Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1978

Vol. 88 No. 8

Social Welfare Bill, 1978: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. P. Lalor)

I apologise for the inability, through illness, of the Minister to be here. He has asked me to deputise for him. This Bill is designed to implement the 10 per cent increase in the weekly rates of social welfare payments and other improvements in the social welfare code announced in the budget. It also provides for consequential changes in the occupational injuries scheme, for increases in the contributions payable under the social insurance and occupational injuries schemes and for a number of improvements in other social welfare schemes.

As usual, the Bill contains a number of rather technical amendments to existing legislation and, in order to clarify its provisions, an explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the text.

The Government are committed to maintaining the living standards of social welfare recipients by regular adjustments of the level of payments at least in line with the cost of living. The 10 per cent increase provided in this Bill will more than compensate for the expected increase in the cost of living in 1978 and in fact represents an increase in real terms of some 6 per cent.

The 10 per cent increase and other improvements announced in the budget will involve a total cost of approximately £36.5 million in 1978 bringing the overall outlay on social welfare benefits and allowances to approximately £594 million.

I will now refer briefly to the increases provided in individual payments. All weekly personal rates of non-contributory old age pension are being increased, the increase at the maximum rate being from £12.35 to £13.60 for persons aged under 80 years, with persons aged 80 years or more getting an additional £1.35.

The maximum rate of payment in respect of an adult dependant under pensionable age is increased to £6.75 and the allowance payable in respect of a prescribed relative giving full-time care and attention to an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £6.90 to £7.60.

The additions to pensions payable to pensioners with qualified children are being raised by 35p to £3.65 a week for each of the first two children and by 25p to £2.75 a week for each other child.

The new scale of weekly means and rates of pension is set out in Table A in section 2. Section 4 provides for increases in the rates of unemployment assistance. The increase in the personal weekly rate of assistance will bring the maximum from £10.70 to £11.75 in urban areas and from £10.30 to £11.35 in rural areas. The rates for adult dependants are being increased to £8.55 and £8.35 respectively and the rates in respect of dependent children to £3.65 for each of the first two and £2.75 for others.

Means for unemployment assistance purposes, in the case of smallholders in certain areas, are assessed notionally by reference to rateable land valuation. Where the valuation is £10 or less the rates of assistance currently payable are those established in 1977 and payable to applicants generally and the new rates will be as I have just outlined. Those smallholders whose valuation is between £10 and £15 did not benefit from any increase in 1977 and are currently in receipt of assistance at rates established in 1976. These rates, however, are also being increased by 10 per cent and this involves the creation of a new schedule of rates which is set out separately in section 4. Smallholders on the notional system of assessment whose valuations are between £15 and £20 did not receive an increase in 1976 or in 1977 and on this occasion also are, as announced in the budget, excluded from the 10 per cent increase, due to the continuing growth in farm incomes. Smallholders with valuations over £20 are, since 1977, no longer eligible to have their means assessed on the notional basis but these, and any smallholders below £20 valuation who feel it would be to their advantage, may have their means assessed on the factual basis which applies to applicants generally. In that case they would be eligible to receive the current rate of payment appropriate to their means as so assessed.

Increases in all rates of non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions are provided in sections 7 and 9 of the Bill, the maximum weekly personal rate of widow's non-contributory pension being increased from £12.35 to £13.60 and the amount for each qualified child from £4.10 to £4.50. The increases in widows' pensions automatically apply to the social assistance allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives. The increase in orphan's non-contributory pension is from £8.05 to £8.85 a week at the maximum rate.

The allowances for single women aged between 58 and 66 are being increased in section 10, the increase at the maximum being from £10.70 to £11.75. Under section 12 the rates of supplementary welfare allowances are being increased. The maximum personal weekly rate of the allowance will go up from £10.30 to £11.35, the rate for an adult dependant from £7.60 to £8.35 and the rates for dependent children to £3.65 for each of the first two and £2.75 for each other child.

