Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1970

Vol. 248 No. 8

Social Welfare Bill, 1970: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Dr. Browne

When the debate was adjourned I was talking about the rates which are to be paid to the various groups under this new Bill and suggesting that, because of their small size, this seemed to me to be a very good antidote to the extraordinary euphoria on the Government benches about our capacity to take on the role of a co-partner in the Common Market. The general approach so far as the Minister for Social Welfare and his Department have been concerned — and also the Departments of Education and Health — has been that we are a very poor country with very limited resources, a country that has to struggle with high unemployment and emigration and, that for various historical and other reasons, this is the best we can do, whether it concerns health, education or care of the aged or the disabled. Yet, at the same time, we have speaker after speaker saying in this House that because of the buoyancy of the economy, because of the success and prosperity of our industrial arm, and because of expanding agricultural output and exports, because the whole of our society is so flourishing and expanding, we are in a position to play the part of a well-developed and well-organised society.

Obviously, there is a clear conflict here. There is a certain amount of wishful thinking on the part of the Government. The reality is the first approach mentioned above. The Ministers are correct when they say that the money is not there. They are not correct when they imply that the money is not there simply because of some act of God. It is not there because of their failure over such a long time to create the wealth needed in our society. It is because of this that we have these unsatisfactory conditions of life for the ordinary working-class person who comes to retirement age, or becomes disabled or unemployed, or in some way dependent on this community which we have created here to care for them in their hour of need.

This Bill purports to be a codification of our social welfare legislation. In my view, it is a very poor thing indeed. I would remind the House that the proposals put forward by the first inter-Party Government, which was not a very left-wing or socialist Government, were very little different from the figure mentioned in this Bill for a death grant. That was 20 years ago. The figure is much the same now as it was then. If we look at the amounts to be paid it seems to me that little has happened except that, from time to time, we adjust the pension figure to the cost of living. We make very little serious attempt to provide a code of living here to show that, if we did go into Europe, our understanding of our responsibility to these people would be on the same level as that of a number of these other countries in Europe. There is the basic problem of caring for the underprivileged in our society.

It seems that the various designations have been changed. Retirement pensions are mentioned instead of old age pensions and invalidity pensions instead of disability pensions. These are a few touches which have not really changed the whole social welfare code in the fundamental way in which I would like to see it changed. I do not think it is enough to adjust from time to time the miserable amounts paid. We give these amounts to these people and we adjust them to bring them into some relationship to the increasing cost of living over the years. A very much more comprehensive code of social welfare is needed. In particular what is needed for the old people is not only allowances, although obviously allowances are necessary, but also services. The Minister does not mention legislating for the provision of a comprehensive social welfare code, especially for the old people. We have talked about this on many occasions, particularly in relation to the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health. We are making no serious progress. Any questions put down to either the Minister for Social Welfare or the Minister for Health elicit much the same information, that the quality of the services is virtually static, if not going backwards.

I should like to see the Minister making provision for a very wide extension of domiciliary care services for the disabled and for the old people.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would seem to be a matter for another Minister. It does not arise on the Social Welfare Bill before the House.

Dr. Browne

It is difficult because the Ministers appear to have joint responsibility on these issues. It is difficult to know where responsibility moves from one Minister to the other. If one asks the Minister for Social Welfare one is sometimes told that the subject under discussion is the responsibility of the Minister for Health. I believe that the basic philosophy of the Minister's approach to this problem is that, so long as he adjusts the allowances and increases them by 15s or 17s 6d from time to time, then he has discharged his function. I do not think the Minister has discharged his function. That is the point I am trying to make.

Is the Minister attempting to establish parity out of a new concern to reduce the discrepancies between the services here and in Britain and the Six Counties or are his party trying to prepare themselves for entry into the Common Market? They accuse us of being ashamed of putting the poor mouth on the fact that things are so bad here in relation to these social services. Is it their wish to go into the Common Market with heads held high? How can one enter this type of organisation or talk about the reunification of Ireland while assistance benefits of £3 10s or £4 are being paid to one individual for a whole week? Even the contributory allowances are only around the £4 10s or £5 mark. It is obvious that these allowances are grossly inadequate and it is absurd to say that we can move towards these other wealthy countries which are providing services that are sometimes double or even treble the extent of the services here. How can we claim parity with them in regard to a successful handling of the economy? How can we claim parity with them in regard to responsibility to the underprivileged in our society?

Obviously, the figures are the shortest answer to these questions. We cannot afford these services and the reason why we cannot is because our economy has been mishandled down through the years. I do not know how the various Ministers hope to change everything simply by going into the Common Market because if we enter that Community it will be required of us that our social services are at least closely related to those of other nations. Where do the Government think the money is suddenly to come from?

Not only should the Minister be increasing the allowances very much more than is being done here but the various services that one associates with domiciliary care — meals, domestic help, social visiting, transport, community centres and nursing and medical centres — should have been part of the Minister's proposals for a new social welfare code.

I have been dealing mainly with the pensions to be paid to the contributory groups and I think that I can now make the case with validity that the amount paid to contributory pensioners is grossly inadequate. It is only about £4 10s or £5 a week. This can be said to be only a subsistence allowance at best. What does one say about those people who are not contributory beneficiaries and who are on the £4 5s or unemployment assistance of £3 12s level? How can those people be expected to live for a week on these few shillings in our very high cost economy?

There is not one of us who could face a week on £3 12s or £4 5s but these people must do that week after week knowing quite well that it is not a question of a subsistence allowance but rather one of a starvation allowance because these allowances can truly be described as being starvation allowances. In the rural areas the level is even lower, at £3 6s per week.

How can a widow with four children be expected to live on £6 15s a week? This is a scandalous situation and we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves as a society because of it. This amounts to less than 30s for each of five persons. The Minister knows very well that one could not feed children on that amount. Therefore, bad as the contributory pension groups are, the assistance groups are completely derelict and the Minister and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for offering such rates to these people.

A retrograde development has been that these people are the very ones who are hit hardest by the change away from the tendency of the past for Fianna Fáil to tax the wealthy in order to help the poor. These people, also, are the ones who are most heavily hit by the increases in indirect taxes which have escalated in the most frightening way during the past five or six years. What has happened to these people since the Budget? These new allowances will not come into operation until October but very high increases have taken place in the prices of essential commodities.

As another Opposition speaker said, these increases in the Budget should have been made available before now or, at least, they should be retrospective so that these unfortunate people could be cushioned against the very high level costs brought about by the imposition by the Government of indirect taxes.

On the question of deserted wives, everybody will be glad that the Minister has taken some steps to deal with the problem. I do not envy him this particular problem. It is very complicated indeed. On the one hand, if he is flexible it will lead to his being vague while, on the other hand, if he makes too rigid a ruling as to what constitutes desertion, he will find himself in much the same sort of difficulties. What constitutes desertion and who makes that decision?

On what evidence is a decision taken? Is the person subjected to some sort of inquisition by departmental inspectors? The Minister, of course, faces possible collusion between people from time to time in order to mislead his Department. Has desertion to be permanent? What constitutes desertion? Is it a month, six months, or a year? If a person comes back within a year, are we glad to see that person back or do we feel in some way he is exploiting the law? How does the lady establish desertion has taken place? Does she have to go to court? If she goes to court will there be free legal aid? Quite possibly this person would not be able to employ solicitors or lawyers. The only people wives can use to find out what has happened to their husbands in England are the Salvation Army. The police usually do not take very much interest in this matter because they have other problems which they consider more important. Is there any possibility that the Department could set up some sort of information bureau in order to help those unfortunate women who frequently are left with large families and find themselves suddenly changed from a position of relative affluence to one in which they are left with nothing at all and are dependent on assistance given by the Department?

Will those people benefit if they get a legal separation? Do they come under this clause, if they get a legal separation? Will it make some completely irresponsible people a little bit happier if they desert and then feel their wives will be looked after? Will it have that undesirable social effect? I have given this matter a certain amount of thought to see if there were any suggestions I could make to the Minister. It will be a very difficult problem for him because the local authorities simply will not be able to come to any decision. If there is any loophole, they tend to evade making decisions. Some of them are more enlightened than others, but many of them feel it is safer not to do anything about the matter. I suppose eventually the Minister will have to make up his own mind and make some strict regulations. I presume such regulations would be laid before the House and we would have an opportunity of discussing them.

What happens if a man deserts in Ireland and goes on living here? Will an allowance be paid in that case? It is very desirable that the Minister should have taken this step because desertion is something which one comes up against more and more. Those people suddenly realised that they must desert in order to get what I understand has now become known as the "Irish divorce", where you take a single ticket to Liverpool. This has become the cheapest and most effective divorce device in the world. I hate to sound flippant about this because it is a very serious and calamitous situation for the wife and children who are left behind. I suppose this is one of the repercussions of our own refusal to face up to the social problems of broken marriages, our refusal to decide on this whole question of the desirability of divorce in our community and to make legal separation more readily available.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot see how the Deputy can talk about divorce on the Social Welfare Bill.

