Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 May 1963

Vol. 202 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 49—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.

Tairgim:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £358,000 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1964, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh.

Is gnách Meastacháin mo Roinne-se a phlé le chéile, agus le cead an Cheann Chomhairle, tá sé ar intinn agam leanúint de'n nós sin i mbliana.

'Sé suim iomlán na dtrí Meastachán as a bhfuil mo Roinn-se freagrach ná £28,684,000. Is méadú de £2,682,000 é sin i gcomórtas le Meastacháin na bliana 1962-63, ach nuair a cuirtear san áireamh na Meastacháin Fhorlíontacha le h-aghaidh na bliana sin, níl ach £618,000 sa bhreis á lorg i gcóir na bliana 1963-64.

I gcás Vóta 49—Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh—tá méadú glan de £4,390 i gcomparáid le Meastachán na bliana 1962-63. 'Séard is cúis leis an difríocht bheag seo ná go bhfuil soláthar breise de tuairim is £13,000 á dhéanamh le h-aghaidh tuarastal, costas taistil agus caiteachas ilghnéitheach eile agus go bhfuiltear ag súil le £8,600 sa bhreis a fháil faoi Leithreasa-i-gCabhair.

£8,020,000 atá sa Mheastachán le h-aghaidh Árachais Shóisialaigh. Is méadú de £1,741,000 é sin i gcomparáid le Meastachán na bliana 1962-63, ach nuair a cuirtear san áireamh an Meastachán Forlíontach de £1,370,000 i gcóir na bliana sin níl ach £371,000 de mhéadú i mbliana. 'Séard is mó is cúis leis an méadú seo ná go bhfuil costas na bhfeabhsanna a rinneadh í rátaí árachais shóisialaigh ó thosach mí Eanáir seo caite iníochta ar feadh na bliana seo go léir. Tuairim is £2,100,000 de bhreis caiteachais atá inchurtha síos don chúis sin. Ar an dtaobh eile táthar ag súil le breis ioncaim de £1,522,000 toisc na rátaí nua ranníocaí a bheith i bhfeidhm ar feadh na bliana 1963-64 go léir. Tagann athraithe eile ó mion difríochtaí san claonadh caiteachais agus ioncaim san dá bhliain atá i gceist.

I gcás Cúnaimh Shóisialaigh—Vóta 51—tá £20,127,000 de dhíth. Is méadú de £937,000 é sin ar bhun-Mheastachán na bliana 1962-63, agus méadú de £243,000 nuair a cuirtear an Meastachán Forlíontach le h-aghaidh na bliana sin san áireamh. Siad na seirbhísí is mó is cúis leis an méadú ná pinsin seanaoise, cúnamh dífhostaíochta, agus pinsin do bhaintreacha agus do dhilleachtaí. Mar is cuimhin le Teachtaí, méadaíodh na rátaí cúnaimh a bhaineann leis na seirbhísí sin le h-éifeacht ó thosach mí Lúnasa, 1962.

Bhéadh costas na bhfeabhsanna sin níos aoirde fós marach go bhfuil laghdú i líon na bpinsinéirí toisc níos mó díobh a bheith i dteideal pinsean ranníocach.

It is customary to take the three Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare together. I propose, therefore, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle and of the House, to deal with the Estimates as a group. It will be open to Deputies to raise points on any of the three Votes in the subsequent discussion.

The three Votes and the separate amounts being sought from the Exchequer for 1963-64 are as follows:

£

Vote 49—Office of the

Minister for Social Welfare

537,000

Vote 50—Social Insurance

8,020,000

Vote 51—Social Assistance

20,127,000

The total of these is £28,684,000

I shall now deal with the three Estimates in sequence.

In the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, a net sum of £537,000 is provided to meet the salaries and other administration expenses borne on the Vote. The sum sought is only £4,390 higher than the Vote for 1962-63.

The increases in the payment subheads as compared with the previous year total £12,990. This sum is partly offset by expected higher receipts under the Appropriations in Aid Subhead totalling £8,600.

The increase in the payment subheads is mainly attributable to an increase of about £10,000 on the provision for salaries, wages and allowances. This is the net result of casual variations, up and down, in the items making up the total provision of £1,360,000 for the year. The number of staff for whom provision is made shows a net reduction of eight as compared with 1962-63.

The higher receipts under Appropriations in Aid are mainly due to an increase in the sum due to be recovered from the Social Insurance Fund in respect of the expenses incurred by my Department in administering the scheme of social insurance. The increased receipts are a direct result of the increased expenditure under the payment subheads.

The Estimate of £8,020,000 for Social Insurance for 1963-64 is £371,000 higher than the Vote for 1962-63 when the Supplementary Estimate of £1,370,000 in 1962-63 is taken into account. The Estimates Volume does not show the true position as it was printed before the Supplementary Estimate was passed. The increase of £371,000 occurs under Subhead A of the Estimate. That subhead provides for the payment by the Exchequer into the Social Insurance Fund of the estimated amount by which the expenditure of the Fund will exceed its income in 1963-64. The estimated amount is £7,982,000.

