Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Jul 1968

Vol. 236 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1968: Second Stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the decisions of the Government announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement on 23rd April last to increase the rates of non-contributory old age, blind, widows' and orphans' pensions and unemployment assistance, to increase the rates of various social insurance benefits and pensions and to modify the means test for old age pensions in the case of veterans of the War of Independence. In addition, the Bill includes a number of provisions designed to amend and extend the social insurance and assistance schemes. Some of these changes are consequential on the decisions announced in the Budget Statement. Others are the outcome of examination of existing provisions with a view to effecting improvements or eliminating anomalies which is carried out as a normal part of the work of my Department.

The Bill is, of necessity, drafted mainly by way of amendments to existing Acts. I have, therefore, had the explanatory memorandum which was issued with the Bill made as comprehensive and informative as possible so that it will be clear what each amendment really does where the text of the Bill itself is not self-explanatory. I trust that Deputies will find it of assistance to them.

The Budget increases in social assistance, which it is proposed to bring into operation at the beginning of August next, will give an extra 7/6d a week to all existing non-contributory old age, blind, widow and orphan pensioners, making the maximum personal rate of old age and blind pension £3 5s a week and the maximum personal rate of widow's pension £3 3s 6d a week. In addition, an extra 2/6d a week will be given in respect of each qualified child of a pensioner making the weekly rate 12/6d for each of the first two children and 7/6d for each subsequent child. These increases in the pension rates will enable the scale of means and rates of pension to be extended in each case to give additional rates at the bottom of the scale which will be payable to persons who are outside the present means limit for pension. Where there are qualified children, the means limit is, of course, raised in respect of each qualified child.

The rates of unemployment assistance for persons in urban and rural areas are also being increased by 7/6d a week for the recipient himself. A further 7/6d will be payable where there is an adult dependant and an additional 2/6d for each qualified child. The maximum rate will then be £2 11s 6d for a single person and £4 17s 6d for a married couple resident in an urban area. It will be £2 5s 6d for a single person and £4 9s 6d for a married couple resident outside an urban area. These increases of unemployment assistance at the maximum will have the effect of automatically extending the means limit for qualification for unemployment assistance.

The increases in rates of social insurance benefits and pensions will come into operation at the beginning of January next. They will provide an extra 7/6d a week for recipients of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity allowance, widow's (contributory) pension, orphan's (contributory) allowance and old age (contributory) pension. There will also be an additional 7/6d a week for an adult dependant and an extra 2/6d a week for each qualified child. The personal rates of unemployment and disability benefit will then be £3 5s a week for a single person and £5 17s 6d for a married couple. A widow without children will get £3 5s a week while an old age (contributory) pensioner who is single will get £3 12s 6d, the rate for a married couple being £6 12s 6d. The rates for children will be 15/6d for each of the first two and 10/6d for each subsequent child. Certain rates of unemployment benefit which are payable after 156 days are the same as the maximum rates of unemployment assistance payable in urban areas. As assistance rates are being increased from the beginning of August next, these particular rates of unemployment benefit will be increased at the same time.

To meet the extra expenditure on the increased rates of benefits and pensions, an increase in the social insurance contributions payable by employers and employees is necessary. In recent years, the Exchequer has had to bear considerably more than one-third of the cost of the social insurance scheme, and accordingly, and as forecast by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement, the increase in contributions from employers and employees provided for in the Bill has been calculated so as to adjust the Exchequer's burden nearer to the traditional one-third. It is proposed, therefore, to increase the rates of social insurance contributions, where all insurance benefits are covered, by 3s 4d a week, with lesser increases where only some of the benefits are covered. The increase of 3s 4d in the ordinary rate of men's contribution will be shared equally by the employer and employee and the total contribution will then be 21s 4d a week. To this, however, must be added the existing contributions of 2s 1d paid by the employer in respect of occupational injuries insurance and of 1s paid under the redundancy scheme, of which 8d is by the employer and 4d by the employee. The increase in the rates of voluntary contribution covering widows' and orphans' pensions will only be 6d, and will be 1s 2d in the contribution which covers also old age (contributory) pension. A table showing the present and proposed rates of contribution appears in the explanatory memorandum. On the basis of this year's estimates of expenditure plus the additional costs incurred by the provisions of the Bill, and taking account of the expected yield in a full year of the increases in contribution rates proposed, it is estimated that the Exchequer contribution will be close to one-third of the expenditure from the social insurance fund.

The rates of unemployability supplement and of payments in respect of adult dependants and qualified children under the occupational injuries scheme are also being increased from January next. These payments came into operation on 1st May, 1967 and were then equal to corresponding payments under the disability and unemployment benefit schemes but they were not increased when the latter were increased in January, 1968. The increases now proposed will restore the parity that originally existed. It is estimated that the annual cost of these improvements in the occupational injuries scheme will be about £75,000. It is not, however, necessary to increase the present contribution of 2s 1d to meet them.

The Bill provides a new benefit for old age pensioners, both contributory and non-contributory, and for contributory widow pensioners aged 70 and over. This benefit takes the form of an increase of pension of 45/- a week in respect of a prescribed female relative where the pensioner is so incapacitated as to require full-time care and attention and is living alone or has no other adult living with him who is capable of looking after him. It will be necessary for the prescribed female relative to have a reasonably good employment record and to have specifically given up employment in order to look after the pensioner. It is my intention to prescribe a daughter under the regulations to be made, as a daughter is most likely to be concerned in such cases. There will, however, be power to prescribe other female relatives as satisfying the conditions for the payment, if it should ultimately be found desirable and feasible to do so.

The Minister for Finance in his Budget statement announced that the Government as a token of recognition to those who served in the War of Independence had decided that Old IRA pensions or allowances would be disregarded completely in future when assessing means for old age pension purposes, Hitherto only the first £80 of these pensions or allowances was disregarded. I have arranged to extend this total disregard to applicants for widows' pensions and unemployment assistance and the Bill provides accordingly.

Up to 1966 a person receiving old age (contributory) pension or widow's (contributory) pension was disqualified for receiving the corresponding non-contributory pension. In that year, statutory provision was made to enable the contributory pensioners mentioned to opt for the appropriate non-contributory pension, if they satisfied the conditions for its receipt and it would be of advantage to them to do so. The necessity for this arose because, as a result of increases in non-contributory pensions, some of the higher rates of these pensions exceeded some of the lower rates of contributory pensions. From August next, when non-contributory pensions are increased, until January next, when contributory pensions are increased, cases will arise where the non-contributory pension would be temporarily more favourable than the corresponding contributory pension. It was never the intention that the provisions of the 1966 Act should operate in such circumstances and the Departmental machinery is not geared for short-term switching from one pension to the other and back again. There is a provision in the Bill, therefore, to prevent switching from one pension to another where the advantage would be a temporary one only, but the right of a pensioner to switch where the advantage would be permanent will not be affected.