I now come to the increases in the rates of contributory benefits and pensions under the social insurance system which are set out in section 14. The increase in the case of disability and unemployment benefit and invalidity pension is from £13.05 to £14.35 in the personal rate and from £8.50 to £9.35 in the rate for an adult dependant. Maternity allowance is also being increased from £13.05 to £14.35.

The personal rates of contributory old age and retirement pensions for persons under age 80 go up from £14.60 to £16.05 and for those over 80, from £15.50 to £17.05. The addition to pension for an adult dependant is increased from £9.30 to £10.25 where the adult dependant is under pensionable age and from £11.00 to £12.10 where the adult dependant is aged 66 or over. In the case of widow's contributory pension the increase is from £13.25 to £14.60 in the personal rate for those under age 80 and from £14.30 to £15.75 for those aged 80 or over. Deserted wife's benefit is also being increased from £13.25 to £14.60.

The additions to widow's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit for qualified children are being raised from £4.45 to £4.90 for each child. In the case of other benefits and pensions, the corresponding increase is from £3.75 to £4.15 for each of the first two children and from £3.10 to £3.40 for each other child.

Provision is also made in section 14 for increases in the grants payable under the social insurance system. Maternity grant is increased from £4 to £8 and the maximum rate of death grant is increased from £35 to £50.

In line with the improvements in the general social insurance system the Bill provides in sections 19 and 20 for increases in the rates of benefit payable under the occupational injuries scheme.

In addition to the increases in rates of benefits the Bill provides for a number of other improvements in social welfare schemes. The most significant of these, in terms of the costs involved, is the provision giving single women and widows full and unrestricted access to unemployment assistance on the same terms as men from October next. This is done by section 5 which removes the present requirement that they must either have a dependant or have paid a certain minimum number of social insurance contributions. This represents a substantial step forward in the elimination of discrimination against women in the social welfare code. It is estimated that some 14,000 women will qualify for unemployment assistance as a result of this change.

Section 6 enables such women, from the date of enactment of the Bill, to apply for a qualification certificate. This certificate sets out the holder's weekly means and, though it does not confer entitlement to assistance, it is a necessary requirement for such entitlement. If the women concerned apply for this certificate when the Bill is enacted, the speedy clearance of applications for assistance from October will be facilitated.

The Bill also provides for changes in the residence conditions for non-contributory pensions. In the case of old age pension, the residence test in its present form is that the claimant must have lived in the State for an aggregate period of 15 years, at least five of them after attaining the age of 50. People who have lived abroad, such as teachers, social workers and missionaries and who return home late in life have been prevented by the requirement of five years residence after age 50 from qualifying for pension and, to cater for these people, section 3 provides for the abolition of this requirement so that an aggregate of 15 years' residence at any time will now suffice.

Applicants for widow's non-contributory pension must at present have at least two years' residence in the State to qualify for pension. Application of the test has in some cases caused hardship and section 8 of the Bill provided for the abolition of this condition. The similar residence condition in the case of deserted wife's allowance, social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers and prisoner's wife's allowance is being removed by appropriate changes in the relevant regulations.

Another important problem for which provision is being made is that which arises where a woman in receipt of deserted wife's benefit or deserted wife's allowance dies and her children, for whom she had been receiving increases in her benefit or allowance, are left with no income. In some cases, the father may return home following the death of his wife but, in many cases, his whereabouts are unknown or he does not resume his responsibilities for the children. In these cases, the children are effectively in the same position as orphans but, as the death of the father cannot be presumed, they do not qualify for orphan's non-contributory pension or orphan's contributory allowance. Section 16 provides that these children will in future be treated as orphans and that orphan's pension or allowance will be paid to a relative or some other suitable person, thus avoiding the necessity of having to send the children to an institution.

Section 13 extends to supplementary welfare allowances a provision made last year in the case of certain other social welfare payments. This provision related to increases of those payments in respect of adult dependants. Such an increase could previously be paid to single men and widowers in respect of a woman looking after their children, and the 1977 Act provided that it could also be paid to single women, widows and deserted wives. The benefits involved were unemployment benefit and assistance, disability benefit, injury benefit under the occupational injuries scheme and invalidity pension. Section 13 of this Bill provides, in the case of the supplementary welfare allowances scheme which came into operation in July, 1977, for a similar extension of the adult dependant's increase.

Section 21 provides that an old age pension may be paid, on a provisional basis pending the formal decision of a pension committee where a social welfare officer is satisfied that the statutory conditions for receipt of the pension are fulfilled. An arrangement of this nature has existed on an informal basis since 1973 and in all cases the subsequent decision of the old age pension committee or appeals officer supersedes the provisional payment. The reason for making a provisional payment in this way is to avoid the hardship to pensioners caused by delay in obtaining decisions from pension committees.

Section 22 concerns the recovery of amounts of old age pension overpaid. Under existing legislation the amount overpaid may be recovered not only from the pensioner himself but it may be deducted from specified social welfare payments due to the spouse, widower of the pensioner or, if any other person so consents, from payments due to that person. Section 22 abolishes the provision whereby recovery may be effected by deduction from benefits payable to other persons. The effect of this will be that recovery will only be possible from the pensioner himself or from his estate.

The overall cost of the rates increases and other improvements being provided for following the budget is £36.5 million in 1978. Of this, social assistance accounts for more than £16 million, all of which is borne by the Exchequer. The total cost in the case of the social insurance schemes is £20.44 million and this must be met out of the social insurance fund which is financed by contributions from employers and employees with an annual subvention from the Exchequer. On the basis of a 20 per cent Exchequer subvention an increase of 82p in the ordinary rate of contribution would be required of which, on the usual 2 to 1 allocation, the employer would bear 55p and the employee 27p.

It is also necessary, however, to meet an additional £10.4 million, which represents mainly the full year cost of the October 1977 increases, and to meet this, the ordinary contribution has to be increased by a further 52p. This will be shared 35p on the employer and 17p on the employee, bringing the increase of contribution to £1.34 broken down into 90p for the employer and 44p for the employee.

The contribution for occupational injuries, which is borne in full by the employer, is being increased by 5p making the employer's share of the increase 95p. In addition, under the provisions of the Health Contributions (Amendment) Bill, 1978, the health contribution which is normally borne in full by the employee will be increased by 11p bringing the employee's share of the increase to 55p. Accordingly, the total increase in the overall contribution will be £1.50 of which the employer will bear 95p and the employee 55p.

The full increase of £1.50, however, will apply only to workers earning £50 a week or more. It will be remembered that, in accordance with the Government's election manifesto, contribution rates were reduced from January 1978 by £1 a week for persons earning less than £50 a week. It is now proposed that a further concession be made in the case of these workers in that the increase in respect of them will not be £1.50 but rather £1. Taking into account the existing £1 reduction, the contribution for lower paid workers will therefore be £1.50 less than the full rate, this reduction being shared £1.16 to the employee and 34p to the employer.

From April 3 next the total contribution, including social insurance, occupational injuries, health and redundancy will be £8.68 for men of which the employer will pay £5.26 and the employee £3.42. The corresponding rate for a man earning less than £50 a week will be £7.18 of which the employer will pay £4.92 and the employee £2.26.

I should also mention here that these rates include the special increase of 31p in the social insurance contribution introduced in 1975 which is being retained for a further 12 months to help meet the cost of the high level of unemployment claims still being experienced.

The cost of the additional concession to lower paid workers is estimated at £4.25 million in 1978 which will be borne entirely by the Exchequer. The total Exchequer contribution towards the improvements in social insurance will be £8.3 million and the amount to be raised from increases in the contributions of employers and employees will be £22.5 million.

The rates of voluntary contributions are being increased to £1.46 at the low rate and £3.76 at the high rate—an increase of 26p and 66p respectively. The special voluntary contribution in respect of a certain category of insured persons affected by the abolition of the remuneration limit from April 1974, is being increased by 40p to £2.30.

The increases provided for in this Bill are due to come into operation from the beginning of April and I, therefore, commend and the Bill to Seanad Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. Markey

In this Bill the Government are demanding from both employer and employee an insurance contribution increase which is approximately double the increase that was sought in 1977. The employer will have to bear an increase of 95p which is a rather savage one and comes only a couple of months after we were told by the Minister for Social Welfare and Health that the reduction in the cost of the stamp in the case of employees earning less than £50 would be an incentive to employers to increase the number of workers in their employment.

One has to look at this Bill in a rather cynical fashion because a 95p increase for the employer cannot be regarded in any context as being an incentive to take on additional workers. The employee is also having to bear an increase which is approximately double the increase that was sought in 1977. One has to expect increases in insurance contributions but it is only fair to look for commensurate increases at least in the benefits that should be given in return for such increases in insurance contributions. A 10 per cent increase in the payments of benefits is not enough. When one considers what that 10 per cent is on one sees how inadequate and how unrealistic are the increases in the benefits. The social welfare categories such as old age pensioners, unemployed people, single women of 58 years old, and so on, are being given weekly benefits that range from £12 to £15 in many instances. I say such an amount is an unrealistic benefit to be giving to anybody in this day and age. I do not think that the basic benefit is sufficiently high on which a 10 per cent increase can be regarded as being appropriate and adequate to meet the increases in the cost of living.

It is disappointing that there is no October increase envisaged at all in this Bill. The Coalition Government from 1973 made this a regular feature of each year's increase in benefits and I think it is expecting too much that people who will receive the 10 per cent increase in April will be expected to face any further increases in the cost of living that will arise during the next 12 months without any further addition to their benefits.

In the White Paper which was issued by the Government a couple of months ago one remembers the statement that cost effectiveness would be a very prominent feature of the Government over the next five years in regard to social welfare payments and in general to the social welfare system. One sees it certainly coming home to roost now that this Fianna Fáil Government are not as socially conscious as one would like them to be in regard to maintaining the standard of living of our less fortunate categories.

Only a couple of months ago Fianna Fáil made great play about the reduction in the cost of the stamp for those earning under £50 per week and now they have increased that cost. One wonders what the administrative work involved in both the reduction of the stamp in the first instance and now the increase in that stamp after only a very short period of two or three months, is going to cost. Certainly I do not think the people who will be responsible for administering this downward and upward cost of the stamp in such a short period of time will look with any great favour on what the Government have done. One would have thought the Government would have come out quite openly and honestly and said, when they had got into power last July. "Look, we know we promised that we would reduce the stamp in the case of people earning less than £50 a week but we know we will also have to increase social welfare contributions in 1978, and we will make a net increase rather than reducing and then increasing the insurance stamp within two months of that reduction." It is no wonder that one is inclined to be cynical. One cannot see how what was said to be an incentive to employers when the reduction was made two months ago can still be regarded as an incentive when one sees this increase by 90 pence per week for the employer.

In the case of the employee a 55 pence per week increase is also a savage increase. But that is what Fianna Fáil have done and I think that a large part of the promise which they held out to both employer and employee in their manifesto can now certainly be seen to be laid open in its brutal and, let us say, dishonest real viewing.

Any social welfare scheme, of course, has anomalies and I think ours is no different from the schemes pertaining in any other country in regard to the number of anomalies which apply. There have been some efforts made in recent years to remove quite a lot of these anomalies but as one anomaly is removed somehow it seems to breed another in its place. The Minister for Health and Social Welfare has announced that he will be bringing in a new scheme of insurance contributions next year, whether that will bring for us a more equitable system of social welfare remains to be seen.

I would like to say a few words about certain aspects of the administration of the present social welfare system. Where people have to appeal against refusal of benefit the delay in the processing of such appeals is an undue one. There should be a speeding up in this matter. After all, the person who is waiting is waiting for a benefit which cannot be regarded in any sense as either a large or a satisfactory amount sufficient to keep him or his family in any degree of well-being. The Government should also look at the condition of many of the unemployment exchange offices throughout the country. They certainly need to be modernised and a different status given to them. There is a stigma attached to them. Particularly in an era of such high unemployment as we have at the moment we should do everything we possibly can to put a different image and a different face on these buildings.

This is a Fianna Fáil increase in social welfare contributions; as I said the increase in the benefits is not at all adequate for this year. I wonder what will happen if towards the end of 1978 the cost of living increase is not seen to be of the small dimension as envisaged by the Government. Will they then come along and give a further increase in benefits to the recipients? One has to take into context with this Bill the Health Contributions Bill and where between the two Bills the overall increase in the contributions demanded is excessive, and the increase in the payments of benefits is not nearly enough.

Mrs. Hussey

I do not wish to detain the House very long on this matter because I am aware of my lack of experience in dealing with this kind of matter. I am aware also that there are very many Senators on both sides of this House who have a very fine record of involvement in all areas of helping people through the social welfare system.

Trying to plough through a Bill such as this highlights the fact that a great many people are in a very weak situation in our society. Therefore it is with a great deal of humility that I am making a couple of remarks about this Social Welfare Bill. A sum of £36,500,000 is being dealt out in very small increases and this means that a very large number of people— many of them not very far from this House, others elsewhere throughout the country—are getting a little bit of extra money which, in fact, will come between them being hungry or being cold. We should, perhaps, always remind ourselves of that. I am sure I do not need to remind anybody in the over-heated luxury in this Seanad Chamber of that fact. I do not want to enter any discussion about whether the increases in contributions should have been announced in the budget. Obviously the money to pay for these increases has to come from somewhere and much of it will have to come from employers and employees. I hope very much that the new system, the pay-related system, which has been mentioned by the Minister will not be long in making its appearance here for discussion at least because obviously this flat-rate system is not a good way to administer such matters.

There are one or two categories which I would like to mention but I am aware that when dealing with the kind of misfortune which is implied in a Bill like this priorities are not a good idea. There are three categories which need help over and above a simple increase which keeps things the way they are relative to inflation. I would have preferred if we could have been improving very much the relative position of the old, the sick and the children rather than keeping them just about catching up with inflation or, indeed, limping behind it. It is obvious that the old are particularly defenceless, just as are the sick. We are probably finally beginning to realise in Ireland that if you treat the mothers of this country badly you thereby hurt their children. This is becoming more and more obvious as we get these slightly improved benefits for widows, deserted wives and so on. The House hardly needs to be reminded that until quite recently there was no such thing as a deserted wife in terms of social welfare because she got no assistance whatsoever except some niggardly help given out at the discretion of some person behind a glass case.

On the question of giving unemployment assistance finally to single women and widows on the same basis as men this, of course, is a right which is long overdue. In order to avoid delay in actually getting their rights the Minister says the women should apply for their certificate as soon as the Bill is enacted. That is all very well, of course. Generally, the kind of people who are being instructed to apply for this certificate are, by reason of the very nature of the assistance, the kind of people who will not know about these things. I would like to remind the Minister that there is an Employment Equality Agency. There is a very efficient network of women's organisations throughout the country which should be used to inform women all over the country of this right which is finally being acknowledged as a right.

Increases in social welfare payments will now be paid to single women, widows and deserted wives "in respect of a woman looking after their children." I object to the word "woman" there. Is it presuming that if a man is to look after their children he will not be eligible for the assistance as well? Men are quite capable of looking after children, as I am sure all of you men here who are fathers know. I hope this does not mean that where a woman goes out to work and a man is minding her children that she cannot claim that assistance. I hope that will be clarified because as it stands there is far too narrow a definition. As I say, I did not want to say too much on this because I do not know a great deal about the social welfare area. To reiterate one point, I would like to see an improvement in the position of the weakest rather than just keeping them in line with inflation. This is very important.