The estimated expenditure of the Fund in 1963-64 is £21,310,000 made up as follows:—

£

Old age (contributory) pension

5,630,000

Disability benefit

5,958,000

Widow's and orphan's (contributory) pension

4,000,000

Unemployment benefit

3,514,000

Treatment benefit

415,000

Maternity benefit

151,000

Marriage grant

76,000

Administration

1,566,000

Total

£21,310,000

The estimated income of the Social Insurance Fund in 1963-64 is £13,328,000. It consists of £12,600,000 from employment contributions, £613,000 in income from investments of the Fund and £115,000 in receipts under Reciprocal Arrangements.

The Exchequer contribution to the Fund for 1963-64 under Subhead A is £7,982,000 which is £371,000 more than the corresponding provision for 1962-63. This is the net result of variations on the items constituting the expenditure and income of the Fund. On the expenditure side, the main increases are £714,000 on old age (contributory) pension, £709,000 on disability benefit, £482,000 on widow's and orphan's (contributory) pension and £301,000 on unemployment benefit. On the income side there are increased receipts of £1,700,000 from employment contributions and £115,000 under reciprocal arrangements.

The increases in benefit expenditure in 1963-64, as compared with 1962-63, are mainly due to the increased benefit rates under the Socal Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1962, which became payable from the beginning of January, 1963. Aggregate increases of £2,094,000 in the benefit estimates for 1963-64, as compared with 1962-63 represent the extra cost due to the increased rates being payable for the whole of 1963-64 as against three months in 1962-63. Another factor in the increase is a rise in the number of old age (contributory) pensions estimated to cost an additional sum of £208,000 in 1963-64. This is partly offset by a reduction of £119,000 in the provision for unemployment benefits attributable to an expected decrease in the numbers of claims in 1963-64.

On the income side the estimated increase of £1,700,000 in receipts from employment contributions is due, to the extent of £1,522,000, to the fact that the 1963-64 figure provides for the effect of the revision in rates under the 1962 Act for a full year as compared with three months in 1962-63. The remainder of the increase, £178,000, is attributed to higher stamp sales resulting from an expected improvement in the employment position in 1963-64.

As regards Social Assistance the net provision of £20,127,000 for 1963-64 is £243,000 greater than the Vote for 1962-63, including the Supplementary Estimate of £694,000. As in the case of Social Insurance, the Supplementary Estimate for Social Assistance for 1962-63 was passed after the Estimates Volume had been printed. The increase of £937,000 shown in the Volume does not therefore show the correct comparison between the two years.

The main items in the increase of £243,000 as compared with the previous year are £92,000 on old age pensions, £88,000 on unemployment assistance, and £17,000 on widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. Increases on four other subheads amounting to £28,500 in all and net decreases in appropriations in aid totalling £17,500 make up the balance of the £243,000.

The increased provision for old age and widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions and unemployment assistance is a result of the increases in rates and other improvements effected by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1962, as from the beginning of August, 1962. The difference in the estimated cost of these increases for the whole of 1963-64, as compared with the provision for eight months of 1962-63, amounts in the aggregate to £460,000. This increase is offset to some extent by anticipated reductions of £202,000 and £35,000 in the provisions for non-contributory old age pensions and widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions, respectively, arising from expected decreases in the numbers of pensioners under the non-contributory codes. In the case of unemployment assistance, there is a reduction of £26,000 as it is expected that there will be a lower level of claims in 1963-64.

I have outlined briefly the causes of the main variations in the Estimates for 1963-64, as compared with those for 1962-63. The position is, of course, complicated as a result of the passing of the Supplementary Estimates towards the end of March, but I will endeavour to give Deputies any additional information they may require on individual items.

I should like to add that the sums mentioned for Social Insurance and Social Assistance do not take account of the cost of the proposed improvements in these services announced by the Minister for Finance in the Budget Statement. Provision for these increases will be made by way of Supplementary Estimates later in the financial year after the necessary legislation has been passed.

I move:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

We in the Fine Gael Party agree with the Minister in saying that we have been presented with a set of extremely complicated figures that make it well nigh impossible to compare like with like. During the year we have had the Supplementary Estimate for the Department. Then recently we have had the discussion on the Budget debate. Consequently, the ground of social welfare has been pretty well examined by the House in relation to all its aspects.

Unfortunately, many of our people have to look to the Department of Social Welfare for assistance. Their needs have been examined very closely on a number of occasions during the year. One would have expected in the presentation of the annual Estimate that the Minister would have given more life to his statement than reading out these figures of costings and that he would have indicated how difficult it would be to compare them in view of the events that occurred since the last annual Estimate was presented.