At present, redundancy contributions are collected by the Department of Labour by means of a separate stamp. From the beginning of January next, the Bill will enable these contributions to be collected with social insurance contributions by means of a single stamp and the necessary adjustments to be made between the social insurance fund and the redundancy fund. This arrangement will be more convenient for employers and employees.

A new superannuation scheme is being introduced by the Minister for Health to cover nurses and other persons employed in voluntary hospitals and by organisations providing district nursing services such as those providing Jubilee and Lady Dudley nurses. When admitted to the scheme, the position of these employees will be similar to that of their counterparts in the hospital and district nursing services of local health authorities who are insurable for widows' and orphans' pensions and occupational injuries purposes only. There is provision in the Bill, therefore, to enable the insurance position of employees being admitted to the new superannuation scheme to be modified so that they will be similarly insurable.

I do not propose to go into any greater detail at this stage as I feel sure that the explanatory memorandum will have given Deputies a good picture of the proposals in the Bill and of their effects. It may, however, be helpful to Deputies if I summarise the cost of the various proposals in the Bill. On the social assistance side, there is £2,284,000 for old age and blind pensions, £406,000 for widows' and orphans' pensions and £810,000 for unemployment assistance, the total cost being £3½ million in a full year, all of which will fall on the Exchequer. The gross cost of improvements on the social insurance side will be £5,719,000. Allowing for an increased annual income of £4,656,500 to be raised from the increases in rates of contributions, the cost to be met by the Exchequer will be £1,062,500 in a full year.

I have much pleasure in recommending the Bill to Dáil Éireann and I ask for speedy and favourable consideration of it.

Mr. Ryan

The only disappointment of the Fine Gael Party in relation to this Bill is that it is not doing more. I suspect that the Minister for Social Welfare is not that far distant from us in sharing that point of view, but he shares with the Government collective responsibility for the inadequacy of this measure. To the Fine Gael mind— it has been said before and I repeat it —the old age pension should not be less than £4 a week and to offer less than £4 a week to an old age pensioner who has no means is to say that our society accepts that a person of 70 years or over must have a diet which is less than sufficient to maintain body and soul together.

We appreciate that this year there is an increase of 7/6d. This brings it only to £3 5s. That is 10/- per week less than any nutritional expert tells us is necessary to provide an elderly person with an adequate diet. This is another example of the lack of thinking on the part of the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health and Government agencies in general. This is one of the reasons why we have in this country the highest rate of institutional care of any country in the world. It is because we are not providing people at home with sufficient diet to keep them in good health. It is because we are not supplying them with sufficient money to clothe themselves properly. It is because we are not supplying them with sufficient money to enable them to provide food for themselves that we have a larger number of old people in hospitals and institutions in this country than there are in any other country in the world.

This is a simple fact. Unfortunately, the Government have not yet grasped it and our people yet do not seem to comprehend it. The simple fact is that we are the most institutionalised country in the world. It is far dearer and less humane to say to any person —we will not keep you in good health but we will keep you in an institution. The result is that we have today three to four times the amount per week per capita that would be sufficient to keep the people in good health and ensure good care at home.

Several social studies were undertaken by-qualified social workers in Dublin, Limerick and Cork, and the results published. I think that to some extent they awakened some people in any event to the horror that exists in our midst of hungry old people and hungry families. It has made people realise that destitution is a real thing in our land. The pity is that the Government instead of resisting this standard do not admit that this is true and that they must do something about it instead of brushing this pitiful condition under the political carpet.

The Government have a duty and people in public life have a duty. That is why we in Fine Gael are discharging this duty to convince our people of the need to devote more and more of our national resources to the relief of the misery which is rampant and unnecessary in our lives. One-ninth of our population are in receipt of social welfare benefits of one kind or another and that one-ninth is deliberately kept at that low figure by various forms of means tests, many of which, Sir, were set five and ten years ago when incomes were larger nominally than they are now. The various levels of means tests have not increased in line with variations in income. The result is that widows with young families who, some years ago, might have gone out on one or two days' work without impairing their pension are unable to go out and do that work now without having a severe cut in their pension if they claim wages at existing wage rates.

We think this is a serious error and a serious reflection on the inability and disinclination of the Minister for Social Welfare to annually revise all means tests. The situation is, Sir, that while one-ninth of our people are in receipt of social welfare contributions of one kind or another they receive only one-thirtieth of the wealth and resources of this nation. That does not seem just. It is not just. It is grossly unfair. That it is in existence is something which this country should be ashamed of; that one-ninth of our people are by deliberate decision of the Government kept to a low level and receive only one-thirtieth of the total resources of this country. That is not a redistribution of the wealth of a country that we should be proud of. That is not using the art and skill of transfer payments in the way in which any modern democracy should use them.

We in Fine Gael say that the old age pension should not be less than £4 a week. That will not make any old age pensioner well-to-do or give him a degree of comfort which is not available to anybody else; £4 a week will give only an adequate diet and over and above that a paltry sum to meet whatever requirements arise as they do from time to time. We also believe that there should be one year after another a very definite trend towards the introduction of old age pensions at 65 years of age. This must come. Even with the Fianna Fáil Party unwilling to accept it, it must come. It is inevitable and if there is a change of Government it certainly will come about. It may well be that one is disturbed by the magnitude of the burden that might be imposed in any one year if we were to move from 70 to 65 in one step. The solution is to move year by year so that over a five-year period you would reduce the old age pension from 70 to 65. That is the least we can achieve. It should be possible to do more but with the Government disinclined to make this move, I would urge on them, if they are serious about entering into closer association with the EEC, that they must accept as a minimum requirement, what the Minister has on other occasions tried to make light of, the social obligations in the Treaty of Rome. One hears about the onus, the obligations and restrictions on one's economy which are imposed by the Treaty of Rome and they are very real impositions but there is another imposition which one need have no fear of and that is the obligation of raising our social standards to a level compatible with those in other European countries. There is no room for manoeuvring or misleading on the issue of the old age pension at 65.

