give some other figures in a more restricted period, namely, between July, 1974 and April of this year.

Between July, 1974, and April, 1975, the cost of living increased by less than 20 per cent. I think it would be nearer 15 per cent than 20 per cent in that nine-month period. In the same period, social welfare benefits increased across the board by 18 per cent and, in April of this year, the benefits will again increase across the board by between 21 per cent and 23 per cent. There you have roughly a 39 per cent to 40 per cent increase in social welfare benefits against a cost of living increase of less than 20 per cent. Whichever of the statistics the last speaker wishes to take, he can refute them if he can obtain figures to refute what those statistics show. They satisfy me that there has been a very substantial increase in the real value of social welfare benefits in the past two years.

I should like to leave aside that question and branch out into a broader field on points which were raised by different speakers today. We had some statements in regard to the burden that the increase in the contributions payable — 40p for employees and practically double that for employers — will be on business and on small businesses in particular. There is no doubt that they will represent an increase in the costs of production and administration of any business, but, if there were not a joint contribution from the Exchequer and employee, very many businesses in the labour market would have to organise their own welfare schemes to meet the demands of the labour market. Where no such schemes exist at present, the cost of doing so would be considerable. Even where such schemes exist at present, in the absence of any contribution from either Exchequer or employee, the cost to the businesses would be much heavier than anything they have to provide at present.

If there are faults in the existing social welfare structure, I am quite certain that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are dedicated enough to try to iron out any anomalies that exist. Those of us in public life repeatedly come up against anomalies. There is no harm in suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister should look at these anomalies to see if anything at all can be done to abate the considerable annoyance they create for all applicants under the various schemes. I often wonder why free electricity, for instance, cannot be given to all old age pensioners. I often wonder why increases were invariably witheld in the case of children's allowances so far as the first child was concerned. I often wonder how much longer we are prepared to put up with the home assistance scheme being considered a very poor relation — and I am not making any pun on the word "poor"— of the total social welfare system. I wonder why procedures have not been instituted to make possible a much more rapid assessment of eligibility for old age pensions where contributions are concerned both in England and here.

There is also a need to streamline the investigatory work involved in assessing eligibility for pensions. Certainly a much more rapid investigatory procedure would enable an applicant to receive his just benefit much more quickly than at present, and it would also help to rid the system of the abuses which grow up in social welfare systems. In the first instance, perhaps, an abuse grows up through an accident, an oversight on the part of an investigating officer in allowing something to somebody to which he was not entitled. That abuse is only aggravated and worsened by being allowed to continue for any length of time. If the investigatory work could be streamlined to some extent we would hear far less about abuses in the system.

When we talk about social welfare benefits and where the money to meet those benefits is to come from, we have to be realistic. The last speaker, unfortunately, on the one hand contended that not enough was being given in social welfare benefits and, on the other hand, complained about the necessary increases in contributions from both employee and employer. The Parliamentary Secretary enunciated his own thoughts as regards a new structure perhaps being envisaged and formulated. This will have to be done if we have a serious determination to really tackle very many hard core social welfare problems which exist at present. Due to the fact that inflation makes such rapid inroads on any benefits, I do not think we will ever really be able to tackle these hard core problems unless we devise a new system, an alternative system, possibly, to the one in existence at the moment.

There is no doubt that this Government have done a considerable amount in very difficult circumstances. One would have thought that the times were not opportune for substantial increases across the board in social welfare benefits, and yet we find in the past two years that such increases have been very readily given and that this year they will be further enhanced by a review in October to compensate for any cost of living increase in the interim period.

The last speaker, in his accusation that not enough was being done, tried to belittle what has been done by saying that new benefits have not been instituted beyond the assistance now being given to single women. This, perhaps, may be too ready a way to answer that, but it is as good a way as any to say what new benefits have been given. A person who reaches 67 years of age this week can obtain an old age pension but under Fianna Fáil that person would have had to wait another three years. That is a wonderful new benefit and I certainly think the applicant of 67 years of age would agree with me.

The Parliamentary Secretary has acted responsibly in this matter of social welfare. He could have continued along the lines which successive Governments have taken by meeting increased benefits by upping contributions and saving no more about them. He has put it to us that we will have to look afresh at how we are to tackle and adequately deal with the hard core of social welfare problems that have not even, as it were, been touched upon. I wish him well in his task. He will certainly invite a lot of criticism from his opponents but he is more than able to meet such criticism and devise a scheme which will satisfy everybody as far as possible.

In a debate on a Bill like this we should not have to indulge in taking credit for anything that has been done. We would not do so were it not for the fact that Fianna Fáil have, very foolishly in my opinion, accused the Government of not doing enough and yet, at the same time, accused us of onerously increasing the contribution amount.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

First, I should like to thank the Senators for their usual courtesy and constructiveness with, I must say, unfortunately, a couple of exceptions.