Dr. Browne

I am not talking about it. I am merely saying this in passing. I appreciate it is a particularly thorny problem. This is a measure on which the Minister should be congratulated. He should be congratulated particularly for having the courage to try to do something about it. I am afraid I cannot be very helpful with regard to how he will achieve his objective. Another Deputy raised the question of the relation who lives with an old person and looks after that person for a long time. What happens to that person when the old person dies if that person has given up her job? One wonders if the upper means limit of £300 a year is not a disincentive to the conscientious relative. I have in mind the case of a daughter working and looking after her mother, but help with the electricity bill, transport facilities for the old person or free fuel are refused because the relative is earning a little. The means test tends to exclude the old person from those services. Such services should be readily available to all people over the age of 65. One finds that the person who makes an effort to keep the old person at home is not helped by the State as much as she should be. Every encouragement should be given by the community to the relation to be conscientious in regard to looking after the old person.

One of the disturbing features of our community is the high percentage of old people who find their way into Irish psychiatric hospitals, not because they are mentally disturbed but because nobody wants to look after them. If a person is sufficiently concerned for her parents, instead of discouraging that person by imposing conditions on the granting of obvious things like fuel, light and transport, we should do everything to encourage them. The £300 limit is very low.

It says here that the deserted wife who is under 50 years of age and has no qualified children will not get an allowance. I presume the point is that, if she has children, she will get the allowance and that you simply do not wish to pay a desertion allowance to the lady who has been deserted and who has no children. I suppose that is reasonable enough.

We naturally will support these proposals because half a loaf is better than nothing at all, but we regard the proposals as pathetic in the light of the fact that this Government have been in office for the best part of 30 years. After all those years the Government can come forward with these pathetic proposals, purporting to represent a serious or significant social code introduced by people professing to believe in the Christian virtues. This is, indeed, a very poor effort.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The object of this Bill is to give effect to the provisions outlined in the Budget for the social welfare classes. In my opinion it must be considered in the light of the Budget as a whole. Provision is made in this Bill for a death grant, an increase in old age pensions, contributory and non-contributory, and in retirement pensions, for pensions for deserted wives, increased invalidity pensions and general increases in social welfare payments. I do not wish to be ungracious about these provisions. In so far as they go I welcome them, but I do not think that they are something about which we can boast or that they enable us to say to the social welfare classes: “What good boys are we.” Having regard to the increase in the cost of living brought about by the Budget and having regard to the advance in the standard of living brought about by collective bargaining and threats of strikes of one kind or another, the Minister could not have avoided bringing in some increases for the social welfare classes. He would have been guilty of a grave derelection of duty for having failed to cushion to some extent the social welfare classes against the increases in the cost of living brought about by his colleague, the Minister for Finance, through the recent Budget. Cushioning to some extent is about all the Minister has done. The increases will restore those who receive them to the position approximately in which they were about 12 months ago because the Budget imposed a tax on the necessaries of life, which all these people have to purchase, and in that way drove up the cost of living.

Before I deal with particular items in this Bill, we have a duty to consider these increases against the general picture we find in the country today. Only one Government speaker, apart from the Minister, has so far contributed to this debate — Deputy Paddy Burke — and Deputy Burke adopted the attitude of "What good boys are we." We must compare the position of the social welfare classes with that of other sections of the community. It is all very well for Deputy Burke and other Members of the Government Party by way of interruption, to compare these increases with the increases given ten, 15 and 20 years ago. That is not a valid comparison. One has to look at these increases in the context of the demands for increases of up to £5 per week in wages, increases which, if not conceded entirely, are being conceded substantially.

This Social Welfare Bill and the Budget it implements is not something of which we, as a community, as Deputy Dr. Browne said, can be proud. I believe the social welfare classes will be no better off than they were years ago. The rest of the community is enjoying a higher standard of living. The gap between the social welfare classes and the rest of the community is widening. We are giving an increase of 15s per week to old age pensioners. Superficially, compared with five or ten years ago, that looks a substantial increase. Is it? Think of the respect there was for a 2s piece two years ago and the lack of respect that there is for the same coin today. I suggest that the 2s piece today is assuming the importance if that is the right word, of sixpence a few years ago. It is in that atmosphere we must judge the Budget and the provisions of this Bill.

Half a loaf is better than no bread. I concede — I am not very good at mathematical problems—that the Minister has done something better than restore the social welfare classes to the position in which they were six, eight or 12 months ago. But that is not enough. An indication of the thinking of the Government in relation to social welfare benefits can best be obtained in the light of the death grant. We often hear from the benches opposite disparaging remarks about what was done by inter-Party Governments for the social welfare classes. There is no valid comparison because one cannot compare the half-crown or the 5s and say that the 10s given today is four times or twice what was given then. That is not a valid argument. We know that the Minister in an inter-Party Government in 1949 was thinking about a death grant and that he wrote it into a Bill, a Bill which was not accepted by a Fianna Fáil Minister when he came into power. The death grant in mind at the time was £20. After 20 years the present Minister has introduced, belatedly, a death grant of £25 — £5 more. I do not suppose I would be accused of extravagant finance if I said that £20 in 1949 — I will be conservative — would equal £75 today.

We are not being generous. Having regard to the demands of other sections of the community, having regard to the incomes of Deputies and Ministers today as compared with a few years ago, having regard to the salaries of civil servants and local government employees today as compared with a few years ago, having regard to the incomes of the commercial community in this country today as compared with a few years ago and having regard to the wages of people who have the power of collective bargaining today as compared with a few years ago, not alone are we not being generous but we are not being just. I know the Minister will tell me or he is probably thinking that, if we go along as I say we should go along, we should have to impose further taxation. The money would have to be raised by taxation or otherwise. Many benefits we are conferring today do not come out of taxation but rather out of an increase in the social welfare contribution from the employer and the employee.

The Minister will also probably say that, in common with the Labour Party, this party walked into the division lobby and voted against the Budget. Deputy Burke has already said that, although he did not put it in that way. He said we opposed these provisions in the Budget. We did no such thing. We opposed the increase in turnover tax on the necessaries of life and on food, which put up the cost of living and reduced the value of the so-called concessions. That is an entirely different thing.

This Bill should not be allowed to go through the House in a superficial way which would give the impression that the contributory old age pensioner will receive an increase of 17s 6d per week; that the non-contributory old age pensioner will receive 10s a week, and so on. I seriously think we are not doing our duty by these classes in the light of the regard for money which is held by other sections of the community. The gap is widening and the pensioners will suffer more as a result.

Let me deal now with a few particular matters. The death grant is £25. It is a contributory grant payable to people who are in benefit. As the Minister very fairly said, it will not become payable until March of next year when people will have paid 26 contributions. I concede that that is a start. It is a very belated and small start when we consider what an inter-Party Government Minister for Social Welfare had in mind.

Retirement pensions will come into operation at 65 years of age for people with sufficient contributions. That is in line with Fine Gael social welfare policy. We have urged the introduction of these pensions. Again, it is a beginning.

I am particularly pleased to see a provision for deserted wives in this Bill. I think that all Members, certainly Members of the Opposition here, were campaigning for this for several years. I am quite sure the Minister — and his predecessor, whom we seem to have forgotten completely — were also under pressure from their own party to provide for these unfortunate people. I urge the Minister, when bringing in his regulations, to ensure that they are flexible because this is a difficult problem. He should err rather on the side of having the regulations flexible because there will not be a great number of persons involved in these pensions. I was rather alarmed to hear the Minister say:

I am of opinion that, before title to the allowance could arise, the wife should have availed, in so far as is possible for her, of whatever processes, legal or otherwise, are open to her to effect a reconciliation or to oblige her husband to meet his responsibility to support her and her family.

If the Minister writes anything like that into his regulations he will be going very far. If he seeks to impose an obligation on a deserted wife to exhaust her legal rights against her husband before she can become entitled to this pension he will, in effect, render this otherwise worthy provision useless. I realise he said: "in so far as is possible for her" but, when that comes to be interpreted in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada, it will quite properly be interpreted in accordance with the regulations if the Minister writes it into them. Where are most of these widows going to pursue their legal rights? They will have to pursue them across the water. They will have to invoke the services of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or, as mentioned by Deputy Dr. Browne, the Salvation Army or some other charitable organisation to try to locate the husbands. Even if they locate them, how will they pursue them by the process of law? We have not in this country free legal aid in civil cases. This would be a civil case. We have not even free legal aid in criminal cases at the moment because it has completely broken down. It would be impossible for a widow to do what the Minister says she should do, that is, to avail of whatever processes, legal or otherwise are open to her. I would urge the Minister to make these regulations flexible for the first year at any rate. If he sees then that they are being abused they can be amended.

There is no use in holding out hope for these unfortunate people, hundreds of them, I suppose, and maybe more, and then having them find out that they cannot avail of the provision. That would be a repetition of the first scheme introduced by the Minister's predecessor to provide an additional pension for a daughter who came home or gave up work to attend to her mother. The regulations then were so onerous, involving a provision that the daughter should have been employed, or should have been an insured person, or should have left insurable work, that the net result was that the scheme did not work. It was no use. It did not do the job it set out to do. The Minister had to scrap it and bring in more flexible regulations. I thank the Minister for providing for deserted wives. If he takes my advice, for the first year, or so, he will err on the side of flexible regulations rather than rigid ones.