The Minister and his predecessors have, from time to time, made light of other figures we have produced to show that, in Ireland, we are paying only about two-thirds of the amounts paid in roughly equivalent countries such as Austria and Italy for the social welfare classes. On such occasions, the Minister has suggested there are different criteria in relation to social welfare benefit and that we cannot compare like with like because like does not exist. The interesting thing, in relation to the Minister's comments, is that one of the most significant variations lies in the fact that Ireland is the only European country which includes the cost of institutionalised care for welfare recipients within the percentage of the gross national product which is set out as donated to the under-privileged. As I said earlier, the high cost of institutional care is something we ought to look at. It completely throws out of proper perspective any figures this country produces to suggest the picture is not as bad as might otherwise be argued.

We are very sorry also that the widows in Ireland continue to be a forgotten section of the community. We have some 120,000 widows and families and we ought to be ashamed of the manner in which we treat them. Not only do we not give them benefits which would enable the mothers to discharge their primary duty of being at home to rear young children but, if they go out to work, we punish them by giving them benefits lower than those available to other sections of the community. I strongly urge on the Minister and appeal to him to have a special consideration for the widows— those on whom life has been hard, those upon whom fall the dual obligations of fatherhood and motherhood. We think these people have a first claim upon our resources and upon our care. We are very disappointed indeed that special consideration has not been given to widows at this juncture.

May we also express our grave disappointment that nothing has been done about the worst children's allowances in the world? In some cases, they run at only one-sixth of the rates paid in other countries. We should be particularly ashamed of the fact that we attempt to scale down, rather than to improve, children's allowances in cases of young families. At long, long last, there is an awareness, apparently, on the part of the Government of the need to give better children's allowances to those in need and, if necessary, to do this by withdrawing children's allowances from those who do not need the small monetary payments at present made under the heading of "Children's Allowances". Apart from the fact that they are better off, they also receive various concessions in income tax. Whatever else may be said about income tax, it is a fair indication of a person's capacity to pay because it is charged only against those who have the income upon which the tax is levied.

However, we ought to be thoroughly ashamed of our children's allowances as they are paid at the moment. We think it is not satisfactory enough to hear from the Minister for Social Welfare—as we have been hearing for some time past—that he is studying the matter. Fianna Fáil appear to forget that they have been continuously in office for the past 11 years and it is no answer to the multitude of problems besetting this country to say that they are studying the matter in depth or are closely examining the matter. Phrases of that kind are merely a device to achieve further and further procrastination. The surest way of killing anything is to have it "under active consideration" by a Minister. We are not at all encouraged by the assurance of the Minister that he has the matter of children's allowances under examination.

We welcome the section of the Bill which provides for a pension of £2 5s a week where a family relative of a pensioner is giving attention to a disabled pensioner. We would urge upon the Minister, however, not to prescribe a daughter under the regulations as the only person entitled to collect this benefit. To say that, if found desirable and feasible to do so, ultimately the regulations may be amended to allow other relatives to get this benefit is not giving us much hope that, in our own time, the necessary improvement will be made. There are very many family associations, of which the Minister must be aware, in which nieces, grand-daughters, cousins and other close associates of the family give up work in order to look after elderly relatives. Whether or not it is in expectation of being remembered in the will, one does not know.

Mr. Corish

If he has to undergo a means test, he will not leave much.

Mr. Ryan

Exactly. If we bring in this much-needed supplementary benefit to the old age pensioner—that is really what it is because the person is living in the old age pensioner's house—we ought to do it without this rather unfortunate discrimination between a daughter and any other female relative. The test should be whether or not care is being given. If we apply the question whether or not employment is being given up, then these tests ought to be adequate enough rather than looking for birth certificates, and so on, to establish parenthood. I would ask the Minister to take another look at this so that it would be feasible to provide for a wider range of relative than that of daughter alone.

The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Hilliard, in reply to a Parliamentary Question of mine on 1st February last, said it was not feasible to estimate the cost of providing free travel facilities for veterans of the War of Independence and, on that account, the Minister said he was not prepared to grant free transport facilities to veterans of the War of Independence. "Feasible" is a very dangerous word for the Minister to use. When he says a thing is not "feasible", we suspect a day will come when he will find it quite feasible to do it—and he will then claim the political credit for it. Let the Minister be aware that we shall hang around his neck that, on this day in July, 1968, he said he does not at present consider it feasible to have relatives other than daughters getting the benefit of £2 5s per week when they are looking after an old age pensioner—a person who would not be classified as such unless he were entitled to the old age pension under the very strict and stringent means test which we apply at the present time.

We are delighted the Bill has been used to provide a single stamp for the redundancy and other social insurance contributions operated by the Minister's Department. It is a reform we strongly advocated a couple of years ago and have continued to advocate ever since. I have not had time to check the records. I suspect the word "non-feasibility" was used around that time in relation to that simple reform. We are glad it has now been found possible to do it. Even though we have to wait until January, 1969, for its coming into operation, we are glad this simple thing is being done.

We in the Fine Gael Party also welcome the fact that a superannuation scheme will be introduced by the Minister for Health to cover nurses and other personnel employed in voluntary hospitals and by various district nursing associations. This is something which we have been advocating for a long time and we welcome the scheme and the fact that the Minister is now taking the necessary power in this Bill to adjust the insurance contributions payable in respect of such people. However, might I express the hope that the changes now being made in the conditions of service and employment of the nurses will not prejudice married nurses from returning to the nursing profession if they want to, after marriage, at rates of pay equivalent to what they would be receiving if they had not married?

At present we are beginning to suffer from something which has been afflicting nations all over the world, a shortage of qualified nurses. The shortage of nurses in other parts of the world has caused people to look to Ireland for supplies of nurses and more and more intensive drives are being put into advertising and recruiting campaigns to attract nurses from our hospitals and public nursing services. This already is having a damaging effect on our nursing, medical and hospital services and the Minister should take care that anything he does now by way of amending the terms of employment will not dig a further spadeful of trouble for the nursing profession.

I should like to express the disappointment of the Fine Gael Party that the Minister has not taken steps to amend the outdated regulation which provides that where old age pensioners and other welfare beneficiaries have savings, a certain notional value of the savings must be taken into account in assessing means. For many years past the first £25 of such savings may be disregarded in calculating means. My information is and I think it is reasonable to accept this as being valid, that the £25 was fixed at a time when the cost of a funeral and burial was in or about £25. Nowadays a decent funeral and burial costs about £75 and can cost more. Our people with their natural respect for the dead and having a natural and proper horror of a pauper's grave like to provide a reasonable sum to meet their funeral expenses.

An Ceann Comhairle

This of course does not arise on the Bill.