I will deal first with the ones I make an exception of. They were both Donegal Deputies and they were applying the principle that if an inaccuracy is stated often enough eventually it will be accepted by the public as a fact. However, these Deputies picked the wrong inaccuracy in so far as social welfare is concerned. Senator Lenihan was very constructive in his remarks and he raised some good issues. It would appear to be the policy of his party now to realise that the area of social welfare is a live area, that it is a necessary area and one which they are obliged to give some serious consideration to now after, in my opinion, neglecting to give it any consideration at all. That is best illustrated by the statement made in the Dáil that they were about to produce a policy on social welfare. I welcome that belated effort and look forward to that policy. But for a party that has been in existence since 1927 it is the least one could expect.

Senator Lenihan referred to the increases and maintained that they would not keep pace with inflation. This is the biggest inaccuracy that has been repeated both in the Dáil and here during the discussion on this Bill. To set the record straight I will not only give the increases that have taken place but compare them with the increase in the cost of living, which has been higher than one would have wished.

In July, 1974, the Government increased social welfare benefits and assistance right across the board by 18 per cent. In April of this year they will further increase them from percentages ranging between 21 per cent at the minimum and 23½ per cent at the maximum. In that period the cost of living has risen approximately 16 per cent. These are very simple sums.

Mr. Lenihan

I was talking about inflation for the next six months.

Mr. Cluskey

I will come to that. Quite clearly social welfare recipients' standard of living has improved. Perhaps it has not improved as much as we would all like — there are certain areas within the social welfare code with which I am not satisfied — but the increases can be described as adequate. It is particularly wrong in an area where we are dealing with people who are dependent solely on social welfare not to face up to the facts. Unfortunately, the facts are bad enough but they do not have to be embroidered by wild inaccurate statements. Social welfare is an area which, unfortunately, has suffered at the political level down through the years from grave neglect. Senator Keegan mentioned something I thought very elementary, but apparently it has not been applied by his own party — that it is in this area there is most need for thinking and forward planning. This Government have sat down and decided where we want to go and what steps were necessary in order to get there. We have up to now made considerable progress in the social welfare field.

I will try to tell the House what we have done and, more important, what we hope to do and what we are in the course of doing. Before that I should like to refer to one point made by practically every speaker on the Fianna Fáil side — that enough had not been done. We were told we should have given millions here and millions there. A very considerable amount of expenditure was being lavished on social welfare by Senator McGlinchey in Opposition and by other Fianna Fáil spokesmen in Opposition. The expenditure on social welfare in the last three budgets has increased very substantially. The allocation to social welfare by the last Fianna Fáil Government in their last budget was £11.8 million. Even in Opposition they cannot get out of that approach to social welfare. To illustrate that I would refer the House to an article published in The Irish Independent on 15th January which was budget day. The article was entitled “The Kind of Budget I would Like to See” and its author was Deputy George Colley, former Minister for Finance in the Fianna Fáil Government and present Finance spokesman in Opposition. Deputy Colley said he would allocate £20 million to social welfare. How all these millions were to be spent and where they were coming from out of the £20 million he was allocating bewildered me.

This Government's contribution in this current year is £35½ million from the Exchequer while the total cost of social welfare is in the region of £81 million. Fianna Fáil, even in Opposition where they have no responsibility to provide the money, no responsibility to think out programmes, to plan or to allocate, cannot raise their thoughts above £20 million. It is a legitimate political tactic in Opposition to set your sights on things which you regard as unattainable but it frightens me to think that if in Opposition where he did not have to provide the money, the official Fianna Fáil spokesman allocates £20 million, how much would he have allocated had he been the responsible Minister? Roughly about half that, I imagine.

Great play was made of the price of the insurance stamp. We were told that industries are closing left, right and centre, that workers are being impoverished by having to pay 40p extra and the whole implication, the whole suggestion by Fianna Fáil speakers, was that this was a new development in the area of social welfare, that the cost of the stamp had never before been increased. What assessment have they of the intelligence of either employers or employees to think they do not realise that every year since social welfare came into existence the contribution of both the employer and employee has been raised in the Social Welfare Bill?

Mr. Yeats

But never by £40 million.

Mr. Cluskey

I do not accept that. The old age pension was never raised by £2 during Fianna Fáil's Administration.

Mr. Lenihan

The Parliamentary Secretary's brief is very critical of the system.

Mr. Cluskey

I will come to that. I have very limited time and I am trying to cover a lot of ground. The whole system of the financing of social welfare is not the best and we are hearing much about this at the moment from Fianna Fáil but they were responsible for the system. They introduced and operated it for a long number of years. The first time that the financing of the social welfare services was questioned was both in this House and in the Dáil by me last year and I referred to it again this year.

Mr. Lenihan

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Cluskey

I am extremely happy that I am finding so many converts to my way of thinking in this area not only in the Upper House but in the Lower House. I find that very encouraging. We have undertaken an examination of the financing not only of social welfare but of the health services as well. We hope that it will be possible to devise a more equitable way of financing them. There is also a number of people both in this House and the Lower House who are very concerned now about poverty. That, too, is a welcome conversion but I should like to make this point: The National Coalition, which includes Frank Cluskey, did not invent poverty. Poverty is a result of the operation of an economic and social system in this country for a long number of years and the vast majority at that time was under a Fianna Fáil Administration.