The Minister speaks about invalidity pensions. I do not want to run this down altogether but really it is switching a long-term sickness benefit recipient over to an invalidity pension. It is not an innovation. It is not a new departure. It will mean that the person will not have to attend at the employment exchange or social welfare office every week. He will not have to sign on or submit medical certificates as often as he has to now. He will collect his invalidity pension at the post office on a book something like the old age pension book. That is an improvement, but it is not something new.

I, and other people also, made reference to the provision of an additional pension for a female relative who is caring for an old age pensioner. That is a good provision. The regulations have now been loosened and they are a great deal more workable than they were. Another speaker suggested that, in certain cases, this additional pension should apply to a male relative. I am not so innocent as to think that this might not open the way to difficulties and abuses, but a considerable case can be made for it.

Within the past month or so I had a visit from a man who is completely crippled. He is an old age pensioner and his wife is an old age pensioner. Their invalid son is living with them— or for some reason or another he is not capable of looking after them. There is no unmarried daughter. Another son came back from England and he is living with them on this little farm, wasting his time, as he would regard it, caring for them. The poor law valuation of the farm is too high, even if they transferred it to him, to qualify him for the small farmer's dole. He gets nothing although he is looking after his father and mother. The Minister should include male relatives in suitable cases. I would allow him to make the regulations fairly tight in this sphere because it would be necessary to have them fairly tight and wide enough to cover cases of hardship only. Such there are, as the Minister will be aware.

Another aspect is that were it not for the female relative the old people would be living alone. That is a necessary qualification. I know of cases in my constituency where, instead of a relative going to live with an old age pensioner, the old age pensioner was brought to the relative's house. I am not certain about this but I think in such cases the pensioners do not qualify for the 45s increase, and I think they should. I am nearly certain from cases I had within the past few months that they do not qualify. If the Minister knows, I should like him to tell me now whether they do or do not and, if he does not know, perhaps he would tell me when he is replying? My understanding is that where a relative brings an old person to the house to live as one of the family that old age pensioner does not qualify for the increased pension. Such old age pensioners should qualify because they are better off living in a house with other people than living alone. The old people I have in mind would be sent to the county home if they were not brought to the home of a relative or a kindly neighbour.

I do not think the Minister has made any provision in this Bill to ensure that employees whose cards have not been stamped through no fault of their own will not suffer a loss. I know the Minister says these people can follow their employers and recover any such lost benefits from the employers.

Mr. Murphy

Recover a lost benefit from an employer? That is doubtful.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That is the case I am about to make.

Mr. Murphy

If there is sufficient political pressure the case is never brought to court as in the case I instanced in the House recently. If there is sufficient political pressure it never goes to court.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am sure the Deputy has had experience of that, but the argument I want to put forward is that it is unreasonable. It may not be effective, in the first place, because the employer may be a man of straw. The Minister's Department know of many people who lost benefit because a company went into liquidation in this city and did not pay any contribution in respect of their employees for a number of years. The liquidation process is slow. They may have a priority. I do not know if they have. At any rate, the employer might be a man of straw and, if so, nothing could be done about it.

Secondly, apart altogether from the effectiveness of the claim, people, especially people in rural Ireland, do not like being put to the trouble of suing their neighbours for something involving the State. They regard themselves as informers or something like that. They do not like doing it. The Minister should take over this responsibility of making good the losses incurred by these people straightaway and if he thinks it wise to recover from the employer, that is his own business. The motor insurers' bureau and other matters like that provide precedents for this.

That is really all I want to say about the Bill either in general or in particular. As I say, the Bill is nothing that we can write home about, or boast about, or be proud about. It was principally because I feared it might go on record as such a Bill that I thought it necessary to make the record clear. I trust the Minister will regard the particular points I made as being made in an effort to improve the machinery at his disposal for the administration of the social welfare services.

Mr. Moore

I welcome the Bill as I would welcome any legislation which would make things better for the aged, the blind, the widows or deserted wives. It is a good augury for the future that in the first year of this decade the Minister has introduced a Bill which to some extent will help those who most need help. I suppose every Member agrees we should give all we possibly can to the pensioners and other categories covered in this Bill but, at the same time, we must face the fact that any increase in benefits will mean extra taxation. We have reached the stage when we should not have competition in social welfare. The Opposition and back benchers should examine the problem not for any particular kudos to be got out of it but in a real effort to perfect the legislation so that it will be effective and help those we are trying to help.

I have made a vow not to go back to make comparisons with what other Governments did in regard to social welfare beyond this remark: while the Opposition parties are very much to the forefront in advocating better social benefits they are not prepared to face up to the task of providing extra taxation. To prove the point, I quote Deputy Fitzpatrick, the previous speaker, who said he did not vote against the increased benefits of the Budget but against the increased taxation. To my mind this is not facing facts. It would be wonderful if the Minister could announce the benefits that are in this Bill without having to increase contributions from insured people or if the Minister for Finance need not impose new taxation in order to make these benefits available. This is not possible.

Seriously, the Minister deserves our compliments on bringing in a Bill which, while it is not the be-all and end-all of social welfare payments or increases, makes considerable progress. We all agree that the benefits given here or indeed in any other country would not be adequate to compensate somebody for, say, loss of eyesight. One cannot measure these things in terms of money. While I say that, it behoves us to examine the Bill all the more closely to see what we can suggest to make it a better Bill. As it stands, it is a good Bill because it continues progress towards giving the old, the blind, the orphans and the widows better benefits We cannot say that we are now giving adequate benefits. In the case of a blind person, for instance, I believe no benefit is sufficient to compensate for loss of sight but in this comprehensive Bill the Minister has made great strides forward. He has also continued progress towards the day when we shall have social services which will give all recipients at least a frugal living.

So far, every speaker has commented on the death grants. This is an innovation in the social welfare code. A grant is already given in respect of Old IRA men who have been in receipt of a special allowance. Will the Minister say if this benefit will be paid on the death of an Old IRA man if the other death benefit is payable?

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

Yes. It is contributory; it cannot be denied.

Mr. Tully

The Minister's Department will pay it but will the Department of Defence continue to pay the benefit?

Mr. J. Brennan

I am not speaking for the Department of Defence.

Mr. Tully

That is a clever answer.

Mr. Moore

I assume they will. That was the point. To digress for a moment, because there must be so few Old IRA men left who could benefit from this provision, I am sure we could ensure that those who are left, or their relatives, will get this £25 also.

A point I raised last year on the Estimate in regard to the free travel allowance was that it only operates in the Twenty Six County area. If an old person wants to travel over the Border he must pay the Ulster Transport Authority the extra fare. Might I suggest that the Minister contact his counterpart in the north and ask him to give facilities to our pensioners that they enjoy here on the basis that we would reciprocate by giving people from the Six Counties the same benefits when they come here? This is the time for building bridges to the north and there is no better way of doing it than by showing that an old person whether he lives north or south of the border is given all possible benefits. I am not indulging in one-up-manship I think the fact that we have this scheme operating here shows progress which could be copied elsewhere.

Section 21 deals with schemes of social assistance for old people. Could the Minister tie this in with the provision by which local health authorities pay an allowance to a person to go into a house and look after an old person? Those concerned do not have to be relatives of the old person. Certainly in the city here and, I am sure, in every health authority they pay such an allowance for somebody to go in, tidy up the room and perhaps do messages and so on. If the two things could be tied together it would be a great improvement because I feel that the scheme operated by the health authorities is not altogether satisfactory in all cases. Perhaps the Minister would consider this section again with a view to doing what I suggest and so providing a more comprehensive service. I appreciate what the Minister is doing in this section for those who, because of their age, must have somebody to look after them.

Section 22 deals with the allowance for a deserted wife. It states that a weekly payment will be made to women under the age of 70 who have been deserted by their husbands. I presume this is not because of the fact that no wife over 70 is ever deserted but because of the fact that she would qualify for a pension at the age of 70.

Many Members on both sides of the House have been pressing for this allowance for the deserted wife, and, again with gratification, I note the Minister's action in this matter. One by one we are getting rid of the pockets of social insecurity for some of our people. I do not know how many wives will benefit under this scheme. I hope the number who will qualify will be very small indeed but the fact must be recognised that there are people who desert their wives and throw them almost on the charity of the local authority. The State is not condoning the desertion of a wife by her husband, but it certainly does not want the innocent person to suffer.

Throughout this Bill, as in all Bills, there are qualifying dates and periods. Instead of stipulating that a person must have 26 or 52 contributions in the case of a claim, could the Minister spread this over a longer period so that the person would not be deprived of benefit for the want of a few stamps? There will always be the hard cases and I realise that hard cases make bad law. However, could there not be a sliding scale of benefit so that a person could get credit for the number of stamps for which he has paid? While some of the benefits they got would be very small, at least it would be a recognition of the fact that we are trying to give them something out of present resources.

The next point I wish to raise is probably more a matter for the Department of Health than the Department of Social Welfare, but I would ask the Minister to consider making a small allowance to a person who is maintained in a hospital by public funds or by public funds and private help. Could a nominal sum be made available each week to these people just to give them the assurance that the State has not ignored them? Contributions are made under the various Health Acts to these hospitals, but they go into the general coffers. There are people in hospitals for over 30 years and it would be desirable to make some payment to them which would indicate: "We recognise you are there and this is just a small sum to show our concern", always planning that in the future this would be stepped up.