Mr. Ryan

I am requesting the Minister to consider taking the necessary steps to amend the law and I think when discussing the Second Stage——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Bill is to put Budget proposals into effect. It does not open up a complete discussion on social welfare.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate that, but the Bill is not confined to what is in the Budget and the Minister has made a number of provisions in the Bill for matters which were not in the Budget. The Chair will concede that I have deliberately avoided dealing with the administration of the Department with which we dealt last week. However, I have no wish to trespass on your kindness or on the time of the House more than is necessary. I would just ask the Minister to take a look at this way of assessing means where a pensioner has savings, because £25 has no relation to the cost of funerals or burials today. Having regard to the time-lag which appears to be inevitable in regard to any social welfare legislation, I would ask the Minister to provide that the first £100 be disregarded when assessing means on savings.

I would also appeal to the Minister to amend the ridiculous law which assesses the remainder of the pensioner's means at ten per cent. There are very few old age pensioners who are receiving as much as ten per cent or anything like it on their savings and to assume this notional value of their income is quite ridiculous and has no justification in finance.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is not based on that calculation.

Mr. Ryan

It is perhaps based on an assumption that they will be wasting part of their capital and that——

Mr. J. Brennan

It is based on an estimate of what could purchase a life annuity for a particular time.

Mr. Ryan

In many cases there are only a couple of hundred pounds left and there are very few elderly people with sufficient sophistication to understand what the purchase of a life annuity means. However, all this is in the realm of high finance and the time has come for a very careful reappraisal of the whole basis of assessing means based on the savings of pensioners if they have been providing a little for the rainy day or for the many emergencies for which State welfare schemes do not cope. They should be treated more leniently than they are.

Finally, I should just like to reiterate that the Fine Gael Party are disappointed that this Bill is not achieving more, and that we are not doing sufficient for the many people who have given a great deal to the country who ask for very little and in many cases get a great deal less and in most cases nothing at all.

Mr. Corish

The Labour Party will certainly give this measure speedy and favourable passage through the Dáil. In the main, it provides for the social welfare proposals announced by the Minister for Finance in the Budget. The Minister has given us an accurate estimate of the cost of these improvements in social insurance and social assistance. I suppose, like Deputy Ryan, we could all say that we are disappointed that they are not more. There could be more but the entire responsibility lies not with the Minister but with the community as a whole and our attitude towards the people who have been so eloquently described by Deputy Ryan as the people who are dependent completely on the £3 a week, those in receipt of unemployment assistance, non-contributory widows' pensions and those dependent on the miserable home assistance that county councils dole out to them.

We in the Labour Party have the right attitude and we have displayed it every time there have been proposals for improving the welfare benefits by voting in Dáil Éireann for the taxes that the various Ministers for Finance proposed in order to finance many of the increases. Last year, and the year before and the year before that, we had no hesitation, once the Minister made his proposals known, in announcing that we proposed to support the tax proposals in order that social welfare could be improved. On this occasion we approved of an increase of 2d per packet of 20 cigarettes, an increase in the price of petrol and an increase in the prices of certain types of drink. This we gladly did and if the Minister had proposed double these increases, we would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to vote against his proposals. If the taxes I have mentioned give us these increases, they are to be welcomed, certainly by the Labour Party.

I think we should be prepared to make a breakthrough as far as old age pensioners, widows, those who are sick or on the dole are concerned. If we looked in other directions, we could get money by way of taxation in order to ensure that they will have a standard even better than that demanded by the Fine Gael Party of £4 a week. I do not think that £4 a week would be at all sufficient.

Mr. Ryan

As a start.

Mr. Corish

It would be a good start but we have never had established a proper financial standard for the people about whom we are talking. I do not think that in 1968 the sum of £4 would be sufficient. In the past few years we have had consistent increases, the maximum being last year when it was 10s per week.

Mark you, this is 1968 and still the non-contributory old age pensioner has only £3 5s per week. Sixty years ago he had 10/-. All we have done, therefore, is to multiply by six. If we have regard to prices, wages and salaries, we have not done a great deal for the old age pensioner. I know the Minister is bursting to get up and remind me of the time when I was Minister for Social Welfare. Fair enough: I am not here to score political points. All I am trying to show is that, whilst the initiative lies with the Minister for Social Welfare, he has not the full responsibility. The full responsibility for these people lies with the community itself and there should be an acceptance by those who are comfortable, or relatively well off, that they will have to give more if these people are to have a proper standard and if they are to live as ordinary, decent human beings.

There are many more people who could be covered by social welfare. I made a plea here by way of Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Social Welfare asking for some scheme of social welfare for spinsters, those women who have always stayed at home looking after parents. At the age of 45, 50 or 55, they find themselves without any resources whatsoever. They are not eligible for sickness benefit, unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. The only establishments they can approach are the boards of assistance. From our experience we know what these boards can afford. We know the small amounts they give. The Minister should, through his Department, formalise some sort of scheme to provide for these people.

We should be ashamed of ourselves as far as our system of home assistance is concerned. Home assistance is given to people who have no resources and who are not eligible for any of the social welfare benefits. As far as I am aware, the average payment is about 25/- to 30/- a week. That is a scandal. The responsibility for home assistance was put on the county councils by the Public Assistance Act of 1939. I suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider the establishment of some form of national assistance, which would be the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare, in order to ensure there would be a sufficient sum given to these people and in order to ensure uniformity in payments. I suggest each local authority should contribute annually to the Minister some sum in accordance with a prescribed scale. The Minister's Department could then distribute the money. As it is, the least thought of money is that in the field of home assistance. The Minister would be well advised to evolve some sort of scheme of national assistance such as that which operates in Britain.

The Minister has made other improvements, more in the nature of tidying up than anything else. He referred to the contributions and he said that the financial arrangements were such that the three parties involved—the Minister, the employer and the employee—paid roughly one-third. It is fair that the State should pay one-third but I do not think it is fair that the employer should get away with one-third. We have always maintained on these benches that the employer has a greater responsibility towards his employees than he has appreciated up to the present. I have cited instances of inanimate objects towards which employers exercise a greater responsibility than they do towards their employees. If a machine is not in use, it has to be cleaned and oiled. If premises are not in use, they have to be repainted and kept in repair. There is no similar provision in relation to employees. When they are sick, they get £2 17s 6d a week. If they are unemployed, they also get £2 17s 6d. I believe these rates could be stepped up if we got more from the employer. That would not be unusual because in most European countries the employer pays a far bigger share into the fund than does the State or the employee. I do not think we should be afraid to tackle the proper financing of the Social Insurance Fund by requiring more from the employer, who should have a greater financial responsibility for his employees.

I do not know whether the Minister has given consideration to a proposal by the Labour Party over the last five or six years. It was, indeed, one of the planks in our election platform as far as social welfare is concerned. Have we ever thought in terms of graded contributions and graded benefits? At the moment the man with £10 a week pays 11/6 or 12/- as his share. The insured person with £20 a week pays the same amount. Both get the same benefit. This £2 17s 6d is a big come-down for the man with £10 a week, but it is an even bigger come-down for the man with £20 a week. There should be some grading in respect of contributions and benefits.

I exhort the Minister to have another look at the excellent provision he has made for those who look after old age pensioners. This provision is welcomed by the Labour Party. However, like Deputy Ryan, I do not know why it should be confined to daughters. It can be established who looks after an old age pensioner in the circumstances described by the Minister, and a sister or a relative should not be debarred from obtaining this allowance of 45/-a week. Neither do I know why it should be confined to a female relative. I know cases in which brothers of old age pensioners have this particular task and they have no incomes or pensions of any kind. But they look after old age pensioners and look after them very well. I do not know why these people should not qualify. I do not think the Minister is bound by the section; he can determine the type of person by way of regulation. He should examine the matter a little further; if he does, he will discover that this should not be confined to daughters of old age pensioners. Other relatives perform this task and, in many cases, neighbours do it.

The total cost is £4½ million. That is fairly easily got when one remembers the proposals of the Minister for Finance and the way in which the country accepted the increased taxes when they knew exactly where the money was going. In this case the bulk of the taxes in this year's Budget was devoted to social welfare. As I said in the beginning, as far as the Labour Party are concerned, if taxes similar to those proposed in the last Budget were proposed it would Se impossible for us in the Labour Party to resist them knowing that they were going to deserving people such as are catered for in this measure.

Mr. O'Hara

I do not want to delay the passage of this measure. Comments have been made on the Bill by previous speakers, some of them favourable and some critical. Naturally, it is easy to criticise. I think there are some good points in this measure but there is one point in particular that I want to make before the debate concludes. As the Minister appreciates, in rural areas such as the congested counties there is the situation, which has existed for a long number of years, where old people are living alone. They may be old age pensioners or persons in receipt of widows' pensions. In many cases their dwellings are situated along boreens or two or three miles up a side-road. When the investigation officer discovers that an applicant for a pension has, perhaps, £1,000, £1,500 or £2,000 in the bank or post office, he comes to the conclusion that the applicant is extremely wealthy and not entitled to the social welfare pension.

The Minister must be very familiar with the type of case I have in mind. The Minister comes from a rural constituency similar to mine. He is aware that the money that the investigation officer is told about, on inquiry, has been sent by members of the family, mainly from England or, as would apply in the Minister's constituency more than in mine, from Scotland. Seven or eight members of a family may emigrate and may like to help the people at home. Subsequently, some member of the family may return to the old home and try to eke out an existence there on the smallholding and perhaps go occasionally to England or take work with the county council in order to supplement his income. The fact that members of families go away and send home sums of money for the father or mother to lodge in the bank or post office until such time as they return to Ireland has the effect of depriving applicants of pensions. It is regrettable that applicants should have to undergo the humiliation of cross-examination by these investigation officers when one thinks of the hardships and difficulties that confront these people all their lives.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy O'Hara but this is outside the scope of the Bill which implements the Budget decisions. The whole social welfare code does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. O'Hara

I shall not ramble on. I want to make one point to the Minister, if you will allow me, in about two minutes. In these congested areas it would be cheaper to grant the maximum amount of pension on application rather than have investigation officers investigating the means of the applicants. We all know that the people are fleeing the land fast enough. There would be some incentive for these old people and their families to remain in these congested districts if maximum pension were granted without a means test. No additional expenditure would be involved. The saving in the salaries and travelling expenses of investigation officers would be sufficient to offset the cost.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Ryan, the Fine Gael spokesman on social welfare, has dealt with this measure in its general terms and, indeed, very fully. I rise merely to deal with two points that need attention. I do not propose to take up very much time.

The first point that I want to make and which I regret has not been dealt with in the Bill, is the question of emigrants. Emigration has been a problem in this country for a great many years, indeed, I suppose, since the Famine. Emigration is likely to continue to be necessary for a certain percentage of our people in the foreseeable future. Emigration has a twofold disadvantage: it affects the people who emigrate and the people who remain at home. Appeals have been made on a number of occasions in this House to the Minister and to the Minister for External Affairs to help societies or organisations such as those who run the Irish Centre in London. The Minister has pointed out the difficulties that lie in that direction.

Emigration affects the people who remain at home and, in particular, the old people who remain at home. They are stricken with the disease which I may call loneliness. Old persons who are left at home by sons or daughters who have to emigrate find themselves with no immediate relative to look after them or to console them or to provide them with family comforts. I come immediately to the point. At the present time if the recipient of a non-contributory old age pension decides to go to England to join a married son or daughter he forfeits his right to receive the non-contributory pension. I appealed to the Minister last year and have appealed to him since I became a Member of this House to change that regulation and to provide by legislation that a person who attains the age of 70 years and who goes across the water to enjoy the company, and to have the benefit and care, of a son and daughter there will be entitled to continue to draw the old age pension which he or she is qualified to receive as long as they remain at home. There may be administrative difficulties in doing this but I do not think they are real. I concede that there is a means test in respect of the non-contributory old age pension but nobody in this country qualifies for the non-contributory old age pension until he or she has reached the age of 70 years. Before he receives that pension, he is subjected to a means test. It is ascertained that he is not in possession of any wealth or any property. The only way in which his means could vary would be if he were to inherit a legacy or some wealth.

I am speaking of the old person receiving a non-contributory old age pension at home who is living alone in very lonely circumstances, maybe in an out-of-the-way place such as described by other Deputies, particularly Deputy O'Hara. In order to retain his pension, that old person has three courses open to him: (1) to remain in this isolated loneliness in the back of beyond and perhaps ultimately be found dead; (2) to go into a local institution commonly known even yet as the county home——

Mr. O'Hara

You would want a lot of "pull" to get in there now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan):——and thereupon become a burden on the ratepayers and taxpayers and have it cost the community in general much more than the old age pension to maintain him there; and (3) to go across to a son or daughter in Great Britain, perhaps a daughter married to a person who has never been in this country, and become a person with no means absolutely dependent on the generosity of the British husband who married his daughter.

Before this measure leaves this House, we should decide here and now to pay a non-contributory old age pension to a person qualified for it even if that person emigrates to Great Britain or elsewhere, but particularly Great Britain because that is where the problem mostly arises, provided that person emigrates to Britain to join a son or daughter. If there are any difficulties or if we fear that these old people who go to Great Britain may suddenly become wealthy and enjoy incomes which would exclude them from the benefits of the Old Age Pension Acts if they remained at home, then I have no hesitation in saying we should have a couple of social welfare officers stationed in Great Britain who would go around and check up on these people's means as they do at home.

There is no use closing our eyes to emigration and its problems. Down through the years it has created difficulties in family life and so on. But it is a cruel state of affairs that an old person should be consigned to utter loneliness at home or to the coldness of a country home when the person could go across to Great Britain and join a son or daughter. I do not consider it any answer for the Minister to say there is nothing to prevent him going across and joining a son or daughter but he will not get the old age pension. We know, human nature being as it is, these old people are not prepared to forgo their old age pension. They regard it as something they have earned and something to which they are entitled. Even with the penalty of being deprived of the company, companionship and care of their own kith and kin, they are not prepared to forgo the pension.

As recently as this week—may be this is what has prompted me to raise this question again—I had a query from one of my constituents who proposed going over to join a daughter in England. Before she went over, she wanted to ensure she would be entitled to the old age pension. I do not know how much it would take to keep one or two social welfare officers in Great Britain, but it would be money reasonably well spent. I want to emphasise that we have this problem of emigration. We are not prepared to face up to it by appointing welfare officers to Great Britain. We are not prepared to face up to it by continuing to pay the old age pension to people who are in receipt of it here but who are forced by family circumstances to join sons and daughters in Great Britain who were themselves forced by economic circumstances here to emigrate in order to earn a living. It is as simple as that. I make a sincere appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. I am sure that if he does, he will find he has the House behind him, even if it does entail some small expenditure to implement my suggestion.

The only other point I want to make is in reference to the difficult problem of the final 5s in old age pensions, that is, the 5s only payable to people who have no means whatever. This is giving a lot of trouble. I do not know what it would cost to pay this 5s to every old age pensioner, irrespective of whether he has any means or not. Maybe this final 5s, as I will call it, was meant to catch the pensioner who transfers his farm to a son or daughter and reserves the right of residence, support and maintenance, but I want to tell the Minister it does not catch that person. There are ways and means of getting around that.

It is unfair that a person who has accumulated a couple of hundred pounds for an emergency should be deprived of this final 5s. As the Minister knows, the income from that couple of hundred pounds is negligible. The person who transfers his farm to his son is entitled to take the precaution of retaining a right of residence, support and maintenance in the deed of transfer if he cannot think of any better or more effective way of securing that he will be supported and maintained during the rest of his life. There is of course an equally effective way but that is beside the point.

The position, therefore, is that a person may transfer his farm to his son and protect himself but on the other hand an old person living in lodgings, perhaps, who has accumulated a couple of hundred pounds or even £50 —I shall not come to the marginal figure of £25 or whatever it is—and wants to keep that between himself and destitution in order to provide a decent burial is deprived of the final 5/-. It is an objectionable provision in the social welfare code and I think it should be abolished.

Those are the only points I want to make. I feel equally strongly on both of them. The Minister should give greater consideration to the position of emigrants and also to the position of the person with a small amount of money in the bank.

Mr. James Tully

I know the Minister is anxious to get in as there are a number of other matters to be completed tonight. First, I think the increase in the contribution, while we welcome the increase in benefit, is pretty steep. The amount being paid for a stamp now is substantial. Employees have been complaining to me that at present they do not believe they are getting value for their money. Perhaps if they live to be 70, they may. When wages are being negotiated, the employer nearly always mentions, along with wages, what it costs to stamp a card. The employee is doing the same. While the Minister wants to make it a three-way arrangement, one-third each for the employer, employee and the State, it is a bit rough to increase the stamp by a further 3/4d a week. I suppose it is no use hoping that anything can be done about it at this stage.

While the Minister talks about a new superannuation scheme which is being introduced by the Minister for Health to cover nurses and others in voluntary hospitals, is he aware of the rather peculiar situation which has built up in local authority employment in respect of what are known as minor officers, ambulance drivers, wards-maids and so on who might be stamping cards for many years before being created minor officers and then ceasing to stamp cards? When these people come to retire at 65, they retire with nothing except whatever gratuity or pension—if they qualify for it—the local authority gives them. Can the Minister do anything to allow these people, by voluntary contributions or otherwise, to qualify for a pension? I know some of them who have not been officers long enough to qualify for a sizeable gratuity or for a pension and have been too long officers to enable them to qualify for the old age pension and are completely out so far as unemployment benefit is concerned between 65 and 70. It is too bad that this should be so and I am sure that if there is any way in which the Minister can help he will do so.

He referred in his introductory remarks to something that is a good idea. He proposes to introduce a new payment for somebody who has a dependent relative or an adult living with a pensioner. For instance, a female relative living with a pensioner who is so incapacitated as to require full-time care and attention would get a payment of £45 a year. There is a rather peculiar phrase used here. Has the Minister given attention to it? It says: "It will be necessary for the prescribed female relative to have a reasonably good employment record and to have specifically given up employment in order to look after the pensioner." What is "a reasonably good employment record"? Is this another ten year sentence? If so, the Minister should say so. We had this before with a domestic servant and the female farm worker who were going to get unemployment benefit and suddenly we discovered they had to have ten years stamps before they could draw the benefit. If that is the situation here, the Minister should say ten years; otherwise, there will be complaints at a later stage.

There is also the question of switching from the contributory widow's pension to the non-contributory widow's pension, if the latter is greater. There is a problem here which the Minister mentioned. It is that if for a temporary period the non-contributory pension is greater, it is not proposed to allow that switch to happen. Some provision should be made. I do not think a contributory pension should at any time fall under a non-contributory pension. There should be some way of supplementing the contributory pension to bring it over the other, rather than the reverse.

When the Estimate was going through, I referred to the fact that there was too much delay in dealing with old age pensions and I mentioned a case of somebody who applied 15 months ago and had not received payment, that there was a hold-up because there was a transfer of some property he had. He transferred that property last November. After the Estimate discussion, I telephoned the Minister's Department and found that on 30th November last, with effect from that date, the man was granted a pension of 47s 6d a week. The man who did not hear one word about it of course was the old age pensioner himself. The Department officials knew about it and knew he should get a book and that there was money due to him but nobody thought it was his job to tell the person concerned about it. Neither did they tell me, although they had numberous letters on the files from me asking about this pension. This is the sort of thing that gets a good Department a bad name. I raised the matter last week and since then it has been satisfactorily dealt with. If somebody is entitled to something, he should get it immediately and should not have to wait.

I do not believe sufficient information is given to applicants for social welfare benefits, particularly disability benefit. If for any reason somebody's claim has been held up or a reduction is made, instead of the lengthy forms which the Department issue covering every eventuality, I think there should be a series of small forms dealing specifically with one or two matters. If such forms were sent out, the ordinary person would know what they meant but if they get a form over a foot long, littered with clauses and subclauses, suggesting they are disqualified for a, b, c, or d, it is very difficult to explain what has happened and why they have not got their money. This is only a matter of detail but it seems that forms are being used which were invented at the foundation of the State, or worse still, were borrowed from the British when they left.

When applications are being sought for a type of benefit, would it be possible to have a simplified form asking the person's name, address and, if necessary, age and insurance number and whether or not he has dependants and whatever particulars are needed after that. It is shocking that somebody seriously ill should get a form over a foot long asking dozens of questions which do not appear to be relevant. I see no reason for this—perhaps there is. These are matters which the Minister could bring up to date. If he sets somebody in his Department the job of going through the forms being issued for these benefits and if he has to spend six months in bringing them up to date, it would be very much appreciated later.

I do not want to delay the debate. While we appreciate that an effort is being made to bring benefits up to more reasonable figures, we regret that an out-of-date system is used not alone by this Government but by previous governments, to pay benefit from a date forward rather than immediately after the Budget. That is a mistake. We are told a lot of detail has to be gone through making it impossible to have the benefits paid any sooner, but to pay the social assistance people from 1st August and the benefit people from 1st January causes a certain amount of confusion. Many old people, and indeed many young people, will want to know why so-and-so who did not stamp a card can have an increase in benefit now while they are stamping cards and have not got it. This is a matter of detail. Eventually some Minister will have to get around to fixing an earlier date for paying benefit which is agreed to in the Budget, and I think the present Minister is the right man to start.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I am greateful for the consideration shown by all the speakers in trying to get this measure through the House as quickly as possible. Consequently, while I shall endeavour to deal with most of the points raised, I will not be unduly long in my windingup speech. Deputy Ryan decried the fact that more is not given. I should like more to be given. Deputy Ryan suggested £4; Deputy Corish suggested £5. I was going to suggest £6.

Mr. Corish

I did not suggest any amount. I just said £4 is too small.

Mr. J. Brennan

It brings me to the same point I am always making: we will never arrive at a figure which everybody will agree is sufficient. Perhaps this question of how the public are coming to look on these payments has a considerable influence on the whole question. As Deputies know, originally the pension was looked on as a means of contributing towards the upkeep of old people at the time of life when they were entirely dependent on their relatives.

Mr. James Tully

The British Government introduced the old age pension and gave people 100 per cent of what they were earning as farm workers.

Mr. J. Brennan

I am talking about the original concept of the pension. It was originally intended as a supplement to the upkeep of people who were dependent on their relatives at a time when their relatives looked on it, perhaps more than they do today, as a responsibility to the old people in their declining years to give them the maximum comforts of life which they themselves got from their parents when they were children and being reared. As I said here before, I will always strive to bring these amounts up as far as possible, as far as resources will permit. I would never hope to create a situation where relatives will say to their old people: "You are on your own now. You are being paid by the State." I would always hope that the affection which must necessarily bind children and their parents to the grave will always exist. I would not like that any callousness would be engendered as the result of social welfare payments which would put old people in a position where they would be looked at as no longer requiring the assistance, attention and affection of their relatives, which is much greater than anything I as Minister for Social Welfare could give them. Nevertheless, I do not dispute with those who say that these benefits should continue to increase.

No matter how any person may try to belittle the increase in the expenditure under the heading of social welfare, he cannot ignore the plain fact that the figures show an astronomical increase. I was looking at the percentage reduction in expenditure vis-à-vis tax revenue. In 1954-55 it was 22.5 per cent of tax revenue, and today it is 17.3 per cent of £282 million, which is a great deal more than 22.5 per cent of £89 million. Therefore the comparison is by no means relevant.

Mr. Corish

Neither is the one the Minister is quoting.

Mr. J. Brennan

Turning again to the percentage of the national income, we find that whereas in 1955-56 it was 5.6 of £159 million approximately, it is 7.1 per cent of £902 million today, which again is——

Mr. Corish

What does all that add up to?

Mr. J. Brennan

——a most favourable comparison. The remarkable progress made in regard to expenditure going to the weaker classes should be evident even to those who sometimes use percentages as comparisons to show we are not devoting enough of the national income, enough of the GNP, enough of the tax revenue, towards social welfare. The same applies to the gross national product; the proportion there is 4.7 per cent. I am not quoting particular years. I am taking the figures as far back as I have them, and they show an increase all the way up. While the percentage vis-à-vis gross national product has increased, the gross national product itself has increased out of all recognition of what it was ten years ago. Therefore the figures are most favourable in every respect.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): So has the cost of living and other incomes.

Mr. J. Brennan

We are not denying that, but I think we are entitled to take some credit for what is a fair effort to keep pace with the increases which I have had the pleasure of announcing here in legislation in the short time I have been here, and of having far exceeded the increase which would actually be justified by the cost of living increase.

The new feature in the Bill, which is not covered in the Budget and relates to the case of female relatives, is a cautious beginning to the solution of an important problem. Deputy Ryan said I said it was not feasible. I did not say that. I said I had made provision in the Bill to extend this if I thought it feasible in my experience of its working. What I actually said was:

It is my intention to prescribe a daughter under the regulations to be made, as a daughter is most likely to be concerned in such cases. There will, however, be power to prescribe other female relatives as satisfying the conditions for the payment, if it should ultimately be found desirable and feasible to do it.

Mr. Ryan

I am afraid of the "ultimate"—as to how long it is away.

Mr. J. Brennan

I did not say it was not feasible. Deputy Tully asked what record would be required for insurance. First of all, I would prefer if there were no insurance record. As I say, this is a cautious beginning to a problem which has been crying out for solution for some time like a number of other things in the social welfare field. In doing this I am meeting two problems at the same time: first of all, there is the question of those who have to give up their employment to look after their old people and find they cannot draw unemployment benefit because they are not available for work, and who cannot, for the same reason, draw unemployment assistance. It covers that case to some extent and also makes provision for the people who have to be taken care of, and, as many Deputies pointed out, are being prevented from being sent to an institution for care. I can actually say that the contribution requirement will be 156 contributions over the preceding five years. That is done obviously for the same purpose as it was done in the other Bill to which Deputy Tully referred. We must lean towards those with continuous and long records of insurance rather than towards those who have not got uninterrupted employment. I think that is a very reasonable ground on which to base this.

Mr. James Tully

Will the Minister take into consideration those people who have such a record, or a better record, but who for a number of years have been looking after their aged parents and therefore would be out of benefit?

Mr. J. Brennan

I am sure that would be a very feasible point. I do not want to say too much about it because under the regulations it may not work out that way. The Deputy knows that is so. Deputy Ryan referred to my assurance about children's allowances. I want to reassure him that I am seriously considering bringing in selective children's allowances which would make more generous provision for the needy section of the community. I am engaged on that now. Deputy Corish referred to the question of pay related contributions. That is one of the things which I have in a memo currently before the Government.

Mr. Corish

I had no inside information when I mentioned that.

Mr. J. Brennan

I agree that the question of home assistance payments is the weakest link in the whole welfare field. They are not administered by my Department. They are administered by the various local authorities to which we contribute. There is not any standard uniformity of means test and the payments are not very generous. This is something on which I have also submitted some particulars, and about which I shall have more to say later.

The question of the assessment of savings was raised by Deputy Ryan. The £25 which is disregarded in an old person's savings is referred to as being for funeral expenses. I do not think that was the original concept, which was to allow them to have some savings which would not be calculated as means. I pointed out to Deputy Ryan in answer to a question before this, that this £25 which is supposed to be for burial expenses would be inadequate today for that purpose. Let me remind the House that if £100 is put aside by some old person for that purpose, £25 is disregarded and the other £75 is assessed at five per cent. This will not prevent them from getting the full old age pension.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely it will prevent them getting the 5s.

Mr. J. Brennan

It will not operate to prevent them from getting the maximum without taking into consideration the question of means. Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke about the nil means section. He suggested that we should extend the 5s. to the nil means class but this brings us back to square one. The 5s. given by my predecessor to the nil means section was in response to the pleadings of many people, and Deputies also, that there is a marked difference between the categories of old age pension recipients, which is true. There is definitely a category which is set apart: those who live alone, those who have no property and no means, as compared with those living with reasonably comfortable and well off relatives. They are in better circumstances generally. Pleas have been made time and again for doing something towards the betterment of the lives of the worst off section, the nil means section.

Mr. James Tully

It was never intended that a person who had a vested council cottage should lose it.

Mr. J. Brennan

To operate that nil means section which every Deputy must recognise definitely sets out a category requiring more attention than others, the line had to be drawn somewhere. If £10 were being disregarded, I would be asked about someone who had £10 2s 6d.

Mr. Reynolds

I would refer the Minister to his speeches in the Kerry by-election.

Mr. J. Brennan

There must always be margins.

Mr. Reynolds

I listened to the Minister during the Kerry by-election and that is not what he said, and he had just been appointed Minister.

Mr. J. Brennan

I said nothing that was not factual. The 5s. increase granted this year goes to every old age pensioner, and there are the other "perks" which we have been able to bring in such as the cheaper electricity. They apply to these categories more than to the better off sections. We are continuously trying to improve the lot of the worst off sections. It is a recognition of the fact that there are many old age pensioners in a much worse position than others, and requiring a good deal more attention, that we implemented these things at all. We must draw the line somewhere and the marginal cases will always be taken up as an example of victimisation.

Deputy Tully referred to the provision to prevent people shuttling in and out of the non-contributory pension. From August to January the contributory pension will in few cases be less than the non-contributory pension. I do not think Deputy Tully adverted to the fact that not many would be involved in this category. It refers only to those who are not getting the full contributory old age pension. Many of those who are not would not satisfy the means test, so the number involved would not be great, and the amount of work involved would be tremendous if we did not take this precaution to ensure that it did not happen.

No one adverted to the fact that in the case of the occupational injuries payments I have taken the liberty of giving the 5/- as well as the 7/6d as from January next to them to bring them up to parity with what was intended when the Occupational Injuries Bill was before the House. Deputies will find in the Bill that 12/6d is payable to that category from next January. They did not get the 5/-because the Bill came in before the 5/-increase became operative. The 5/- increase became operative in January and did not apply to them. I am proud of the fact that I have done this, but no one paid the slightest tribute to me for granting the full amount of 12/6d to that category.

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a plea for the granting of pensions outside the jurisdiction of the State. This has come up time and again. I am afraid quite a lot would be involved. Deputy Fitzpatrick admitted that while we have a means test, this would not be easy, and would not justify appointing social welfare officers to operate in England for the purpose of pursuing old people who go over to live there. Indeed, I would much prefer to see them taking advantage of the provision, which we have here, for people taking care of them and somebody coming home to look after them.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It would hardly pay them.

Mr. J. Brennan

There are 13 weeks in which one can be absent. This permits them to have a decent holiday, which I know they frequently avail of. That is the maximum amount of time a person can be absent without losing the pension. Deputy O'Hara suggested that we give the maximum old age pension to old people living in Donegal and Mayo.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That might appeal to the Minister.

Mr. J. Brennan

I am in full agreement with that but I am afraid I could not start to operate it on that sort of selective basis. I do not think there are any important points I have missed. I think I have commented on most of the points that were raised.

Mr. James Tully

Could the Minister make any comment on the question of persons who switch to minor officers and thereby lose all benefits?

Mr. J. Brennan

The people who switch to minor officers I take it reach the status of pensionable employment.

Mr. James Tully

Not in every case.

Mr. J. Brennan

If they do not, they should be insurable and if they do, they are still insurable on a voluntary basis for the limited benefits.

Mr. James Tully

They are neither fish, flesh nor fowl.

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not think the Deputy is quite right.

Mr. James Tully

If I give it to the Minister will he examine it?

Mr. J. Brennan

I will. I would like, if we were not coming near that period in which we are hoping to rise and get a few weeks sun before the days get shorter, to discuss a lot of matters here. I am pleased to note the number of non-contributory pensions, both in regard to widows and old people, are decreasing. This is a trend which is welcome to a Minister for Social Welfare and one which would lead me into the whole question of discussing voluntary or compulsory insurance.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Including health.

Mr. J. Brennan

This makes available to all people benefits which are available only to those in insurable employment at the present time. I will have more to say about that at a future date. I hope the House will give me all Stages today.

Mr. Ryan

Tá fáilte romhat.

Mr. J. Brennan

On that premise I would not undertake to hold the House too long.