Miss Harney

When discussing Bills of this nature it is very easy for us to be very critical of a government and to highlight areas where money should be spent. The fact remains that social progress can only come as a result of economic progress and we must create the necessary wealth if we are to have a fair and progressive social welfare system. Senator Markey said that this Government were not as socially conscious as he would like them to be. I would respectfully suggest to Senator Markey that it is only a government with a social conscience who would allow single women and widows to claim unemployment assistance on the same terms as men and thus eliminate the disgraceful discrimination that existed in our social welfare code for too long whereby girls could not qualify unless they had a certain number of stamps. It is only a government with a social conscience that would re-define the term "orphan" and would not allow children whose father may have deserted their mother, and in cases where the mother died subsequently, to be treated fairly and allow them some sort of income so that they would not have to be sent to an institution. Those are actions taken by a government with a social conscience and I hope it will not be too long before we have more action of this nature.

It is very easy for us to praise the 10 per cent all-round increase given by the Government and I know that this represents a 6 per cent real increase which is greater than any of the increases given by the previous Coalition Government but I hope that the new Minister will look for some way of giving people with large families an increased children's allowance and I do not mean just an increase across-the-board. I hope that those that need it most will get what they deserve. I think it is wrong that every family should get the children's allowance simply determined on the basis of the number of children they have. There should be a means test for this and I hope that the new Minister will investigate that possibility and that it will not be long before parents and families who need it most will get a proper system of children's allowance. I hope that that system, when it is enacted, will take account of such items as school books and school uniforms and the very large bills that parents have to pay in order to give their children a fair education.

I hope also that widows in our society will be treated better in the future. Most of us would agree that becoming a widow is a very strange and traumatic experience. People need time to adjust. A woman can find herself suddenly in the position where, instead of having £70 or £80 a week coming into a home the income is something like £15 or £16 in cases where there are no children. Most people, no matter how strong they are, no matter how capable they are of finding themselves a job, take time to re-adjust. I would like the Government to see if a measure could be introduced whereby a widow could get something in the region of what her husband had been earning for, say, six or maybe three months, in order to give her the necessary time to make the re-adjustments which are so necessary at this stage of her life. I know that in the case of an old age pension claimed by a couple—they have the same book as far as I know—when one of them dies the other person can claim the allowance of the dead person for six weeks. I think something like this should be brought in in the case of widows.

There are many other groups in our society that need to be catered for when we are looking at social welfare. I am pleased that the Minister has gone a long way to improving the social welfare system. Obviously, it takes time to change, modernise and make it a more comprehensive and fair system but he has gone a long way in this regard. I congratulate him on what he has done. I know that before long, I think by April 1979—that was the target date he gave—he will introduce a more equitable system of social welfare payment whereby you would pay on your social welfare stamp. The contribution will be related to what you are earning. That is only fair and proper and I hope it can be implemented in 1979. Of course, there has to be an upper ceiling limit on it.

However, I do congratulate the Minister. I urge him to look particularly at the case of widows and the large families to whom no children's allowance increase was allowed. It is a pity but I do understand the problem and I hope when he is giving an increase, and it probably will not be very long before he does, he will not just give an across-the-board increase but give it to those who need it. Some system must be introduced whereby children's allowances are paid to those who need them most rather than simply having an across—the-board allowance depending on the number of children. That is not fair or proper and is not something which we should encourage in this day and age.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. P. Lalor)

I thank the House for the welcome given to this measure. We had a contribution from Senator Harney expressing her welcome and looking very objectively at what has been promised by the Minister in this regard. Senator Markey was not as enthusiastic about the Bill as one might have expected. He concentrated a little bit more on the increased cost of social insurance rather than on the sizeable increased benefits that the Government, through the Minister for Social Welfare, are allocating this year. We had to wait for Senator Harney to draw attention to something that I had stressed at the outset and that was the fact that this across-the-board 10 per cent increase in benefits that is being conferred on the various groups covered under the social welfare benefits and assistance, taking into consideration the expected increase in the cost of living during 1978, will mean an actual overall 6 per cent increase, over and above what the Government were committed to. As I said, the 10 per cent increase provided in this Bill will more than compensate for the expected increase in the cost of living in 1978. In fact, as was stressed by Senator Harney, it represents an increase in real terms of some 6 per cent.

Senator Markey drew attention to the reduction of the pound in the stamp contribution from the point of view of the worker earning less than £50 and asked why we should reduce the contribution in January and increase it again in April. I would stress that the differential in rates of contribution between those earning less than £50 and those earning more is being maintained. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the actual differential now, where it was £1 previously, is to be £1.50 so that while the man on the reduced stamp, the worker earning less than £50, has to contribute more, he is now in greater benefit in so far as he has to contribute £1.50 less than the worker earning more than £50. Senator Markey drew attention also to the social insurance contribution increase. This is double what it was last year. The increase this year, as was stated in my speech, takes account of the full-year cost of increases last year but there was a carry-over.

The previous Government announced that we were to have increases last October but made no provision for the payment of those increases. We have this Government honouring the commitment entered into by the previous Government. Were it not for this carry-over of debt left in the hands of the Department the increase would be 82p rather than £1.34. The real measure of the contribution is that the Exchequer contribution to social insurance is being increased from 19 per cent in 1977 to 22 per cent in 1978. We have had on record a commitment from the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare that the amount of State involvement, the amount of State contribution, to the social insurance fund was to be annually a diminishing amount. That trend has been reversed by this Government in that the proportion of State involvement in the overall last year was 19 per cent and this year is 22 per cent.

That replies to the complaint from Senator Markey regarding no increase being provided in October of this year. We do not see the need for this because we are not caught up in the deluge of price increases that afflicted this country monthly over the four-and-a-half year period of Coalition mismanagement. That was the reason why the Coalition when in Government annually built up this pattern of a two-tier increase, an increase at budget time and subsequently an increase in October. The increase in October was necessary in order to catch up with the rapid inflation that had taken place between April and October of any given year but in view of the fact that the present Government through the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy have caught up on that spiral of inflation we do not see the necessity for making provision at this stage for an increase in October next. This is so particularly in view of the fact that through the 10 per cent, we are keeping 6 per cent ahead of the need for making that sort of provision.

Senator Hussey dealt with this question also. She talked about the 10 per cent across-the-board as being not quite adequate for particular categories. She drew specific attention to two categories in which she was particularly interested and felt that the 10 per cent did not cover the old and the sick but then immediately went on to the hobbyhorse of the widows and the deserted wives, leaving behind the two categories in which she said that she had a particular interest. She also dealt with the statement in my introduction where I mentioned the necessity to get across to the some 50,000 single women and widows who were going to benefit under the provision of the budget that facilities, for which a demand had been made over a period, to bring them in line with single men were being made available for them. Senator Hussey welcomed this provision and said she felt that there were women's organisations that could spread the good news about. Senator Hussey need have no fear in this regard. The word has been spread. There was a consistent demand for this over a period but this demand had not been met until, in fulfilment again of a manifesto promise by the Government, the Minister for Social Welfare made provision for it in this Bill.

Although the difficulty of administration makes it impossible to make the necessary arrangements to pay this unemployment assistance before October next the Minister is encouraging women who will be anxious to sign on to sign from the time this Bill has been passed so the way can be cleared for those who qualify to draw the unemployment assistance as from the date from which it applies.

Senator Hussey said specifically that we should improve the position of the less well-off rather than keep benefits in line with the cost of living. There is a point of view that the 10 per cent across-the-board is not the ideal way to tackle this job but in view of the fact that it was so much ahead of the actual cost-of-living increase that we had committed ourselves to the Minister felt that it was the more appropriate way to do it, especially, as Senator Hussey pointed out, since a comprehensive pay-related contribution scheme is to be introduced in April 1979.

I will draw the attention of the Minister to what appears to be quite a legitimate request from Senator Harney, that is, that specific attention be given to the desirability of having a look at a means test in relation to children's allowances and to give preference to increased amounts of children's allowances to bigger families. There is favourable thinking in this regard. The Senator mentioned also the special case of widows. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Social Welfare to that also. In general I want to thank the House for the reception of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.