The Fianna Fáil Government, through their history, have always made social welfare one of their top priorities. Without boasting I think I can say this is what our party is all about. One has got to be realistic and I am sure the Minister would be the happiest man here if the House would agree to increase taxation substantially so that he could dispense much more generously the benefits being provided in this Bill. Our social welfare code can do with amendment and the Government recognise this by providing extra benefits each year in the Budget.

I would hope some day to see a unification of health services and social welfare services, because very often the two things are synonomous in that old persons, who have not sufficient means to care for themselves well, suffer in health. I should like to see the Department tackle this question as well as the preventive question. It may well be said that all social welfare assistance is preventive in that if people benefit under it they will need less care in other ways. I do not know whether this would work or not, but I would suggest the Minister's Department be organised so that at least one section would deal purely with aged people. Old age brings on its own complaints and, while we cannot stop old age coming about, at least we can make it much more pleasant for people. This Bill will make things much more pleasant for many of our people.

The Minister realises that there are other problems which must be tackled arising out of the fact that we shall have a greater preponderance of aged people in our society than ever before. This will not be a burden to us but a challenge as to what we shall do to cater for the growing aged population.

Going into any of our city hospitals I can see that people are being cared for very well indeed. However, there is a point on which I meant to check but I did not have time. Perhaps when the Minister is replying he would say whether in the case of persons in receipt of an old age pension any part of that pension goes towards their keep? While many old people in hospitals may be physically handicapped they still have their faculties of mind, speech and so on. They still want to follow things outside, to buy newspapers and a few comforts for themselves. We should ensure that the Health Act will provide for the total cost of the hospital maintenance of persons who qualify and that the pension will be their personal property not to be touched by anyone else.

It may be a cliché to say I congratulate the Minister, but I do compliment him on this Bill. It contains some increased benefits and, above all, it shows the Government are keeping their promises and honouring their commitment to create a better social welfare code.

Mr. Tully

Let me start by taking up the last point made by Deputy Seán Moore: that the Government should set their sights on formulating a better social welfare code. I could not agree more, and I wish to quote from the April-May, 1970, issue of Trade Union Information. On page 4 details are given of social welfare expenditure per head of population, base 100, in 1966, and things have not improved a great deal since then. For each £100 per head of population in Ireland, in Belgium it was £427; in France, £464; in Germany, £468; in Italy, £264, in the Netherlands, £423; and in Great Britain, £350. Taken as a total percentage of GNP the figures were: Ireland, 6 per cent; Belgium, 14.8 per cent; France, 14 per cent; Germany, 15.1 per cent; Italy, 15.1 per cent; Netherlands, 16.3 per cent; Britain, 12.8 per cent. I am sure Deputy Moore will agree with me that it is about time Fianna Fáil set about improving social services in this country.

Mr. Moore

They are not fair comparisons.

Mr. Tully

Nothing is fair if it tells against what the present Government are doing. I would say it is fair to say that of the last 40 years Fianna Fáil have been in office for 34 and they cannot blame anybody else for the present situation. We have been talking over the last couple of weeks about going into the Common Market. The first thing we must do if we get into the Common Market is almost to double the amount of money made available for social welfare benefits. Therefore I agree with Deputy Moore that the Government should set their sights on social welfare targets.

Mr. Moore

I did not say that.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy said something like that. Perhaps after the figures I have given him he has changed his mind.

Mr. Moore

I made no unfair comparisons.

Mr. Tully

The comparisons are there. I have given the reference. If Deputy Moore thinks he can contradict them he is entitled to do so.

Mr. Moore

I shall do it on the next Stage.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy would need to try it there. He cannot do it here because I am giving facts.

Despite the fact that the Department of Social Welfare are usually criticised by uninformed people all over the country, indeed particularly by one evening newspaper in this city which has recently mounted a kind of crusade against the officials of the Department, let me say that my experience of the officials of the Department is that they bend over backwards to see that everybody gets what he is entitled to get. It is only fair that this should be said from this side of the House——

Mr. Geoghegan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tully

——because, in fact, this is how we found them. I have found the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister who deal with social welfare most courteous, as are the officials. It may be said that it is different for a Deputy making an inquiry, that he must get attention but, whether they know me or not, without even asking who is speaking, they give me the particulars I ask for and do what they can to provide the benefit. It is not the officials who are at fault. If there is fault it lies with the system. The system must be changed here because there are a number of little things which give a great deal of trouble. I suggest that the Minister could and should have included in this Bill remedies for the problems which have grown up over the years in his Department. I refer particularly to one which I discussed with the Parliamentary Secretary on many occasions. Following the cement strike which we have all been talking about over the last few months, all those on a site, except one small group, were paid unemployment benefit because they were not directly producing cement. This small group, because somebody decided that the regulations said they were not entitled to benefit, were starved out. They were not able to get any benefit from anybody. They were the type of people who had been working and, therefore, did not want to look for assistance from the local authority. They were literally starved out. They were men with young families. This was a disgraceful act. I agree that it was the regulation, not the people who administer it, which was responsible for this and I would ask the Minister to bring in either a regulation or a section of a Bill which would prevent recurrence of this stupid sort of thing.

The recovery of benefit in the case of persons who have not their cards stamped is something which is left to the persons themselves. I cannot understand why this Bill does not contain a section which would ensure the application to them of what is being done at present in regard to occupational injuries claims. If in the case of occupational injuries the benefits can be paid and recovered from the employers, why can this not be done in regard to the ordinary social welfare benefit? There is only one reason: nobody would bother to do anything about it. I am surprised that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have not taken the initiative in this matter. They could have dealt with it in one line in this Bill and cleared this up for good. Then they could go after the employer who fails to stamp cards.

Last night we had a long discussion on the Finance Bill on what are popularly known as "lumpers". "Lumpers" are persons who are affected by this sort of thing because they do not stamp cards. One of the reasons why they engage in "lump" work is that they do not have to pay for insurance stamps and the employer likes it that way because he does not have to pay his share either. The Minister for Labour is the person who should ensure that the cards are stamped and if they are not stamped then as I have suggested, he should pay the benefit and sue the employer who has not stamped the card. In that case we would soon see an end to this sort of racket.

I am amazed that the Minister has not raised the level of wages or salaries over which people can be insured. The ceiling of £1,200 is too low in this day and age. I cannot see why it has not been raised to at least £1,800. If the Minister has not thought of it up to now, will he take a look at it before this Bill goes through the Seanad and see if he can introduce an amendment——

Mr. Geoghegan

He is most agreeable. He will have a look at anything.

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not think legislation is needed for that.

Mr. Tully

The excuse given to me the last time was that it would have to be included in a Bill.

Mr. J. Brennan

That may be right.

Mr. Tully

I grant it was another Minister who is no longer with us. Perhaps the Minister will have a look at it? I do not care how he does it, but I suggest that it should be done quickly.

Deputy Moore referred to payments to persons in hospital. While it may be slightly outside the scope of this Bill I want to say that something which I think is wrong and which is being persisted in by Social Welfare is the payment to the MOH of a mental hospital for mental patients who go in even for short periods. This matter must be investigated. The MOH does not see the money. It goes to an individual, an ordinary staff member, who has for the time being the onus on him or her of regulating how this money is to be dealt with. This system should be abolished, even if it means a return to the old system. Anything is better than the present system. I know somebody who was in a mental hospital for six weeks and who when he came out found that the MOH had got the benefit which should have been given to him, the patient, and he had nothing to live on. This should be changed and can be changed very simply.

I am surprised that we still allow the situation where people who go into hospital for treatment, not for shelter, even if they are to be there for the rest of their lives, are not paid the benefit which is due to them. The benefit is collected by the local authority to pay for their keep. That should not be allowed.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, while we must welcome a number of improvements in the social welfare code which are included in it, the death grant of £25 in 1970 shows, in view of the fact that the late Deputy Bill Norton had a proposal to introduce £20 in 1949, how far back the Minister and his officials are. The fact that the provision will not be operative until the end of March, 1971, is a mistake. This provision should have been implemented almost immediately. I do not know what £25 is supposed to do. It certainly will not pay for a funeral. It will not buy a coffin. I saw a poor man recently whose wife had died and the bill he got for a coffin, with nothing elaborate about it, and a hearse to take his wife's remains ten or 15 miles to the local church and from the church to the cemetery was £65. The Department of Social Welfare are giving £25 in this case and smaller amounts under other circumstances. This will have to be reviewed. I also think that the qualifications required for this grant are wrong. Again let me go back to our friends the "lump" job men, those who are not in constant employment, or are not stamping cards for a long time, those who have gone to England and have been out of the country for a while, or perhaps people who do a small amount of work for themselves and do not stamp cards, or sign for unemployment benefit for a short period. It is a very small thing which will reduce the number of stamps below an average of 48 per year. An average of 48 is far too high — 48 in the last contribution year or 48 over his insurance lifetime. I assume that by "insurance life time" the Minister means from 1953 because, as he is aware, the insurance before that is dealt with in a different way. Perhaps he might have a look at that section because if he does mean from 1953 it might require a small alteration in order to ensure that it is correct.

When I read about the invalidity pension I thought for a moment that the Minister had taken some advice which I gave his predecessor last year, and which I gave a number of his predecessors, on a number of occasions, that what is needed more than anything else in regard to social welfare benefit is some way of dealing with the unfortunate person who has less than 156 stamps on his insurance card. The person with less than 156 stamps and who qualifies for benefit gets a maximum payment of 12 months benefit. At the end of the 12 months he is simply out. As far as social welfare is concerned such people no longer exist. If they are unemployed and have drawn their full benefit they are then able to go to unemployment assistance. Will the Minister tell me why it was not possible to introduce some type of, let us call it, disability assistance, so that those who had less than 156 stamps would be able to continue in their illness receiving a lesser amount than they were receiving for the 12 months when they were getting full benefit because of their insurance record? The Minister or his predecessor must not have understood the case that was made. I can see no argument against it. If it is right that those who are unemployed can, having drawn their full unemployment complement of six months if they have less than seven years or 12 months over seven years, then go to unemployment assistance, why is it not possible to have the same arrangement for those who in fact might need it more? A person who is ill and cannot work should be entitled to some type of payment without having to go to the local authority and every week having somebody call around to see whether or not he had a little extra fruit in the garden or a few extra hens laying, as has happened to my knowledge within the last few years.

This is something which the Minister should try to remedy and he can remedy it quite simply even in this Bill. While the invalidity pension is an improvement, I wonder how it will work out because again he has the magic 48 stamps per year, 48 stamps or credits in the previous year, or an average of 48. This simply means that somebody who has not got 48 stamps will be out for good and there are so many reasons why people may not have the 48. They may have been doing a "lump" job, or they may have done a contract, let it be a small contract job for somebody for which no stamp is put on, or they may have been in England for a short time or they may have been on an extended holiday. One year in which they have less than 48, if they have not got it in the qualifying year, does not reduce the amount of benefit — and Deputy Moore was quite right — it abolishes it completely. They are completely out if they have not got the 48 stamps or over.

This is the sort of rigidity which we could do without in social welfare arrangements and it is something which should be looked at and changed. What is to happen those who qualify for this pension? Who declares that they will be invalids for the rest of their lives? The Minister says that he has not made the regulations and that he would welcome advice on this matter. I had a call on Saturday last from a man who has been crippled with arthritis for eight years and before that he was employed full time by a county council. Eight years ago he got arthritis and was declared unfit for work. After attempting for six months to continue working, the doctor told him he would have to stop. Since then he has been able to crawl around with the help of a stick. Some time last year a neighbour told him that he had some small potatoes which he could put in a bag and take away for nothing. The man went to the field on two, three or four days, sat down for a while, filled the small potatoes into a bag and had them taken home. The following month another neighbour told him that there was a small portion of hedge which, if he cut it with a saw — the Minister knows that there is a difference between cutting a hedge with a saw or with a hook — he could have the timber. With the assistance of his wife he cut some of the hedge and they got the timber home. Somebody with a long tongue or with a long pen and very little to do wrote to the Department of Social Welfare and complained that this man was working and was drawing benefit. The Department in their usual kindhearted way sent notification to the local agent that the man was no longer entitled to benefit until the matter had been fully investigated.

This man worked for as long as he could and if he could work now he would be getting about £15 a week but he is living on £6 7s 6d which is not a very good living. If he was one of those who were entitled to an invalidity pension, as he would be because of the long number of years he has drawn benefit, what would the situation be? Will the same situation arise? Will there be reviews? Will there be doctors who will visit these people periodically and say, "You were sick yesterday but you are not sick today"? The Minister will have to be very careful about this sort of thing. On previous occasions in this House I have said I consider that the investigating officers are not only far too severe but that they have a tendency to try to get information from neighbours rather than from the individuals concerned. The investigating officer in this case did not go to this man but to his neighbours and asked them what they knew about him. This is the sort of thing that will ruin this scheme before it even gets off the ground. A pretty strong line will have to be taken. If somebody is sick for a period either a doctor's certificate is accepted or it is not. It cannot be both ways.

Next we come to the retirement pension. Frankly, while there may be some merit in the fact that people do not have to sign at the exchange and therefore can draw benefits just as if they were old age pensioners by going to the post office with their books once a week, I really think that the main reason why this retirement pension is being introduced is that it will take a considerable number of people between the ages of 65 and 70 off the unemployment register and next year some Minister will come into this House and say "Look at the huge reduction in the number of people on the unemployment register compared with last year" and he will be able to say that all those people must be employed when in fact they will have been taken off because they will be in receipt of the retirement pension. The Minister smiles. I am quite sure the thought never struck him.

Mr. J. Brennan

We would not do a thing like that.

Mr. Tully

I am quite sure that this idea must have been at the back of his mind and at the back of the minds of those who invented this. It will come into effect as from 1st October. The same idea is introduced here: that they have not less than 156 employment contributions paid and have an average of 48 contributions paid or credited per contribution year up to the age of 65 years. I am sure the Minister realises that this will disqualify many ordinary working-class people who depend for their livelihood on what they earn by the sweat of their brow. There will be complications and the Minister refers to this when he says that the man or woman can opt for or out of the scheme. It would have been much better if the old age pension idea at 65 years were accepted. In the 1949 document which the late Deputy Bill Norton produced in this House there was a suggestion of a 65 years retirement age for men and 60 years retirement age for women. Twenty-one years later we are making a song and dance about a modified retirement pension at 65 years.

It is possible that both those schemes will mean that a considerable number of officials will be relieved of the job of dealing with weekly certificates or claims. I paid tribute to the officials a short time ago; however, one of the matters causing considerable worry at the moment is that there is a marked shortage of junior officials in the Department of Social Welfare. Some years ago young girls who came up from the country thought they were doing quite well by getting a salary of £6 per week out of which they paid perhaps £2 10s for accommodation. However, the situation is now changed and a young girl receiving, perhaps, £9 weekly wages, out of which she pays £5 or £6 for "digs", does not think that she is doing so well and the result is that such staff are not available to the same degree as in former years. Junior staff are necessary for the efficient running of the Department and it is unfair to ask senior staff to do this work in addition to their own duties.

In connection with the allowance given to a person for caring for an incapacitated old age pensioner or widowed pensioner, I am not very clear about what is proposed in this matter. When the Budget was being discussed I made the comment, and I now repeat it that I cannot see, in the case of somebody who qualified for the old age pension and who could have applied for it but did not, why it is expected that he would apply for the assistance which would be given to the prescribed female relative for looking after him. I notice the Minister has slightly extended this; he says that it applies also to people aged 70 years and over who require full-time care and attention who might not qualify for the pension. I find this difficult to understand but I am sure when the regulations come out we will see how it works out. I do not understand the reasoning behind this proposal: if it is decided a person is not entitled to an old age pension, how can it be decided that the same person is entitled to assistance? Perhaps the Minister would clarify this point when he is replying.

Last year the prescribed female relative category was altered to include not only daughters and step-daughters but also sisters, half-sisters, granddaughters, daughters-in-law and nieces. Can the Minister state why wives are not included? It is ridiculous that a wife who is caring for an old age pensioner is not included in the category of prescribed female relatives when daughters, step-daughters and nieces qualify.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is a different matter.

Mr. Tully

I should be very glad if the Minister can tell me how the wife can live, and a considerable number of people in my constituency would be glad to hear the answer.

Mr. J. Brennan

She has signed a contract.

Mr. Tully

That is true but the Minister could do something here to help many people. The category of prescribed female relatives does not include a married daughter or the daughter-in-law if her husband is alive. There are many cases where the young couple are in poor circumstances and have little money to spend on their own family; yet even though they care for the aged parent, they do not qualify for an allowance — an allowance they would get if they were single. The Minister might stretch Christianity a little in this regard because any help given would be much appreciated. The young couple could send the parent to an old folks' home but they do not adopt this course and they care for the old person at home.

It is time something was done for deserted wives because there was a definite need. I am sorry that the old system is being reintroduced — namely, if the people concerned are under the age of 50 years it is an entirely different matter. Somebody here expressed the hope that not many people would qualify for benefit in this case but, unfortunately, we all know that in this country far too many people will qualify. Even in this city there are a tremendous number of people who have been deserted, many of them are under 50 years of age and they are unable to find work or to get any income unless some assistance is given by the local authorities.

I would appeal to the Minister to have another look at this age limit: he is confining it to people between the ages of 50 and 70 years and to cases where there are children. I appeal to him to ensure that the regulations he will make will not be too strict. I remember the former Deputy James Dillon at one stage tried to have some person declared a widow whose husband had disappeared 32 years previously. He was told by the then Minister that nothing could be done to enable this woman to be declared a widow as her husband might eventually turn up. As a matter of fact, her husband did turn up about six weeks afterwards: he was an embarrassment to everybody, including Mr. Dillon.

Mr. Geoghegan

So the Minister was right then?

Mr. Tully

The Minister was right. However, if we adhere rigidly to this regulation and want definite information that the man has gone, many cases will be held up. Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the matter of all the legal processes possible being utilised. However, if this is done many of these ladies will be far more bitter than they are now. Up to the present they have not been promised anything. Now that they have been promised something if they find that, because they do not fulfil certain conditions the Minister lays down, they will be deprived of benefit, I do not think the Minister will have their prayers.

The upper limit for qualified children under the social assistance schemes has been raised to 18 years. The Minister perhaps would make a statement that those who have been disqualified on reaching the age of 16 years will once again qualify for benefit. Will the Minister let us know if this be done automatically, or is it necessary to make an application? Deputies are frequently asked questions about such matters and a statement clarifying the position would help them.

The amount mentioned in the Budget speech for the increase in social welfare benefit was 17s, subsequently it was 17s 6d and in the Bill it is 17s 6d. This may be a typist's error, but there have been a number of slight alterations up and down in some of the rates given. I notice it is stated that some of these are due to the fact that decimal currency will be introduced next spring.

I want to refer to the increases in insurance stamps. The situation is getting completely out of hand. From the 5th October next a man's insurance stamp will go up from 25s 1d to 30s 6d. The employee is being asked to pay 2s 8d and the employer the remainder. Some years ago the State departed from the system whereby it paid a proportion of the increase in the stamps which left roughly one-third for the employer and one-third for the employee. They maintained the amount which had been paid up to that date but they said they were not going to pay any more and they have maintained that since.

Mr. J. Brennan

The State still pays one-third.

Mr. Tully

The State only pays one-third of the basic, it does not pay one-third of this increase now.

Mr. J. Brennan

They make up the deficiency in the social insurance fund each year which is always more than one-third. That is all we ever did.

Mr. Tully

There is no point in my arguing with the Minister. I shall put down a question to him and he will then have ample time to answer it because we are obviously talking at cross purposes. I know quite well that the State are not paying the proportion of the insurance which they should be paying; they are making the employer and the employee meet the responsibility. The increase of 2s 8d for the man is bad enough but the woman's contribution to her stamp has also been increased by 2s 8d and the agricultural worker's stamp has been increased by 2s 8d. This is the first time agricultural workers' stamps have been increased by the same amount as industrial workers' stamps. The stamp for women in agriculture has been increased by 2s 4d and the stamp for the domestic has been increased by the same amount. Will the Minister explain why he considers he is entitled to charge those rates to women in agriculture and domestic service although they are deprived of the right to unemployment benefit unless they have ten years stamps? Is it because the Minister considers that these women should be available for domestic work? I suppose it is regarded as a good idea to ensure that they cannot draw unemployment benefit because they will then be more likely to accept badly paid jobs in domestic service. Will the Minister say if he is considering giving women the same unemployment benefit rights as their brothers or husbands?

At the end of his brief the Minister said:

The Bill includes a provision to make a minor modification of the means test for non-contributory old age and widows' pensions. At present a person who is paying rent for a labourer's cottage is not assessed with any means from the cottage for pension purposes but a person who is paying an annuity in respect of the purchase of a labourer's cottage has the value of the cottage assessed against him although the annuity payment may be the same amount as the rent would be.

The Minister now proposes to do away with this where the annuity is concerned. Would the Minister consider applying this not only to the council cottage to which he referred but to any type of old house? A system has operated for a number of years by which people who have any type of residence of their own are debarred from getting the benefit of an extra 5s per week. It is a very small amount to the State but it is a very large amount to these unfortunate people who are trying to eke out an existence on what they get from the State. I would ask the Minister to look at the whole question and remove this completely, because not only do those who live in a house of their own lose this 5s a week but also do those who sleep in a relative's house.

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not think so.

Mr. Tully

Yes, they do. I can assure the Minister that, although he may know a great deal about social welfare, I think I know as much. There may be many other things about which the Minister knows more than I do but as far as social welfare is concerned I think I am on a par with the Minister.

Mr. J. Brennan

We do sometimes disregard the house if it is an old shack.

Mr. Tully

The Minister's Department disregarded it on one occasion when Deputy Harte kicked up murder but that is the only case I know of.

Mr. J. Brennan

And that established a precedent.

Mr. Tully

A precedent which has not been followed. It is rather interesting the Minister should think of that case.

I know one person who planted 50 plants and one ridge of potatoes in a rented or vested garden. When an official from the Department went along he put a value of 4s a week on that garden and this moved the person from one category into another for pension purposes and he lost 5s a week as a result.

Mr. Murphy

The official must have been promoted since.

Mr. Tully

I do not think so. People like that are not very popular in any walk of life. Will the Minister say if he has considered the question of graded benefits? Last year his predecessor announced that he was considering the introduction of graded payments and graded benefits such as are in operation in most European countries. Is there any reason why it has not been done here? If there is a reason the people should be told what it is because many expected these graded payments and graded benefits to be introduced in this Bill.

The social welfare system has a long way to go. I do not blame those who operate the system but I do blame the Government who for 30 or 40 years have allowed us to drop back in the league, to the point where our expenditure on social welfare is only 6 per cent of our GNP as against 14.8, 14, 15.1, 15.1, 16.3 and 12.8 which are the percentages payable in countries which, according to the Minister for External Affairs, we hope to be our partners in the EEC. In the next few years a great deal of work needs to be done.

Mr. J. Brennan

Other countries regard some queer things as social welfare benefits.

Mr. Tully

As long as they are benefits I do not mind what they call them.

Mr. J. Brennan

If we included health, education and home assistance——

Mr. Tully

The Minister knows quite well that is not correct. In fact I can give him figures to prove that health and education are included in one country. The other countries treat them in the same manner as we do.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister knows well that I sympathise with what Deputy Tully has been saying. I have been saying the same thing for years and years. When the Minister hinted about the inclusion of health and education he omitted to mention defence which enters into the GNP in other countries where a much greater share of national prosperity and national income is spent on defence.

Mr. Tully

I am giving the percentage of GNP being paid in social welfare. I do not care how it is made up.

Mr. Ryan

I appreciate the point Deputy Tully is making. The point I am making is that not only are we spending less of our GNP on social welfare but because we do not have the defence commitments which other countries have we should be able to donate without any real difficulty another 10 per cent of our income for the assistance of people who have fallen on hard times. In some cases defence amounts to as much as 25 per cent of the annual budget.

The reality of the situation, when we leave aside the statistics, is that the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" is growing. The gap between the people who have steady employment and a reasonable income and the people who are ill, injured, invalided, widowed, orphaned, blind, incapacitated or suffering from old age is widening to a greater and greater extent. Poverty is always difficult to bear but it becomes more difficult to bear in a community where a large number of people enjoy a substantial share of comfort and wealth. The person to day who is below the breadline suffers immeasurably more than somebody at a similar level ten, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It is wrong that we should be contemplating at all increases which have been computed on a totally inadequate basis. It is no fair test to indicate that the amount paid many years ago has been multiplied. Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick of Cavan said this was no fair test as to whether our social services today are adequate to meet the needs of the modern age.

Demands today are greater than they were formerly. Many items are regarded as necessary today to provide people with a reasonable life which, in other days, were regarded as luxuries. It is right that that should be so. It is correct that the State should accept the burden of providing what are regarded as necessities today. It is not right that the Government should feel smug because they have increased the benefits by a certain percentage each year in order to provide what was regarded as an adequate subsistence level four or five decades ago. It is because of this yawning gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" that we, in Fine Gael, express our considerable disappointment at the inadequate levels of social welfare benefits which were proposed in this year's Budget and which it is now proposed to implement.

We also express our disappointment that the Minister has yet again allowed another opportunity to pass without reducing the number of means tests which are applied to necessitous people. The widow with children may, in her urgent need to provide a decent standard of living for those children, to provide them with adequate clothes and shoes, fuel, food, schooling and health benefits, has to submit herself and her children to as many as 18 different means tests operated by a multitude of conflicting agencies. This is wrong. It is time that we decided what was necessary in order to provide a reasonable livelihood. Having set that standard we should ensure that a minimum of administrative regulations and a minimum of means tests should operate, and that standard should be applied all round.

Poverty and hardship are difficult enough to bear without having to surrender one's self respect time and time again in order to get some extra benefit or some marginal relief being administered by a multitude of conflicting agencies. We have now added another patch to the patchwork quilt of our social services. That quilt is wearing very thin. It is unable to provide protection from the winds of hardship which blow in this modern age. Instead of designing a new quilt, instead of weaving a social welfare structure which would meet present-day needs, we have put another patch on to the quilt of the poor law relief legislation enacted by Queen Victoria's Ministers.

Our widows and orphans are the most neglected people in our community. This is a crying shame in a society which boasts, even in its Constitution, of its recognition of the particular place which mothers have in the family. It is a shame in a society which accepts the fundamental position of the family. It is intolerable that we should be leaving widows and orphans to bear a burden far beyond their capacity. In many cases this means that the equality of opportunity which should be available to the children of such families is denied to them. It is denied to the elder children of such families who are often required to leave school earlier than they should in order to supplement the incomes of their mothers so that the younger children may get a chance in life.

No widow with an average family could survive on the amount of non-contributory benefit paid. A sum of £7 per week would not pay for food, clothing and housing accommodation for a widow with four children. This sum is clearly inadequate. The Minister and his Department know — it is common knowledge — that many widows with non-contributory pensions go out to work. By so doing, these widows render themselves liable to penalties. But if they did not go out to work in such circumstances the opportunities for the children to advance in life would be non-existent. The mothers would not be able to maintain them at school beyond the minimum age of 14 or 15 years. We would urge that widows and orphans receive far more generous treatment than that which has been meted out to them in the past. These are the children of the future. There is a clear obligation on our society to pay particular attention to their requirements.

We welcome the introduction of the death grant. The Minister will appreciate how disappointing it is to us that this grant is so small. It should have been made something worthwhile. I often handle administrations of estates and I know that the minimum cost of a funeral in this city at present is £75. Where does £25 go to meet the expenses? This is the figure mentioned by the Government in this Bill towards meeting the necessary expenses. The local authorities get more than £25 for providing a pauper's funeral.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Paupers' funerals no longer exist.

Mr. Ryan

Paupers' funerals no longer exist in name but the provision whereby local authorities provide for burial does exist. Let us not drop the semantics of another age when they accurately describe what occurs. We like to run away from such descriptions. The workhouse is now referred to as the county home, but the county homes are institutions of another day and age. This sum of £25 is quite inadequate. We are told that it is of assistance. It is of assistance, but the purpose of introducing the death grant is to provide a form of national insurance to meet the expenses which arise on death. The assistance should be on a level which is adequate to meet the necessary expenditure. It is proposed to provide only £5 in respect of the death of a child under five years of age. The cost of burial and other costs incidental to death do not reduce by that amount if the child is less than five years of age and they certainly do not reduce to £11 or £15 if the child is less than 18 years.

I can understand why these figures were chosen for actuarial purposes and, perhaps, to assist in reducing the level of contributions that must be made, but if we are proposing a scheme that is tailored to the requirements of the modern age we ought to introduce one that will provide adequate benefits and not introduce a scheme that is only an excuse and which will involve, in many cases, an expenditure of at least one-fifth to one-third on administration alone.

The difficulties of uniting our country have been uppermost in our minds for some time past, in particular the political and religious difficulties, but one of the substantial difficulties which certainly will affect the decision of many families will be in relation to the level of social welfare benefits. Of course, social benefits in the North of Ireland are subsidised from London but it is not sufficient an excuse for us to point to that and say we cannot come up to their level. The reality of the situation is that, if we are to see a united Ireland, the levels of social benefits in both parts of our country will have to come to an equal point on the scale because if they do not, there will be many Irish men and women north of the border who will not vote for a united Ireland until such time as the levels of social welfare benefits are equal in both parts of our island.

Difficulties have arisen from time to time in relation to the payment of pensions and other welfare benefits where the would-be recipients are living abroad. I am glad to say that, as a result of considerable pressure some years ago, the Minister made regulations whereby pensions in certain limited circumstances could be paid to Irish citizens living abroad. However, I urge the Minister to avail of this year's legislation to allow payment of pensions to Irish people living abroad without the limitations that have hitherto applied to them.

Pensions and social welfare benefits are payable only because people contributed to the scheme when they were in a position to do so. If a person does not contribute while he has an income, he is not entitled to benefit. Therefore, it is a contractual debt, and a debt which the State owes to the contributor should be paid without regard to the place of residence of the person at the time of receiving the benefit. That is the legal position and it is on that legal principle that I would justify the removal of all limitations in regard to the payment of benefit to Irish citizens living abroad.

There is also a very good humanitarian reason for removing all limitations. Many young people are obliged to emigrate for economic reasons, and in the closing years of their parents' lives they like to be reunited. However, elderly people like to maintain their self-respect and independence and should be encouraged to do so. When they are invited, as they often are, by a son or daughter to go to live abroad, they usually will not do so unless they can be assured of some income which will make them financially independent of their children. They do not wish to avail of the hospitality offered to them if they are to be a burden on the financial resources of their children. On that account, there are a large number of elderly people still living with us— we are only too glad to have them and to maintain them here—who, in many cases, would prefer to be with their children who have settled down abroad but who, because of the regulations imposed on the payment to them of old age pensions, do not go. Very often the result is that they continue to live in inadequate and sometimes unsafe circumstances here and with an inadequate old age pension. We do not facilitate them as we ought to enable them be united with their children.

As I mentioned at the outset, the State's share of overall expenditure for welfare has fallen during the past ten years. That is the reality of the situation. It is the share we give of the total national cake that matters and not any multiplication of an utterly inadequate base. I would hope for a reassessment of the manner of calculating our social welfare contributions. A proper basis for determining what would be the average would be to determine what is the average annual wage. Having determined that, we should ensure that no social welfare recipient receives any less than a certain percentage of that. If that were the basis, any Minister for Social Welfare could go to the annual pre-Budget meeting of the Cabinet and say, "This year's statistics show that the figures for social welfare must be so much." It would assist a Minister for Social Welfare if that principle were accepted. I am sure that, if Members of the House were to give serious and sympathetic consideration to that idea, they would agree that it would be just.

We should prepare a social welfare policy to meet present-day requirements. That is the only way in which we can ensure that the invalided, the aged and the sick in our midst would receive a fair share of increasing national prosperity. If we do not do that, they will continue to lag behind as they have lagged behind during the past decade and longer.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Firstly, I wish to congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on introducing this Bill. I think we all agree that increased social welfare is always welcome because when we increase social welfare benefits we improve the lot of the weakest section of our community. Those in the business and industrial sector can look after themselves but it is the duty of the Government and of this House to ensure that the weakest section of our community is adequately provided for.

When we talk about increases in social welfare we should be fair to ourselves and when moneys are being voted we should ensure that there is no criticism of the manner in which the money is being raised. There is no use in advocating large-scale increases while, at the same time, decrying any increases in taxation because it is obvious that any increases in social welfare benefits must automatically be gathered from the taxpayer. By and large, we all agree with the provisions of the Bill.

As Deputy Ryan has said, the increase in the death grant may not be adequate, but I am sure it will be a welcome contribution towards funeral costs which are very high and run in the region of £75 or £80. In the past, the pattern has been to take out insurance policies. Probably an insurance policy was taken out 20 or 30 years ago to cover the cost of funeral expenses at that time. The people who took out those policies were convinced they had sufficient money to cover the cost of a funeral but now they find themselves short when it comes to paying funeral expenses. When the money which the Minister is now giving is added to the insurance policy which is held by those people it will help to defray some of the expenses. As this scheme is in its infancy I am quite sure something extra will be given when money becomes available. I hope maybe next year the Minister will take a new look at this particular section and relate it to present-day costs. A grant of £25 in the country could be adequate and possibly would cover half the expenses of a country funeral but there is no comparison between the expenses in this city and those prevailing in rural Ireland. I have attended funerals in rural Ireland and I have seen the bills from undertakers which are only one-third those which apply in Dublin.

Deputy Ryan referred to the grant got by local authorities for providing a pauper's funeral. Quite often this has to pay the entire cost of a funeral. If the person has no means at all, it is the duty of the Dublin Health Authority to pay the funeral expenses.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the section regarding retirement pensions. I hope eventually we can get old age pensions at 65 years. The granting of a retirement pension at 65 years will certainly help those people who have to sign at the labour exchange and submit medical certificates at frequent intervals. This was a burden on many people who had a long illness. They will now be given this pension book which will ensure that money is available every week. I know of several cases in the past where the cheques did not arrive from the Department of Social Welfare. This was probably due to no fault of the officials of the Department but may have been due to the medical certificate not arriving in time. However, we must realise we are dealing with a section of the community who are dependent on the cheque from the Department of Social Welfare to buy the very necessaries of life over the week-end and it is imperative that this money should arrive in time. When it does not it means that those people face complete starvation for the week end.

Provision is made by Dublin Health Authority whereby destitute people can get assistance. I have tried to secure this from the Dublin Health Authority but because the Department of Social Welfare is closed on Saturday and Sunday the Dublin Health Authority will give out nothing without consultation with the Department to ensure that those destitute people receive money from them. The Minister is doing something to rectify this matter by ensuring that they have a retirement pension at 65 years of age. Those people will also be credited with stamps up to 70 years and will not be debarred in any way from the old age pension or the widow's contributory pension.

The old age allowance scheme in the Bill is very welcome. This is £2 15s a week. Many of us realise the misery and misfortune which many people in this city have to endure, particularly when there is an old person to be looked after. I have known of cases where a daughter gave up her job to look after her mother and had very little to live on. We should take a very serious look at this particular section of the community. Where an old woman is living with her daughter who has to go out to work she is left alone from eight or nine in the morning until the daughter comes home at six or later in the evening. In a house where there are several sons and daughters working one can decide to give up one's job to look after the mother. The allowance of £2 15s is a step in the right direction. This is really a saving of money to the Exchequer. If a member of the family does not stay at home to look after an aged parent, that person has to be put into an institution. It is much better when the person can remain at home in the comfort of the family.

Things are not as difficult in rural Ireland because members of the family are working on the family farm so they are able to look after their aged parents during the daytime. There are many people in Dublin who deserve special consideration for looking after their aged parents.

We have also introduced in the Bill an allowance for deserted wives. I am delighted the Minister has introduced this. It is a sad state of affairs to see a woman who is deserted by her husband at 50 years of age or even younger left, as we saw up to this, dependent on the home assistance officer as to how much she would get. It is only right that the Minister should give her the equivalent of a non-contributory widow's pension. It is difficult to define what constitutes a deserted wife. We know there are many husbands in England whose wives have taken legal action and by and large have been granted £4 a week by our Irish courts but we all know that some of the husbands are not living up to their obligations. Sometimes their wives may receive £1 or £2 a week but very often there is a gap of three weeks or more before they receive anything. We should ensure that these deserted wives are not prohibited from receiving this allowance by virtue of their having been granted a certain amount by the court when the husband fails to fulfil his obligations.

I am sure the Minister will take all the steps necessary to bring in the best scheme. Many wives would be hesitant about coming forward when they find themselves in this situation and the possibility is that the local doctor or the local priest might be worth consulting. This is a section which could be abused. The age limit should be reduced from 50 to 40 years. A deserted wife in her 40s will find it very difficult to get employment and that is why I should like the age limit to be reduced. Most employers are hesitant about taking on women in their 40s.

We welcome these increases. We live in a society in which there is massive inflation in both wages and prices and it is the duty of the Government to keep a close watch on the weaker sections of our community and ensure that the benefits they receive are not eroded by rising prices.

A pension scheme should be introduced for all workers. Trade unions and employers should get together on this. It is very sad to see a man who has been earning £18 or £20 a week suddenly reduced, at 70 years of age, to living on an old age pension. There are firms which have introduced pension schemes. I cannot see any reason why all employers could not introduce pension schemes for their employees.

With regard to the stamping of cards, I have had several cases in my constituency in which employers have failed to stamp cards. These employers should be dealt with severely. The money is deducted from the employees' wages every week. At the end of two years an unfortunate employee, who falls ill, suddenly discovers his card has not been stamped at all. It is very difficult for an employee to take legal action to recover this money. He may not be able to afford to employ a solicitor; he may not know exactly how to go about it. As well as that, it is a very slow process. I suggest that people who are wronged in this fashion should get full redress when they need it and let the Department recover from the employers subsequently. The unfortunate part is that some of these employers go bankrupt and this makes it impossible for employees to recover their money.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill. Down through the years we have always tried to improve the standard of living of the weaker sections of our community. Everyone in this House would like to see more being done for these people. I am sure the Minister would like to do more but his hands are tied to a certain extent because he has to take cognisance of the overall economic situation and the amount of taxation that can be levied.

I thank the Minister for the help I have received in the past. I also thank his Parliamentary Secretary, whom I have always found very helpful, especially in cases in which benefits have been withheld.

Mr. Murphy

I was anticipating, as were many others, that this year would see a change in the qualifying age for the old age pension. It is a long time since the Government of the late Edward VII introduced old age pensions to Great Britain and Ireland and set the qualifying age at 70 years. That age has not changed since 1908 — 62 years ago. We have had violent changes in many fields. Our way of life has changed very much — fortunately, for the better, in many circumstances — but this qualifying age of 70 still remains in Ireland. I do not think that is the position in any other country in Western Europe: they all have changed. A previous speaker mentioned the position of Northern Ireland. The change took place there long ago. People resident within a short distance of the Minister's home are enjoying retirement allowances at 65 and 60 years of age and why should we lag behind? I have been pressing this for many years.

I see no reason why those in what could be termed the better type of employment get their pensions and their gratuities at 65 years of age whereas the fellow who is out in the field or who is behind the counter trying to make a livelihood from a small shop, and so on, and all classifications of self-employed persons, must drag on until 70 years of age, if they are spared that length. I am pleased that, so far as wage earners are concerned, retirement allowances will be payable from the age of 65. Why not make that general in the year 1970 which is 62 years since that standard was established? Why not make a general law?

Mention has been made of the cost. While I appreciate that to provide allowances at 65 for everybody would necessitate additional taxation it would not necessitate nearly as much additional taxation as we were led to believe by Government sources whenever that question was posed. My view is that, on average, at least 50 per cent of the allowance paid to the old age pensioner finds its way back to the Exchequer through taxation of one kind or another; that is a minimum; it is below average. It is not unusual for old people, if they can manage it, to have a few "half ones" to keep up the old spirits. The Minister is well able to calculate how much the Exchequer gets from each "half one". It is the unfortunate position that many pensioners who would like a "half one" cannot afford it. At the moment, I am not dealing with that point but with the age limit.

I doubt if there would be any opposition within this State to the provision of funds to bring about this justifiable reduction in the qualifying age. I am satisfied that the benefits accruing would far outweigh the disadvantages of getting additional taxation for this purpose. I addressed myself to this question in this House on previous occasions. I left it over. Possibly I thought the time was not ripe; the Government were making excuses about shortage of money, and so on. However, this question can no longer be allowed to lie in abeyance. One advantage is that farmers would assign their holdings five years earlier with the result that marriages in rural Ireland would take place earlier. That would be a marked advantage. The same situation would apply so far as shopkeepers and others in rural Ireland are concerned. It is an established fact that the time to assign property is on reaching pensionable age.

I am satisfied that pensions payable at 65 years to insurable employees will bring many benefits. These people will be retiring earlier and making room for younger members of our population who, in the past, had to leave Ireland to seek a livelihood. By reducing the pensionable age by five years there will be a great improvement so far as keeping young people in employment at home is concerned. I am aware that there was a general expectation amongst Irish people that the qualifying age limit would be reduced.

Another item, a very important one, was referred to by Deputy O'Hara during Question Time last week or the week before, that is, the number of our people who are afflicted with arthritis. It is unfortunate that in this country, with its relatively small population and its relatively high hospital bed occupancy per head of the population, many of our people over 60 years of age are afflicted with ailments of one type or another. If you travel through the countryside today you will find that at the age level of 70 every other person is suffering from some defect. That is unfortunate but, to my mind, it is a factual appraisal of the situation.

Why should a person be asked to wait until he is 70 years of age before he is given these allowances? Why should certain classifications of our people only be asked to wait? Is not the man in the field as good an Irishman as any of us here in this House? We will not be asked to wait until we are 70 years to qualify for a pension. None of our friends in the Civil Service and none of the employees of local authorities will be asked to wait until they are 70 years of age before they get a pension. Pensions and gratuities are available to them. The question of their paying contributions towards them does not arise. The classifications I am speaking about contribute to taxation just as much as anyone else. In some cases they contribute directly and in all cases, naturally, they contribute indirectly.

We must get down to this and get someone to do our mathematics on it to see what it would cost because the people demand it. I want to impress on the Minister the advantage of getting people off the land or out of business, and the advantage of giving our young people an opportunity of running the farm or the business five years earlier than is the usual practice at present. I want the Minister to bear that in mind. There are no political kudos to be gained from this type of legislation, either from approving it or criticising it. Any moneys we give at 65 years of age must come from the pockets of the people. I know that and I have stressed it.

I know the Minister has no magic wand in Store Street that he can wave over that big building and say: "Fall down here £8 million or £9 million. I need it to give old age pensions at 65 years." I am not putting my view forward in that spirit. I know it will have to be calculated closely and carefully. When the calculation is assessed the Minister or his successor will have to come back to the House and say: "We are formulating a new system for the payment of social welfare to people between the ages of 65 and 70 years and we want extra cash." This is July, 1970, and I hope that whoever is here in July, 1971, instead of asking for this benefit for our people will be discussing the actual details of proposals to implement a reduction in the qualifying age.

Mr. Geoghegan

We will all be here, please God.

Mr. Murphy

There is a doubt. I do not know how the war is going at the moment. Reports from the front suggest that there is a quietening off, but you never know. I hope they are getting on well now. I hope their differences are being patched up.

Mr. Geoghegan

We will be here in 1972 and 1973.

Mr. Murphy

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will continue in office. The Ministers seemed to be in good form today at Question Time. Things may be improving. However, that does not arise on this Social Welfare Bill. I want to impress on the House that I hope whoever is here, whether it is the present Minister or some other Minister, will be bringing in proposals for a reduction in the qualifying age.

While Deputy Fitzpatrick from Dublin city was speaking about the advantages of increased allowances, it struck me that we had an answer to a Dáil question here last week telling us that this year it would take £187 to buy goods which cost £100 in 1963. I presume the commodities referred to in the index were the commodities dealt with by the Minister in his reply. What you got for £1 in 1963 would now cost £1 17s 9d. That clearly indicates a depreciation in the value of money and a sharp reduction in its purchasing power from year to year. When you have that sharp decrease in the purchasing power of money, social welfare benefits must be increased not to give an improved standard to the recipients but to maintain their standard. I do not see any great increase in benefits so far as the purchasing power of that money is concerned. That is borne out by the departmental calculation of £1 in 1963 equalling £1 17s 9d in 1970 in purchasing value.

We have a reasonably wide field to cover in this discussion: the plight of the old age pensioners, widows and the orphans and people afflicted with illnessses of one type or another and, of course, unemployment benefit. I am leaving that until last because I do not think it should be in existence at all. It is peculiar that in 1970 we have not got work for all our people. Surely a system could be devised whereby it would be possible to bring about that arrangement. To start at the top rung of the ladder and come down, the circumstances of old age pensioners vary very much.

Debate adjourned.