I understand perfectly well the political risks involved in mentioning all these unpleasant social realities in our society. I am a fairly experienced politician and I am aware that what I mention can be turned around and used as political ammunition against me either now or at some future date. But I am convinced that there can be no solution to this problem until it is exposed, until it is acknowledged and until there is a commitment by everyone in the community who does not fall into the under-privileged category, to eliminate the problems. I am encouraged by the development within Fianna Fáil whereby they are now to introduce a policy on social welfare and are giving very detailed study to the question of poverty within our society. My only regret is that these developments are so late in coming about. We might have had far less of a problem had they taken place a little earlier in the political evolution of the Fianna Fáil Party. However, better late than never.

Senator Keegan mentioned the fact of thinking and planning in this area. We have done a considerable amount of that and I would just briefly spell out what we have done, what we are in the course of doing and what we hope will be the net result of our action. First we broadened very considerably the scope of coverage by social welfare. The most major development in that was the elimination, the abolition of the income limit. We also brought in such people as deserted wives, unmarried mothers, prisoners' dependents, single women and a certain category of clergymen. Also, the lowering of the pension age and the very considerable easing of the means test brought very large numbers of our people within the scope of social welfare. But other changes are necessary. We have a very large number of self-employed people. To give some idea of the magnitude of that problem, in this country the figure is 31 per cent compared with 7½ per cent in Great Britain. None of these people is covered by social welfare but later this year we will be publishing a White Paper with regard to the coverage being extended to people who are self-employed and also in relation to pay-related pensions.

The provision of pay-related pensions is not only a desirable aim but, in any kind of a decent society, a necessary aim, where we have people, who under our present system contribute towards the welfare of our society during 40 or 50 years of work only to find that at the end of that time their standard of living is reduced drastically. The working people who contribute so much to our society deserve something more at the end of their working days. I should have liked to develop this subject a little more but it is not possible to do that in the time that remains to me.

I should like to refer to one matter which was both stated and implied. This is the question of people being better off not working than working, a contention which has gained a reasonable amount of publicity through the media and which is being repeated by public representatives both in the Lower House and in the Upper House, people whom I would expect to ascertain the facts before making statements of that nature. These statements are usually made in relation to the pay-related benefits. That scheme is devised in such a way that it is not possible for a man to receive more by not working than by working. I have heard one gentleman quoting figures on television but on checking them I found they did not stand up to examination.

What the scheme ensures is that if a man is unemployed for a prolonged period, or if he is unfortunate enough to be sick for a long period, his family do not fall into poverty from the word go and that they can maintain a reasonable standard of living for the duration of the unemployment or illness period.

Prior to the introduction of the pay-related scheme, one of the greatest difficulties that arose was the amount of debt that accumulated during the period of sickness or unemployment. If a person was out of work for three months it could take as much as two years following re-employment to get out of the debt it was necessary to accumulate to keep one's head above water during that unfortunate period. I am glad to have been associated with that scheme. I would appeal, particularly to public representatives, not to misrepresent the facts. There is a body of opinion building up against social welfare recipients which is unjustified. It is an opinion which is founded on bad information and half truths and can be very damaging to people whom we have an obligation and a duty to try to help out of difficulty and not to exacerbate.

I should like to thank the Seanad for the courtesy which they have shown me during the Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Dr. Martin)

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Sanfey

Now.

Mr. Yeats

Is it proposed to start now, then stop at 4.30 and carry on next week?

Mr. Sanfey

I understand it was agreed that we have all Stages of the Bill today.

Mr. Yeats

Would it not be more sensible, since we are meeting next Tuesday, to take it then?

Mr. Cluskey

My reply would have taken at least another half hour but I understood there was an agreement that this Bill would be completed and, consequently, the Senators got an abreviated form of what I wished to say.

Mr. Lenihan

We could take the Committee Stage now.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is a motion on the adjournment which was ordered for 4.30.

Mr. Yeats

I appreciate that but we had hoped to finish all Stages today. Things did not seem to work out that way. The question simply is whether it is worthwhile attempting to do the Committee Stage of a fairly elaborate Bill like this in five minutes. It does not seem practicable.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This is a matter for the House.

Mr. Sanfey

The Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to have all Stages of the Bill today. I thought we agreed to take all Stages today.

Mr. Lenihan

There were some long Second Reading speeches.

Mr. Sanfey

Not from this side.

Mr. Lenihan

Perhaps we could get through it in quarter of an hour if Senator Robinson would be agreeable.

Mrs. Robinson

I have no objection to the motion on the adjournment being taken a few minutes later.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The House agreed this morning that the motion be fixed for 4.30 p.m. I take it that the House is now asking me to alter that?

Mr. Sanfey

Subject to Senator Robinson's agreement we could postpone the adjournment debate until 4.45 p.m.

Mrs. Robinson

I have no objection.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.