I note there is an absence of any indication regarding the broad policy of the Government in relation to employment. Pious hopes were expressed which, we trust, will be realised. We can recall that last year the Estimate included similar pious hopes, which were dashed by the necessity to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to cope with the unemployment situation. We cannot be complacent regarding recent trends in the employment situation. The prime responsibility of the Department through its various branch offices throughout the country is to assist those people who are in the unfortunate position of not having employment and seeing that they get within the shortest possible time the employment they require.

I would enjoin on the Minister to use his influence with his colleagues for the implementation of any scheme that will relieve the Department of having to pay unemployment assistance when it would be within the competence of the Government to provide full-time employment. It would be better for those to be given employment; it would be a better thing for the community that the skills, industry and labour of those men and women be availed of for the benefit of the country as a whole. One can readily understand the obligation there is on us to see that these people are given sufficient assistance to tide them over what we hope will be a temporary period of unemployment.

There is one activity on which the Government have suspended operations which could relieve unemployment in rural parts and that is the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The Minister would do well to bring his influence to bear on the Government to reintroduce the operations of that Act in order to give employment to the people he is charged with looking after. Almost the entire Vote for activities under that Act would go into the hands of those employed. That, in turn, would relieve the Department of Social Welfare and would give these men an income which would be considerably more than what the State can afford to give them in an idle capacity.

It is regrettable that the trend of recent unemployment figures indicates a disturbing increase notwithstanding the fact that we have unfortunately forced so many of our people to leave our shores in order to secure employment in other lands. The trend, one would expect, should be in the opposite direction, particularly when one realises the amount of investment by the State and otherwise in advancing various projects. One would have hoped for better results and one cannot but be concerned by the fact that we have not provided the additional employment necessary to give work to the unemployed and as well to absorb those coming on the labour market.

There are actually no provisions this year for any real improvement in the position regarding those whom we must look after under all the sections of this Department. One would have expected differently if there was any reality in the statements we have heard during the last year regarding the prosperity of the country: one would have expected that the poorer, weaker sections would have fared better and that, if all this prosperity were available and if we had embarked on this high road, it would have been reflected in the Minister's Estimate. The House will appreciate that despite the Minister's remark during the Budget debate that what was being done in the Budget would abate the effects of the cost of living increases arising from the turnover tax and the incidence of other additional taxation, the reverse is the case.

I said a lot more than that.

We must assume that the people affected will have families who will be contributing to our taxation code. There are many people of such an age and of such poor circumstances that they will qualify for State benefits, yet the Minister and the Government have done nothing to abate the impact on the family in consequence of the increased taxation—there is no indication of any step forward in social advances to assist these people. Is there any indication in the Minister's statement that there is a proposal to modify the means test for old age pensioners? There is none. Is there any proposal that it is the intention to lower the qualifying age for old age pensions? There is none.

The people expected many things but there is no indication here of increases in the amounts recipients of benefits will get to help them overcome existing cost of living increases, let alone those projected. On other occasions we have allowed sufficient time for the Department to gear themselves to the administrative problem of granting increases from the time the Government decide these awards shall be forthcoming. In this case the aged people, beneficiaries under projected increases, will have to wait until November, that is, those of them who survive that long, to derive any benefits. There is a feeling abroad that, in the circumstances as presented by the Government so affirmatively over a period, there would be this year a considerable step taken towards improving the lot of State beneficiaries. I have nothing further to say in relation to the general content of the Minister's statement other than to emphasise again the confusion of figures existing in it arising out of circumstances over which the Minister has very little control. I have referred to the absence of any clearcut policy regarding unemployment or any clearcut advance in benefits to those whom we will be forced to help in their distress.

I want to go back to a matter which I have brought to the Minister's attention in other years, the hardship inflicted on a few people—the fact that their numbers are few does not detract from its seriousness—who have been deserted by their husbands, who have been unable satisfactorily to prove the death of their partners and who have consequently been deprived of recognition for the purpose of widows' non-contributory pensions. We have been given to understand by the Minister in reply to questions on previous occasions that the number is limited. That is not sufficient reason for denying to the many legitimate widows in poor circumstances the benefits to which they are entitled when their partners are dead.

God knows, life has been hard enough on them in the loss of their partners without imposing the extra cruelty of depriving them of their just dues when they reach the qualifying age. The State could take a more charitable view of their circumstances and regard them as qualifying in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the partner is alive. Possibly I am influenced by the fact that there are one or two cases in which I have a special interest, but I would again urge the Minister, after every reasonable effort has been made to secure determination of whether or not the partner has died, to give the wife the benefit of any reasonable suspicion that the husband is dead.

If the Deputy will give me details of any particular cases——

In fact, I am dealing with the Minister's Department at the moment on this question. As I have heard other Deputies refer to this problem, I assume there are a number of these unfortunates throughout the country. I would ask the Minister to revise the official attitude in regard to them and to grant this necessary assistance to enable them to eke out a reasonable living.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn