Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Jul 1970

Vol. 248 No. 9

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

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

Mr. Murphy

The opportunity afforded by the discussion which arises here annually on social welfare allowances is availed of to a large extent to focus attention on the grievances Deputies are made aware of from time to time in regard to the administration of social welfare benefits. That is a good thing because so many people are dependent on social welfare benefits for their existence. Last night I endeavoured to focus attention on the desirability of changing the qualifying age for pensions to 65 years.

I should like to repeat that such a change has been made in almost every country I know of with the exception of Ireland. This question was left in abeyance to a large extent last year because the Minister made some announcement about two years ago, in advance of the 1969 general election, that the age limit would be reduced to 65 years. Naturally that was well publicised so Deputies came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to raise this matter last year and that legislation would be enacted to bring about this desirable result.

I want to ask again this morning, as I have asked down through the years, why should people in the better type of employment with bigger salaries and safer and surer jobs get their allowances at 65 years of age while the self employed shoemaker, tailor, carpenter, farmer, shopkeeper and people like that must wait until they are 70 years of age? The changes made here so far as insurable employment is concerned are little more than changes in the system that has obtained during the past number of years whereby most insurable employees of 65 years or more availed of social welfare payments under the heading of unemployment benefit or disability benefit.

As I mentioned last evening, I think the House and the Irish people in general would be prepared to provide the funds necessary to bring about that change. I want to ask the Minister to take note of the statistics provided from medical sources, and others, which show that every other person of 70 years of age or more suffers from a complaint of one kind or another. I am saying that again because it will be 12 months before this House will have an opportunity of discussing this question again. There is a great deal of public anxiety about it. The shoemaker, the tailor, the hairdresser, the shopkeeper and the small farmer are self employed people, and they cannot see why the qualifying age for their pension has not been changed since it was introduced by the British Government in 1908.

I have said a great deal about this in the current debate. I do not think I raised this question last year because of the announcement which had been made by the Minister. There is an obligation or responsibility on the Government and particularly on the Minister to make a special announcement on this matter at the close of the debate. It is unnecessary to repeat that at least 50 per cent of the money paid to old age pensioners comes back to the Exchequer through taxation.

The next question that arises is that of the means test. The system used here has been attacked continuously and is likely to be attacked in the future, as many people do not appreciate the difficulty of evolving a formula that would cover all cases. At present it must be said that the means test is favourable for many people. For instance, those with a good deal of property who assign it to a member of the family on retirement and still live in the house, which is the usual thing, can qualify for the maximum rate of £3 15s weekly without much difficulty. I suppose it is fair to say that to many such applicants this allowance is essentially pocket money, it being assumed that their families continue to provide for them in their old age.

At the other extreme are old age pensioners who are entirely dependent on the £3 15s, having no other income. In some cases they live alone and in others with people incapable of supporting themselves never mind contributing to the support of an additional member in the household. In such cases the allowances are very small. When this Bill becomes law the non-contributory maximum rate will be increased to £4 5s weekly. If one considers the statistics submitted to the Dáil by a Minister less than a fortnight ago, showing that it takes £1 17s 9d at present to purchase goods which £1 could buy seven years ago, that is the clearest indication of the position that we have had for a long time. It indicates clearly that increases in social welfare benefits do little more than maintain standards, having regard to the ever-increasing cost of commodities.

To put it mildly, I think the means test is unfair. To qualify for the maximum pension you must have less than £25 and, while there is some easement in the provision for the assessment of £2 12s if you own a house or have unfurnished lodgings, in respect of some classes of pensioners, I think it is unreasonable at present to say to a person that because he has £26 he cannot qualify for a full pension. I can illustrate this with a case that has come to mind without disclosing the identity of the person concerned. Last year, I was approached by an old woman who was entirely dependent on her pension of £3 10s a week. She had no home of her own and had to reside with relatives. She was advised to come to me to ascertain whether she was entitled to the maximum rate of £3 15s. From my discussions with her I found she was not, because she had on her person £40 for her burial expenses. She had put that money into a special purse and is still taking that money around with her today. Because she had this £40 and because, as many people are, she was quite truthful in her pension declaration and in stating her means to the social welfare officer, she is losing 5s weekly.

Why should that be the position? Why should she, a woman in her circumstances, have only £3 10s a week when a farmer of £150 valuation who assigns his property, say, to his son on marriage, leaving no capital in his own name, gets £3 15s? I know it is difficult to devise legislation to cover all types of cases but the reason for giving this illustration is to convey to the House the inadvisability of continuing this system which brings about such a position.

This booklet I have here gives information regarding entitlements, if one is in the non-contributory class, on reaching the age of 70. To qualify, you must have no means or less than £25 and nothing in your own name. You must not own the house you live in unless — and this was mentioned here yesterday as happening in a few cases — the applicant is in a position to prove that the house is less than £25 in value. It is strange to think that anyone in Ireland is living in a house of an estimated value of less than £25. If an applicant is to qualify for the third rate of pensions of 65s, his income must be less than £52 10s per annum or £1 per week. If he has an income of £1 0s 6d per week he loses 10s a week pension. The rate is reduced from the maximum 75s to 65s.

Who is responsible for the continuance of that type of policy in the Department? Does it so happen that the Government and the Minister leave that over to the Civil Service side and never bother to go into these matters, which may seem insignificant to them, which may be beneath the Minister's notice but which to the individuals all over the country are of primary importance? It is no harm to remind the House and the Government that non-contributory pensioners have during their lifetime of work and toil contributed to the welfare of this State. They have contributed to taxation, local and national, both directly and indirectly. In their old age they are entitled to a better deal from public funds and from those who administer public funds.

Again referring to this booklet, it is not wasting the time of this House to deal with the scale applicable for old age pensions of a non-contributory nature. If the income rate is £2 0s 6d weekly, the loss to the pensioner is £1 5s. The pensioner is awarded a pension with no flexibility in the regulations to save him. There is no argument, no case to be made for him, no representations to be made through a social welfare officer or an appeals officer. This is the forum for making representations to get rid of this system. When I or any other Deputy of this House make such a case there is nothing he can do but tell the pensioner: "The regulations are such that you must lose your £1 5s a week. If a man has an income of £2 0s 6d then he gets £2 10s pension, that is, £4 10s 6d. Under the new regulations he will be getting £5 0s 6d. It is unfair that we should ask a man to live on £5 0s 6d, that because from his own industry he has an income of £2 weekly, public funds should effect a saving of £78 annually in respect of that person.

According to the booklet, a person who has an annual income of £221 15s, which is about £4 5s per week, finds that the appropriate rate of pension is 5s weekly; in other words, by virtue of having an income of £4 5s weekly the non-contributory rate of pension in his case is reduced by £3 10s, from £3 15s to 5s. If he has £4 6s a week he is out completely.

These are items which should be examined by the Minister and by the Government. There is a great deal of reading in this booklet. I would advise some of them to take it to bed with them and study it. They will see for themselves what food for thought one could get from a careful examination of this booklet in relation to social insurance and assistance services in 1970.

The Minister for Labour and Social Welfare, Deputy Brennan, is obliged, by virtue of the office he holds, to listen to debates and suggestions and reply to them. There is a feeling growing up in this country and, indeed, within the walls of this building that debate now serves no purpose, that the Government have fixed minds, that they are the know-all people, and it is boring and monotonous to sit over there in that seat listening to contributions from this side of the House. I do not know if such assertions are correct but they are made by several Opposition Members of this House and I think there is something in them. That is my own personal viewpoint.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are getting away from the debate on the Bill.

Mr. Murphy

No, we are not getting away from the debate. What I am trying to emphasise is that when suggestions are made here by Opposition Members and they are replied to, that is democracy. That is how it should work. Let the Minister say these suggestions are inadmissible, that it would be inadvisable to operate them but let him give reasons why such suggestions should be rejected. As well as that, a Cheann Comhairle, for your own personal information may I say assertions made around this House are that Government Deputies are precluded from contributing to many debates——

An Ceann Comhairle

This does not arise on the Social Welfare Bill. It might be the subject of a general debate but it is irrelevant on this Bill. The Deputy is getting away from the little red book.

Mr. Murphy

I never intended getting getting away from social welfare, but year after year suggestions are made here and they are not dealt with. There is an obligation on a Minister of State, no matter what Government is in power, when his Department is in receipt of a large subvention from public funds, to deal with such recommendations. If a Minister finds it boring and monotonous to listen to debates here or to deal with Departmental matters as requested in this House, then there is no obligation on him to remain in office. He has a way out; he can resign.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are dealing with one Minister at the moment and the Deputy might address his remarks to the Minister and to the Bill.

Mr. Murphy

My remarks are relevant to this debate or, indeed, to any debate. The feeling of the House is such that my remarks are relevant at the moment. There is this arrogant attitude on the part of Government Ministers and we know——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have asked the Deputy to get back to the Bill. The Deputy is making a general statement on the Government attitude and it does not arise on the Social Welfare Bill.

Mr. Murphy

It arises and I will tell you more——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is telling the Deputy that it does not arise and the Deputy knows it does not.

Mr. Murphy

That is wrong; it does arise. One of our functions is to make representations to the Department and at one time I gave credit to the Department for dealing as effectively as possible with correspondence regarding old age pensions and other social welfare benefits. That has not been the position of late. There has been a clamp-down and I understand it is by direction of the Government. I may be referring to that later on. I gave reasons why the system should be recast. In the early sixties pleas were made here for an easement of the means test and what did we find? At that time you qualified for the full pension if your means were deemed to be within the £26 5s to £52 10s group. What easement was brought about or what did the Government do? They said the means must be nil — and "nil" is the word used here— to qualify for the pension, the first £25 not to be taken into account. I say there is an unanswerable case for recasting this scale. The figures are not realistic in 1970. Because a person has 25s, 30s or 35s a week income from some other source sizeable reductions are made in the pension allowances. The rapidly depreciating value of money must be taken into account. If that were done we should have a new booklet if not in 1970 at least in 1971.

Now I come to the scale in which I am particularly interested, the scale for widows' non-contributory pensions. The scale, with slight variations, is somewhat similar. Down through the years I have pleaded here on behalf of certain classes of widows, widows of farmers, or shopkeepers, or of self-employed people who are not in insurable employment. Once the husband dies, very often unexpectedly, the income position of such a family changes. Let us take the case of a shopkeeper or farmer. The husband, who was looking after the business and through his activities was the main source of income, dies leaving a widow with a young family. In a number of such cases the man may not have had the opportunity of making a will or an assignment of his property. Such widows find themselves in great difficulties. When they ask for help from the State by way of widows' pensions it is almost impossible for them to qualify. When the application is made, the usual procedure is for an officer to investigate the case and he takes into account the income for the previous year. Invariably, he overlooks the fact that the accounting year is the year in which the husband was alive and well and was able to contribute towards the income but now that he has gone the position is completely changed. It seems strange that the Department and their officers never seem to appreciate that fact, that the widow's income undergoes a great change for the worse when the husband dies.

Take the case of a farmer's wife who has three or four children and nine or ten cows. Divide up the income whatever way you like. I agree, of course, that it is almost impossible for a social welfare officer to make a favourable report. It is very hard to say that a widow with three children has not an income of, say, £6 or £7 a week. She would want that to buy food for the household. If that is said then the pension, if any, is negligible. This is something which is crying out for amendment. The booklet says that a widow with no children and an income of over £4 weekly, or £208 a year, is out. A widow with £261 annually, or in a range from £260 15s to £273 15s and two children — that is from £5 to £5 5s weekly — qualifies for 8s 6d. This is the law today and it is not right.

Take the case of a small business. The pension officer comes along and inquires: "How much did you get from this wholesaler or from that wholesaler?" and he calculates 22 per cent or 22½ per cent gross profit and, naturally, he is bound to find, even in small businesses, that the income would be £6 or £7. There are many widows with three or four children who have small businesses and because of the regulations they are not getting pensions. The Parliamentary Secretary probably knows of such cases in County Galway. I am making a special plea for widows because I do not consider they are being treated in an equitable manner.

The booklet issued by the Department makes the position clear. There is an increase granted of 11s 6d for widows and 2s 6d for each child. The Minister could say that a widow with two children who has a weekly income of, say, £5 from a shop or small business will get an increase of 16s 6d weekly when this Bill becomes law. That is a meagre amount and I have much sympathy for the people concerned.

There is a great difference so far as widows with contributory pensions are concerned and the widows of, say, members of the public service or Members of this House. For the latter group their pension rates are spelled out not in shillings but in some cases in four figure sums and, in addition, they often receive a substantial gratuity. Why should the widow of a small shopkeeper, a farmer or a self-employed worker who perhaps has saved some money so that the income could be deemed to be £3 or £4 weekly, be treated so shabbily? I do not like to criticise our system but it is part of our job in a debate of this kind to point out the difficulties.

I would urge the Minister for Social Welfare to review such cases because he has more information at his disposal than any of us. It is completely out of place in this age that a widow with a weekly income of, say, £5 from a small business should have to make do with the meagre increase now granted. Despite the many representations made, the only help forthcoming from the Department was that the first £39 of income was not taken into account in respect of widows and dependent children. They are allowed to earn up to 15s weekly which will not be taken into account and I need hardly add that in this age 15s is a totally insignificant amount. The woman who has a small shop and is dependent on casual trade is harassed by social welfare officers in connection with her income. It can be said that the officers are only doing their job in assessing her means but it is amazing the number of small shopkeepers who are deprived of their entitlement.

I have already raised the question about unemployment assistance allowances for farmers in the West of Ireland who are assessed on a land valuation basis. There is no doubt that such allowances are of benefit to small farmers, especially when they have large families. I am satisfied they appreciate the action of the Government in bringing in this legislation. It applies only to farmers with small valuations and frequently such people have their income cut off for part of the year; for example, their creamery income ceases from October to April or May and quite often they do not receive cheques from the creameries for milk supplied because their trading balance is in the red. The Government stated that farmers in the 12 western counties would have their means assessed on a land valuation basis for unemployment assistance purposes. It was stated that, irrespective of their stock, that would be the only yardstick by which their income would be measured, with the exception of assessment on capital. It worked out satisfactorily for Counties Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, the five counties of Connacht and County Kerry but when it came to County Cork the law was changed.

More than half the total area of Cork is clearly defined by the Government as coming within the scope of western counties legislation. Everyone knows that the 12 western counties consist of 11 home counties and part of County Cork. Why was another boundary drawn through that part of Cork county which comes within the scope of the western counties legislation? Why did the Minister remove from the benefits of this scheme more than half the county, the area deemed to be part of the west so far as congestion is concerned? The Minister draws a line from Glandore to Dunmanway and out towards Inchigeela. By virtue of being chairman of the county council I was a member of the county development team in Cork for three years. I am well aware of the boundaries of County Cork and of the area being dealt with by the county development team for industrial purposes. I thought that would have the desired effect and that I would not have to ask supplementary questions, but it did not.

The land in Dunmanway, Reenascreena and Roscarbery is no better than the land in north Kerry or any other place. I tried to point out to the Minister, through supplementary questions, that, in most instances, as one moves northwards and eastwards in Cork county, land valuations increase so much that the scheme will apply to only a very small number indeed. It is for that small number that I am pleading here. Why are they discriminated against in the scheme?

Land valuations per acre are much higher in that area and, because of that, the scheme would be of little benefit there except for isolated pockets of poor mountainy land. I feel there is an obligation on me, as a Deputy for the constituency, to focus the Government's attention on this discrimination — perhaps I should not say discrimination, oversight might be more accurate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has no responsibility for the valuation of land.

Mr. Murphy

No, but the Minister indicated when he announced this legislation here, and in reply to questions, that he was responsible for determining the areas where this discrimination would apply. I am saying to the House that this must be through an oversight.

I want to get some cogent reasons from the Minister as to why there is one law for Cork and another for the 11 other counties. I want to be able to transmit this information to the people who have made representations to me. There are enough boundaries in Cork at the present time without the Department of Social Welfare coming along and making another boundary.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

The Deputy raised this in the House recently and I have since been looking into the matter.

Mr. Murphy

At that time I also mentioned electoral divisions, because the people do not know where the electoral divisions begin or end. I am not blaming the Minister. I am sure this is an oversight, but I would like to rectify the matter. If the Minister is in any doubt I can get sent on to him, or he can get it from the chairman of the development team, Mr. Conlon, the Cork county manager, a map of that part of County Cork deemed to be within the 12 western counties.

I am glad to see improvements are being made in the regulations governing the payment of disability benefits which will mean it will no longer be necessary for people of 65 years or more to travel to doctors to get medical certification. That is a step forward. I hope the invalidity pension will replace the disability pension because when a person is incapacitated, instead of having to get a weekly certificate or at most a monthly certificate, it would be much better to give a blanket certificate when it is obvious he is not going to be better for two or three years. I am glad someone has suggested the change and that the system has now been modified.

I am sure the Minister and the House are conversant with my views on unemployment benefit. I have again and again stressed at national and local level the desirability of the State contributing towards the maintenance of old people no longer able to work because they have reached retirement age and of those who are incapable through physical or mental illness of providing for themselves. With our relatively small population I believe nobody should be unemployed. Why not have some discussions at the top? Why not have an inter-Departmental Committee that would draw up suitable employment schemes of a productive nature in every district where people are unemployed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving away from the business before the House.

Mr. Murphy

There is so much money here for unemployment benefit that my view is, and always will be, until I move up——

Mr. Geoghegan

I am glad the Deputy said that. I hope he is correct.

Mr. Murphy

It is set down in this statement that unemployment benefit will be increased by 15s per week in respect of a single man. My views are that if Cork County Council had four men unemployed in a particular part of the county and their employment ceases on any Friday evening, the forestry division or the drainage division, or some public body might have work within that district that would be quite suitable for such men. Instead of going to the exchange they could be transferred to other public work of a productive nature. It is not good for any country, particularly a small country like ours, with a population of 2.8 million people, to be in a position in which it cannot provide productive employment for all the people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would remind the Deputy that there is nothing in the Bill dealing with this. We are dealing with social welfare.

Mr. Murphy

Roads have to be improved and water schemes must be provided. There are many schemes necessary in built-up areas and several works of public utility await implementation. It is not in the best interests of the Irish nation that able-bodied members of our population should be forced to sign on at exchanges for a weekly contribution from public funds even though part of that money may be their own contribution and the other part the State's subvention. It is better from every point of view that an alternative system should be provided. I have made this point in this House many times. Most people prefer to get money through productive work rather than through calling at the exchanges.

We come now to the question of hospital costs, which are £18 weekly. We must advert to the position of the old people. The local authorities are finding it impossible to provide accommodation for the aged who cannot continue living on their own or with relatives or friends. If the bed complement of the district hospitals was increased suddenly by 200 or 300 per cent the hospitals would be full of patients again within a couple of weeks. I spoke of the hospital cost of £18 weekly. That is what it costs to provide weekly accommodation for an old person in the district hospitals in Cork County or at least in Cork south west. I am sure that the figure in the county homes is sizeable also.

I have always maintained that the primary obligation in relation to the care of the old people rests on their children. The State should not encourage people who are capable of minding their parents to pass the burden on to the local authorities. I am not trying to transfer the burden to the public unless circumstances warrant such transfer. A few years ago people with lower salaries than obtain at present cared for their old people at home. I hope that position will continue. Financial difficulties create problems and it is evident that the Department are now satisfied that that is so. They have introduced the special allowance of 55s weekly for some categories of old people who are cared for by relatives. I have been pleading for such assistance at local and national level for a number of years. I pleaded that the disabled person's maintenance allowance should be payable to people over 70 years of age where their physical condition warranted such payment. Their condition should be indicated by medical certificates. I am seeking an improvement in what is contained in the Bill in so far as the allowance is concerned. We will not have an opportunity for another 12 months of dealing with such matters in detail. An old woman, whether she is the mother or grandmother of a housewife, must be certified as suffering from a permanent disability in order to qualify for this allowance. A female relative thinking about applying for an allowance and reading the advertisements in the newspapers will find that in most cases she is ineligible because she is married. Such a female relative who is not married may be ineligible for the allowance because she has a male relative over 16 years of age living in the house. This would debar her from applying.

That rule is too harsh and very much out of place at present. It is within the competence of the Department to devise regulations more flexible than that one. It is not fair that a female should not be entitled to benefit simply because there is a male relative of more than 16 years living in the household. The Minister should consider this regulation with a view to having it changed. I know of a case where a woman was turned down when she applied for benefit although the other member of the household was in receipt of disability benefit. One would not think that an incapacitated relative would be taken into account but such is the position.

I am trying to relate the cost of allowing for more flexibility in regard to this regulation. The cost of maintaining a person in a district health hospital is about £18 per week. While I am sure that no Member of the House would wish to remove old and incapacitated people from hospitals, at the same time, one will often find in the locality surrounding any hospital a number of other cases who are equally as deserving as those fortunate enough to be hospitalised.

From my experience of talking with old people in public institutions, I have found that, invariably, they would much prefer to be residing at home with their relatives and in their own surroundings. Our people do not adapt easily to what could be termed institutional conditions and most people try to avoid going to hospital unless there is absolute need for treatment. However, most of the cases in district hospitals at the present time are social cases. They are people who are not getting active treatment of any kind. If the relatives of these people had a little extra money from the State — I am speaking of circumstances which warrant additional help — they would keep these people at home. As well as this being a blessing for the people concerned, it would be also a blessing for the State which is now being pressed so hard by public opinion to provide additional accommodation for geriatric patients.

Among the points raised by Deputy Tully during the course of his contribution was that of a phased rate of pension. I have to put my own interpretation on what he had in mind. Was it that when this Bill becomes law the maximum pension will be £4 5s, or was it that when a person reaches the age of, say, 75, he will receive an extra £1 a week and when he reaches the age of 80, he will get yet another extra £1? People who are more than 90 years of age — there are not many of them — should be entitled to some special consideration. While I am on this subject, I might mention that I am glad to hear that the amount paid to centenarians is being increased to £50. However, I am merely throwing out the suggestion that those people who are more than 80 years of age might receive some special consideration.

I do not wish to take up too much time but I wish to refer briefly to the section of the Bill which deals with deserted wives. Having heard what some of the Deputies had to say on this section, it would appear that there is a problem of deserted wives within the metropolitan area but I must say that in so far as south west Cork is concerned the number of deserted wives could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

I notice the term "deserted wife" had not yet been defined. This may be a difficult exercise. I agree that wives who are deserted by their husbands are entitled to help, but the Minister must be cautions. Most of our people are quite honest and upright and, in cases in which husbands and wives are living apart by agreement, the husband contributes to the support of the wife. There is provision in the Bill to the effect that where the State can establish there is a contribution from the husband the regulation will not apply. Now, up to a point, that is right. I should not think the number in west Cork is very large, but I will take a case in point to illustrate my arrgument. Take the case of a married couple in which there is no hope of a reconciliation but the husband is contributing £3 a week to the support of his wife; it is really a question of take it or leave it. The wife is naturally anxious to get something and £3 is better than nothing. I do not think a woman in her position should be debarred from consideration.

I am glad to note that this will not cut across efforts at securing a reconciliation between the parties. There are cases in which married couples part, for one reason or another, but there is almost invariably the possibility of reconciliation. Naturally everyone would like to see husbands and wives reconciled. I trust this will not prove a hindrance. A wife getting an allowance might be tempted to think the allowance was safer from her point of view. We shall have to be very watchful in this regard.

Where the means test is concerned, I want a definite reply from the Minister. Take the case of a man of 70 years, or over, who decides to distribute his savings between his children, having assigned his farm to his eldest son. He may give one child £800, another £500, a third £400, and so on. The pension officer comes along and says: "You gave that money away in order to qualify for the pension. We will give you nothing." Is it not time to put an end to that? The right thing for a man of 70 years of age, or over, to do is to distribute any money he has between his family, having given his farm to a son. I warn the Minister that I will raise by way of question in this House every case of a pension being refused in this fashion and, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I will raise it on the Adjournment also. It is time an end was put to this system. A man may not have his mind fully made up about the disposition of his money and he may get a part pension. Having made up his mind and disposed of his money he applies for an increase and he seeks advice from someone conversant with the regulations. My advice would be that he should distribute his money between his family because I believe that is the right thing to do. His family is his first obligation. The people in Store Street and their agents down the country tell him they will not give him an increase because he gave this money away to his family with, to use their jargon, the fraudulent intention of getting a subvention from the State to which he is not entitled. I trust that sort of thing will not happen again.

By way of question here some month or six weeks ago I raised the case of an employee whose employer did not stamp his cards. According to the law, this is an offence. The employee took it for granted that his cards were being stamped. Having discovered that they were not, he got in touch with the Department and he was told that the Department would recover the money for him. The amount due was £134 odd. Yesterday another Deputy had a somewhat similar question here. Now people do not like having difficulties with their neighbours. Since I became a Member of this House some 20 years ago this is only the second such case I have had occasion to raise here. As I say, the employee was told by the Department that they would get the money for him.

I am convinced the Department would have got the money for him were it not for the fact that the State Solicitor has sufficient powers to block the Department's efforts. Surely no public employee should have that power? I never like raising a case here, which may reflect on a public official, without making every effort to get a constituent's grievance rectified by some other method, but this case has gone on now since 1965 and no action has been taken and I am satisfied beyond all doubt that the State Solicitor is responsible. I am satisfied the Minister is unwilling or incapable of taking action against him because the State Solicitor is a prominent supporter of his party. That is a fact.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would point out to the Deputy that he is getting away from the Bill.

Mr. Murphy

I know I am but I want to get it home to the Minister for Social Welfare that we are aware of the facts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy now admits what the Chair has said, that he is getting away from the Bill. He cannot use the occasion of the Bill here to make charges.

Mr. Murphy

It is incidental to it in this way. In a statement made yesterday the Minister for Labour said that it is the State's duty to collect your money once they are satisfied you have a good case. The Department of Social Welfare have accepted this obligation but because of local influences and in the expectation that this man will die, I am satisfied beyond any doubt that the State Solicitor——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would appeal to the Deputy not to pursue this line further.

Mr. Murphy

He must have been rather shaky during the past few months when there was a possibility of a change.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must get back to the Bill.

Mr. Murphy

I will say no more on that. I would like again to say that in so far as the increased allowances are concerned naturally they are welcome to the people generally. Having regard to the sharpening depreciation of the value of the £, the sum of £1 17s 9d in 1970 can do very little. Nevertheless I appreciate that the State is endeavouring to help the people who qualify for those allowances in a reasonable way. There is goodwill. Money must be found to do all that requires to be done and it is difficult to collect it. At the same time so far as old people and widows are concerned we should be more liberal.

Let us hope then that the discrimination of qualifying ages for retirement allowances will disappear within the next year. Members of the Dáil are usually unanimous in approving of funds for the payment of benefits to those of our people who are compelled by their circumstances to avail of such benefits. It is, however, difficult to understand why a higher percentage of our people are dependent on social welfare funds than is the case in other countries. So far as the benefits, leaving out children's allowances, which are administered by the Department are concerned the rate per capita is higher here than in other countries. Why should that be? Should we address ourselves to finding a cure? Why do so many people find themselves obliged to avail of those services?

A system should be devised to try to get work for all our people so that a day will come when only those people who cannot live without benefits from the Department of Social Welfare will receive them. We should find work for our people instead of giving them unemployment benefit. We should find the money so that somebody in the Department can get down to formulating a policy of finding work for all our people so that, from Donegal to Cork, young men and young women capable of doing a good day's work will not have to go to the exchange for unemployment benefits.

Dr. Byrne

This Bill is obviously an attempt by the Government to rectify the grossly inadequate welfare benefits which have been paid to the less well-off sections of the community and to make provision for persons who have not been catered for in any way up to date. Following on what Deputy Dr. Browne said yesterday, it is an attempt by the present Administration to prevent starvation among certain sections of our population. The Bill provides a nominal increase in monetary benefits which today will be insufficient to achieve the end for which they are intended, that is, to provide the necessaries of life for the beneficiaries.

We are the best fed nation in the world. We have an average consumption of 3,000 calories per head of the population, which signifies us as the best fed nation in the world by definition of the World Health Organisation, but we still have sections of our population in mental hospitals and in county homes due to the fact that they have not had sufficient means at their disposal to procure the necessaries of life.

It is welcome to see certain sections of the population who were not included in social welfare benefits to date being included in this Bill. Due recognition should be given to the fact that the present Administration have at last realised the inadequacy of the amount of money given to the sections provided for in this Bill.

I feel that the new increases are totally inadequate although, naturally, they are a help. It is unfortunate that synonymous with the announcement of these increased benefits, there was an increase in indirect taxation. Furthermore, the extra benefit will not be available until approximately six months have elapsed from the introduction of the Budget whereas there was an immediate increase in indirect taxation. Over the past 50 years the record of Fianna Fáil in Government towards the less well-off sections of the population is such that we can expect that nothing will be done to increase these allowances further in the next Budget. I should like to see an arrangement whereby these allowances will incrase in accordance with the increase in the consumer price index.

This country has the highest rate of mental hospital patients recorded in the world. Many of these unfortunate people are in institutions here because they had not sufficient money to purchase the necessary foods to nourish their systems sufficiently to render them capable of looking after their own affairs outside these institutions. It is an unfortunate fact that when they are locked up they are forgotten about. When they are put into the county home, they are forgotten about. When they are put into a mental home they become family stigmas in many cases and are left there to pine away.

This Bill does not give sufficient cover for the maintenance and support of senile people at home in the family circle. The allowance for a dependent relative is insufficient. When the financial crunch comes and a choice has to be made between furthering the educational interests, for example, of a young member of the family or retaining the aged member within the family circle — sometimes certain medical care is involved here also — the invariable decision at times of great financial strain is that well intentioned relatives who may wish to retain such elderly people at home are unable to do so and the unfortunate person ends up in a county institution or a health authority institution and then becomes a burden on the community financially and a burden on our conscience. The family circle is the unit on which this country and its Government are based. The family circle comes first and we must strive to keep it intact.

Our country, by virtue of different factors, has the highest rate of maternal mortality in Europe and the highest rate of peri-natal mortality, infant death, in Europe — twice that of the average. We have, furthermore, the highest rate of mental hospital patients in Europe. Factors relating to these points have direct relevance to our social welfare payments. With the increased efficiency of medical science, diagnostic acumen and the ability to save lives which, 25 years ago, would have been lost, we are increasing the life span of the disabled section of our population and lowering our infant death rate by keeping alive more premature infants. We should bear in mind, however, that the incidence of mental retardation increases according as prematurity is greatest. As medical science advances in efficiency the number of people who find it necessary to claim these benefits will increase.

One particular section are unfortunate babies who through no fault of their own happen to be retarded or affected in some form or other. Of these, an important group are those suffering from spina bifida. I am disappointed that there is no special allowance in the Bill for those people. I realise that the Bill can, in conjunction with other legislation, be used to provide, in certain cases, allowances for the parents. Allowances are made under the Health Bill for medicines at a reduced cost for sufferers from spina bifida. However, I should like to see definite provision for this group in the Bill. Those affected most severely by this disease die and those suffering less severely from the disease carry on reasonably normally but the bulk of those who remain in the community are unable to obtain employment.

By virtue of the increasing affluence of society in Europe the number of people who are injured in industry and in road traffic accidents is growing. We read in the newspapers at weekends about the number of people killed in the 26 Counties. This, of course, is not really relevant to the Bill but I am particularly concerned about the increase in the number of people invalided in industry or because of accidents in the home or on the road. A significant number of injuries to head and limb is involved in road accidents. These injuries render people relatively unemployable. They may be able to do a job but because of their physical handicap they are not good insurance risks and hence they are at a disadvantage before they even take up employment.

By virtue of our religion and family traditions we have the largest family units in Europe and the larger the families the greater the number of defective children, the greater the number of maternal deaths the greater the number of orphans and the greater the number of children who need special care. We should take this into account when drafting a Bill like this because these are factors which are peculiar to Ireland.

The economic stresses and strains of life in Ireland because of the large families and the relatively low income per capita can lead to desertion by a husband or wife. It is not only the husbands who desert. In many cases where there are large families the mother can also disappear from the scene, although invariably she returns. I have spoken to some deserted wives. They are well aware that many husbands have been left with a number of children on their hands but they feel that these are reasonably well catered for because the system at the moment permits somebody to look after the children.

Here, again, is an example of the family being deprived of its most important element — the mother. The husband cracks through the stresses and strains of the living circumstances. Perhaps, the sixth or seventh child is mentally defective, is a cretin, suffers from spina bifida or is a fibrocystic. The likelihood of this happening increases with the number of children. This stress can result in the husband disappearing from the family circle. We all have tremendous sympathy with anybody to whom this has occurred. The majority of husbands who desert do so because matters have got on top of them in one way or another. I am very pleased to see that nominally anyway we have recognised the social position of the deserted wife. It is unfortunate that we must call her deserted, but this is what she is technically.

There are well-defined factors which contribute to the majority of desertions in the lower social group. We are not here dealing with the well-off man who disappears from the scene. His wife will be reasonably well catered for and she will not look for social welfare benefits. In this Bill we seek to secure sufficient money for the housewife under 50 years who has been left with two, three or four children or a dependent child under 18 years, so that she can provide enough food, fuel and accommodation to keep herself and her children. At the same time, we would like to see other Bills introduced to provide the family unit, incomplete as it is, with sufficient health and educational facilities. These are in process of being drafted, I am quite sure.

The deserted wife factor is the newest element in this Bill. We should tread cautiously in this matter. We are not trying to be social workers here. We are not trying to re-unite the family. What we are trying to do is to see that the disunited family is kept alive and can buy sufficient food. How effective is this Bill under the present system? I am speaking for the Dublin area with which I am familiar. I am quite sure the same system prevails in other areas. A deserted wife with three or four children, living in a corporation house in a Dublin area, can obtain £6 per week from the home assistance officer, and a medical card and free schooling. With her deserted wife's allowance and her children's allowances her income goes up to £6 5s I think. I am subject to correction on that. The point is that her income will not be appreciably more than she is receiving from the home assistance officer.

I am pleased to see in this Bill that the burden of maintaining this family unit will be taken off the ratepayer. The Bill does not refer to home assistance being taken over by the Central Fund. Home assistance is still the burden of the local authority. Because of that, this is perhaps an inadequate way for the Department of Social Welfare to direct the health and public assistance authorities. Home assistance is administered by the health and public assistance authorities, subject to the general direction and control of the Minister for Social Welfare. There is no mention in the Bill of "subject to a grant or payment by the Minister".

The deserted wife is now being taken off the home assistance and catered for financially through the Central Fund by the Minister. This is a nominal change. However, we are taking the burden off the rates. Not many people will claim this deserted wife's allowance because of the stigma involved. Therefore, it is nominal, but it is a step in the right direction. It is unfortunate that this Bill does not include a provision for the payment of home assistance by the Department. It is unfortunate that although it is administered by the Department it is not paid by the Department.

Abuses can occur in the payment of home assistance, as I mentioned here a few weeks ago. Because of the qualifying system, people can drive up in large cars and claim home assistance. The only qualified person I know who could drive up in a car and claim home assistance is a taxi driver who would need the car to earn his living. I do not think this abuse is confined to the Dublin area. The abuse of home assistance is widespread. If the Department took over the financing of home assistance they would have a more direct interest in its administration and allocation. At the moment the Department are not interested in it.

An increased number of people in our community will be qualifying for social welfare benefits. I do not think we are catering properly for this increase. I do not think we are taking these statistics into account, or even referring to them. I have already mentioned the decrease in peri-natal deaths which has resulted in an increase in mentally defective children. Secondly I referred to the massive maternity mortality rate which we have and, as more children are born into the family, this mortality rate increases. The number of defective children, without reference to the maternity mortality rate, being born into the community is also increasing. When the mother dies there is a psychological effect on the family. Then there are the autistic children, and related diseases or defects, which result in an increase in social welfare recipients. When the husband or wife disappears from the family unit, once again there is a further aggravation of the situation.

Road traffic accidents and home accidents are increasing. More people are being invalided and qualifying for social welfare benefits. With the increase in our industrial employment there is an increase in industrial accidents and associated things like industrial dermatitis. Therefore, the burden on the Department of Social Welfare is increasing. We must remember that the average life span now is close to 70 years. With the improvement in conditions in the world — which are not in any way attributable to Fianna Fáil but are reflected improvements which this country has gained over the past 15 years — longevity has been one of the results. Whereas 100 years ago the average life span was 40 years and people worked approximately 70 hours a week, now people are living to 70 years and working an average of 40 hours per week. The number of old people — the seventh stage of life, as William Shakespeare described it — is increasing, and this section too will be claiming social welfare benefits.

I should like to see a concerted effort made by the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health, which are closely allied, to come to grips with this problem, some planning done for the future instead of trying to close the door, as we are doing here, when the horse has bolted. The question of deserted wives was neglected for years. What will be achieved with this grant, which does not appreciably improve the situation of the deserted wife? How can we prove that she was in fact deserted? Where does the proof lie? Where is the hard and fast line? How much of the private details of her life must she disclose to the authorities before she can claim this allowance? To what humiliation must she submit? Will she always bear the stigma of being a deserted wife if she draws this allowance? Are we going to compile a register of deserted wives? We are now only guessing at the number of deserted wives in the country. This is not particularly important because not all deserted wives will come forward to claim this allowance.

If there is a family with a small income in a working class area, the husband, perhaps, working in England, as often happens and sending back £8 or £9 a week or less to keep the family over here, are we going to encourage him by this provision even nominally to desert the wife and sneak in and out of the house? Suppose he has genuinely deserted the wife but because she is getting, if she has three or four children, £6 or £7 in children's allowances and deserted wife allowance, shall we encourage the husband to come back or encourage the wife to welcome him back? There must have been factors of stress and strain there originally which resulted in the husband disappearing. I should like to see some reference in this debate to efforts being made to recoup this money small as it is, in cases where we know where the husband is living in Britain, the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand or wherever the popular places are for husbands to go when they desert. If the husband can be traced I should like to see some effort made to have the money recouped to the Exchequer.

I know of a few cases where husbands are working in England and quite well off with very good jobs but they have completely neglected their families here. The authorities know where they are but there is no way in which the money can be recovered from these people. While I am open to correction on the figure of £6 5s for a deserted wife with three or four children, compared with the £6 which she gets from the home assistance under the Dublin Health Authority, in any event I do not think it will put much more money into her pocket. Perhaps it will lessen the strain of collecting the money. Perhaps, once she has endured the initial stigma of having to disclose private details of her life, she can then go on collecting until she reaches the age of 50, with one qualified child or until she reaches 70.

I do not think the Bill makes clear when or how often checks will be made to see if the wife is deserted or is back with her husband. Personally, I like to see social welfare benefits introduced but I do not like abuse of any of these benefits. Unfortunately, when you give something for nothing as a so-called State benefit, people look upon it as a right and use many devious means to obtain this money. I do not know what type of check or deterrent the Department have in mind for the prevention of abuses. When the Minister is replying I should like to hear what he has in mind, because I think a good deterrent would prevent abuse of the scheme and lead to the moneys being properly distributed. A new section of the population are being officially recognised as being an underprivileged section and are being labelled as such. We should be aware in introducing this, although it could have been introduced long ago, that, as with all new allowances, there are ways of getting around the rules and regulations in order to abuse the scheme. Since the qualifications and conditions of proof do not seem to be clearly defined, I think we should keep our ears to the grounds for the first year or two of the administration of this scheme so that we can make sure that all loopholes are properly sealed up and that only those for whom the money is intended will actually get it.

We are catering in this Bill for old sores, so to speak, increasing benefits which we knew were necessary, and we are catering for sections of the population which we know existed even 20 years ago as real underprivileged sections but we are not budgeting— and this is the most disappointing part of the Bill — for the increase in the number of people who will become eligible to draw social welfare benefits. I should like to see the Minister for Social Welfare and Ministers for other Departments associated with social welfare, whether physical or mental, directing their Departments to investigate the sectors that I have mentioned, to investigate the massive increase we are witnessing and which has not yet come to the surface. I do not think it has been catered for in other countries but then they would not have the same problem as we have. An investigation should be carried out. We know the number of epileptics has increased fantastically, that the number of old people has increased and the number of mentally defectives has increased in our population. However, there is no mention of this in the explanatory memorandum or in the Social Welfare Bill.

This Bill will have to be amended in many ways and should involve other Departments. I should like to offer here a solution which has been carried out in the Netherlands. We welcome longevity of life and the decrease in our peri-natal dath rate, so we should be prepared to cater for social welfare beneficiaries and to plan for them before they devour the moneys allocated for them under this Bill. In the Netherlands a system has been introduced under which one trade has been designated for handicapped persons in receipt of social welfare benefit. In one case the shoe industry has been so designated and all the shoes made are made only by people who would qualify to draw social welfare benefit by virtue of the fact that they are disabled but who are well enough to contribute to the economy and feel they are useful citizens.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would not be the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare.

Dr. Byrne

I entirely agree. I have noted here that that would be the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and I should like to see the Minister for Social Welfare consult with or make representations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to this. There again the Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot, of his own accord, bring in legislation which would put aside one section of our industry for handicapped persons who are unable to find employment in industry. Because the cost of the insurance necessary to cover the factory plant would be too great, these people are debarred from employment and are covered by social welfare.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is not possible to hear the Deputy at all. I do not think I have heard a single complete sentence since he started and he has been speaking for 15 minutes. Can the Deputies over there hear him?

Mr. Timmons

He is quite audible here.

Dr. Byrne

The Minister for Social Welfare has a responsibility to encourage people to find employment, to increase the social welfare benefits paid to them, benefits which we in this party feel are totally inadequate at the moment, and to see that these people are encouraged to contribute to the economy. I have mentioned the example of the Netherlands where the shoe industry has been set aside. In this country we have a great tradition in handcrafts.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are getting away from the Bill before the House. We are dealing with the question of industry which is the responsibility of another Minister.

Dr. Byrne

I do not mean to digress from the Bill. I should like to see included in this Bill a provision whereby medically handicapped persons in receipt of social welfare benefit, who would be able to work, could retain all or portion of the social welfare benefit allowed to them if they find employment up to a certain stage, and then that could be gone into. They should be encouraged to find employment of one form or another and not be totally dependent on the State, because this ruins their outlook and their spirit. Nobody wants to live on handouts. There may be a few exceptions. It is not good enough to fill people with food. We must see they are as happy as they can be and have peace of mind.

There has been a lethargic approach by the Department in this regard. I do not think the Department have even considered it. It is certainly not mentioned in this Bill and it should be mentioned in it. The Department of Social Welfare should go even further and include in this Bill grants to voluntary organisations for the training of people who are drawing these benefits. This would be part of the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare. This is not mentioned in the Bill either, and without such a provision it is not a complete Bill.

Let me refer to another section of the Bill, that dealing with the death grant. The death grant has been introduced and it will be payable on the death of an insured person or the wife or husband of an insured person, provided the contribution conditions are fulfilled. This is not an adequate death grant, but I am glad to see it introduced. The Government have not acted here early enough because they have been afraid of pressure from insurance companies who have gone around and extracted weekly payments from people who were afraid that if a child or other relative died the family would have the terrible stigma of not being able to afford private burial but would have to bring the remains to one of the cemeteries for burial in a mass public grave. The organisations who provide these graves are providing a good service, but I do not think it is the responsibility of these organisations to transfer the cost of burial from those who cannot afford it to those who can afford to pay a little more. The Department of Social Welfare should give a realistic grant which will cover the cost of a reasonably decent funeral. It is bad enough in the city of Dublin but what is it like in rural areas where everyone knows that so-and-so cannot afford to bury a child and has to apply for the death grant?

The grant should be a realistic one. The Department should conduct an inquiry into the cost of funerals, what the minimum requirements will cost. Many families in the community cannot afford the cost of a funeral. Any type of decent cortége is not within their means and the grant is not bringing it within their means. There is no provision at present for a number of small things which mean a great deal and provision for which would relieve much hardship, such as the erection of a headstone and other normal practices in our civilisation. All the grant does is provide for the grave to be opened, the body to be put in and covered with clay. It is as primitive as that. No effort is made to alleviate the anguish and stress caused to the family. While the death grant is a good thing it is not adequate.

In regard to old age pensions the means test can be a frightening thing for many people. Many people have complained to me that they give a great deal of information and then afterwards, when they have left the room, forget what they have said and are frightened. The file is taken away, put in a secret place and they never have access to it. They have given out information and have signed on the dotted line but because of their age or one thing or another, they forget what they have said to the investigation officer. These people should be given a carbon copy of what they have said to the officer. We do not want to see these people being frightened, we do not want to see a means test which will frighten them. The provision of a carbon copy will not cost anything and it will ease the mind of these people. Those who do not immediately forget what they have said will have forgotten it within a couple of weeks.

I should like now to refer to section 35 and to the offices which are under the administration of the Department. Many of these offices are dirty little rooms which are not suitable for the purpose of interviews. Many of them are not sound proof and people do not have the secrecy which we would like them to have. Once we are providing these services and this amount of money we should see that the offices are reasonably well equipped.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but this matter is really a matter for the Estimates rather than for the Social Welfare Bill.

Dr. Byrne

I was referring to section 35 of the Bill. In the general adminstration of the allocation of these benefits we should try to do away with the agents who were appointed under the 1932 Act. If we did away with the local agents and replaced them we would have greater efficiency. The local agents are purely political appointees, so to speak. They are set up by the Minister's Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think this arises on the Bill. It would arise on a subhead in the Estimate.

Dr. Byrne

I will refer then to the adminstration of the allocation of these benefits to qualified persons. When they are allocating the death grants, the invalidity pensions, the retirement pension, the old age pension, the deserted wife allowance and the increased children's allowance the Department should have a less rigid screening. The feeling around the country is that for some time now the Act has been prostituted in a certain fashion by the appointment of certain people. These grants have to be administered by somebody. They have to be handed out by somebody.

We have the case of the old age pensioner who goes to the office and he may meet the man who is taking his particulars in a dirty old office. A form has to be filled up and I have asked that a carbon copy be given to the applicant. It is important that when this man goes in to collect his pension he will know that the man with whom he is dealing is not somebdy who has been politically appointed. Otherwise the efficiency of the system will be diminished. The local agent in charge of home assistance can sublet the premises. To my mind these people are not suitably qualified people for the investigation of means and this is where I think the scheme will fail. If a home assistance officer who is appointed for some area in rural Ireland can sublet his premises——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not relevant. The Deputy is discussing home assistance officers.

Dr. Byrne

I am speaking of the people who interview applicants for social welfare benefits and I am discussing the efficiency of these people in administering the service. I am discussing the wisdom of the Minister appointing people who will be in contact with applicants for assistance and the fact that in many cases the assistance officers on appointment sublet their offices. We all know of cases where husbands, wives, nieces and nephews hold all the posts of home assistance officers down to pensions officers——

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter does not arise on this Bill. It is one for the Estimates. The Deputy will get a more relevant opportunity to discuss it.

Dr. Byrne

I should like the Minister to take into consideration the inefficiency of the present system. There is a section in this Bill which deals with retirement pensions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare was reported in the newspapers last summer as saying that he would shortly be introducing a Bill that would give a retirement pension to all people at the age of 65. In this Bill there is provision that a person on reaching the age of 65 years shall be entitled to a retirement pension if he satisfies the relevant contribution conditions. However, the Act is restrictive in that there are conditions attached in regard to contributions. Although it might be difficult to administer, I should like to see the Minister preparing a scheme whereby people who retire will get some form of pension. Fine Gael have always advocated that the old age pension be £5 per week and that it be given at the age of 65 years.

Mr. Andrews

That suggestion and the suggestion to provide for deserted wives came from the back benches of Fianna Fáil.

Dr. Byrne

If the full rate of old age pension were given at the age of 65 this would fulfil the promise the Parliamentary Secretary made to the people last summer.

Mr. Geoghegan

Who advocated it?

Dr. Byrne

The Parliamentary Secretary did and I agree that it was a worthwhile proposal. In fact, I was very disappointed to see that it is not included in this Bill. However, when our party are given a mandate by the people we will introduce the old age pension at 65 and Deputy Geoghegan's promise will be fulfilled.

In connection with the allowance of £2 15s per week given to the "prescribed female relative" of old people unable to care for themselves, I would emphasise that this sum is not adequate to provide the care necessary. The geriatric homes in this country are crowded to capacity and the meagre sum provided in this instance will not help to alleviate the situation. Old people are living on their own in tenement conditions in Dublin and throughout the country and they are dying slow deaths because they are unable to buy proper food for themselves or to prepare the food. We have not the necessary legislation that would enable a countrywide scheme of meals on wheels, which service is in operation in certain parts of the country. Had financial provision been made for such a scheme the wellbeing of many old people would be improved.

Widowed pensioners aged 70 years and over who are incapacitated are entitled to an increase of £2 15s. Ten years ago this sum would have meant something but at the rate the cost of living is going up today it is totally inadequate. Old people are in receipt of certain nominal benefits, such as free turf, free electricity, free transport and free television and radio licences. What relevance have these free benefits? Some of these people are too crippled with disease to light a fire, some are deaf and cannot hear the radio, some suffer from defective vision and cannot see the television and others are either unable to travel or have no where to travel to. The free electricity is the only good scheme. The people who travel in Dublin city under this scheme are those who have been shifted from the centre of the city to the ghetto of Ballymun. They travel back to the city centre to recapture the comradeship and friendship which they had there.

It is all very well for the Minister for Social Welfare to list the free schemes available, but how many of them are used? I believe they are there purely and simply for political motives, so that when someone knocks at a door looking for a vote and the old age pensioners say, "You have done nothing for us. We old age pensioners have been neglected. We helped to found the State; we were here when times were rough." The person looking for the vote is then able to list the free schemes available. To a deaf, blind, arthritic old age pensioner none of these free schemes means anything. I do not know how the Government have the audacity to apply to join the Common Market because our social welfare benefits are dragging well behind those given in the Community, particularly in relation to the care of the aged. No attempt has been made to provide any statistical information as to how many people need this type of care and allowance.

Deputy Andrews, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, referred to the position regarding deserted wives, but the provisions of this Bill will not make any great contribution to that particular section of the community. I appealed in the Minister's absence for careful surveillance of the administration of this section of the Bill in the first year in order to avoid abuses arising out of the necessarily vague way in which it is drafted.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has already discussed this particular point; repetition is out of order.

Dr. Byrne

The particular point I want to make is very relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not relevant a second time.

Dr. Byrne

I want to point out to the Minister, now that he is back in the House, that I should like to see careful surveillance of the administration of this section of the Bill during its first year of operation so that abuses do not arise. We do not want to see every second housewife who is a member of a local Fianna Fáil cumann collecting this hand-out every week. We know what happened in regard to the Rock of Cashel recently. We must ensure that appointments are made in a proper fashion so that we can put an end to the prostitution of the 1932 Social Welfare Act, whereby every assistance officer in the country is a Fianna Fáil hack.

While I welcome what money is being given under the Bill for the care of the aged I should like to see much more money being spent here. If the Minister were to investigate how much it costs to keep a person in an institution he would see the wisdom of this party's policy of providing for the care of the aged in their homes and by their own families instead of making them a financial burden on the State and making them unhappy for the rest of their lives. The percentage of the population, especially on the western seaboard, represented by the older age group is on the increase. Homes for the aged are bursting at the seams, and yet insufficient allowance is made to encourage relatives to keep old people at home.

I am glad to see that the age limit for childrens' allowances has been increased. I believe these allowances should be made available to everybody. I was disappointed to see in the report of the Commission on Army Pay published today that an extension of children's allowances has not been provided for privates and NCOs. The payment of social welfare benefits should be non-discriminatory so far as the lower ranks in the Army are concerned. The Minister knows that, if an officer in the Army furnishes a certificate showing that his son is attending full-time school, he can go on drawing children's allowances over and above the age limit, but this privilege is denied to NCOs and privates. I intend to table a special amendment later on to see that this injustice to the troops is rectified.

Mr. J. Brennan

I have no responsibility for the Army.

Dr. Byrne

The Minister has responsibility for social welfare benefits and could make representations to the Minister for Defence——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has said that he has no responsibility for the Army.

Dr. Byrne

The Department of Social Welfare pay children's allowances which are not strictly Army emoluments. The need for social welfare occurs in the Army as well as everywhere else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Defence has responsibility for the Army.

Dr. Byrne

The Army personnel draw children's allowances which are not specifically Army emoluments. They are children's allowances from the Minister for Social Welfare. That is what I am referring to.

Mr. J. Brennan

The children of Army personnel get the same treatment as any other children.

Dr. Byrne

Not the same as the officers' children.

Mr. J. Brennan

In the general scheme of social welfare, yes. The other allowances are payable through their own Army scheme.

Dr. Byrne

I do not like to see discrimination, even if it is in the Minister's Department. I take the Minister's point that they get the same treatment but they do not get the same amount of money.

The other point I should like to refer to, without delaying the House too long, is that there are many sections in this Bill which provide benefits "if a man is such an age and satisfies the insurance contributions". The age should not be so important here. People by virtue of unemployment or illness or inability to control their own position may not have made the full contributions. In conclusion, I should like to say that the old age pension age should be reduced from 70 years to 65 years without further delay, as advocated in the Just Society policy document of this party. The promises made last summer by the Parliamentary Secretary, and reported in the papers, that retirement benefits would be given at 65 years, have not been honoured. If the Government would accept the superior policies of the Fine Gael Party and implement them——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not in the Bill and the Deputy knows that.

Dr. Byrne

It is in the Bill. Retirement benefits are being introduced.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is referring to whatever promises were made by people outside this House.

Dr. Byrne

I am disappointed to see that certain provisions have not been included in this Bill. People could possibly have been under the impression that these provisions would have been included in the Bill. I have nothing more to say except that I think that the system under the Department of Social Welfare whereby local agents are directly appointed by the Minister is clearly political graft. I do not like to see these dynasties of ministerial office——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not in the Bill before the House.

Dr. Byrne

I have here, if I were allowed to proceed, a list of families which control social welfare——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again the Chair must point out that this is not in the Bill before the House.

Dr. Byrne

Husbands, wives and nieces control the appointments.

Mr. J. Brennan

Is the Deputy referring to investigation officers?

Dr. Byrne

If I may answer the Minister, I will give the details.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will not permit it.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy said "agents".

Dr. Byrne

I am referring to local agents.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will not permit it.

Mr. J. Brennan

No local agents have been appointed since 1953.

Dr. Byrne

No, because they were all full. Young Fianna Fáil agents were put in. The 1932 Act has been prostituted.

Mr. J. Brennan

The posts were handed out before we came into being. They are old national health agencies and, as these people retire, they are not renewed. It is a most erroneous statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is pointing out that this is not relevant. The Chair wants no further discussion on this.

Dr. Byrne

I wish to say that amendments to this Bill will be put down. We are totally dissatisfied with it and with the amounts being given to the needy sections of the population. We are disatisfied that there is no tangible, logical approach being made to cater for the underprivileged sections of the population. We are completely dissatisfied with the old age pensions allowance contained in the Bill.

Mr. Healy

It is difficult to speak rationally, having listened to the previous speaker. I have been listening to him for over half an hour. Being an older man and longer in the House, and having a certain amount of sympathy for newcomers, I will do my best to refrain from alluding in any way to the remarks the Deputy made.

We in this House are all agreed, no matter to which party we belong, that we would wish to see the social services increased and the benefits given to as many of our people as possible. It is seldom we hear realistic comments about where the money is to come from. It is not the duty of this House, while they may point out and be as critical as they like about certain sections which may be overlooked or about people who may not be getting their fair share, to minimise what has been done or what is being done. The fact is that we will spend an estimated £70 million on social welfare in this year as compared with £42 million in 1966-67. To my mind that means progress, in spite of the fact that the money may be of less value than it was then.

We are taking for this purpose a much bigger slice of the national cake than we used and we are increasing each year the amount taken. Whether it is being spent in the best possible way is certainly open to discussion. When one hears people advocating old age pensions at 65 years we know that everyone would wish that this would happen — except, perhaps, people who are 65 years of age and who are working and feeling that they are now in the prime of life and would not like to be regarded as old age pensioners. Most people would agree that it would be a good thing for the country if we could afford to give pensions at 65 years. Is it more desirable to give pensions at 65 years than to spend the same amount of money on increasing the amounts of money being given to those of 70 years of age who are the present recipients?

The last speaker spoke of old age pensioners as if they were all arthritic, deaf, blind and unable to enjoy television or even light a fire — whatever that had to do with free electricity I do not know—but the Deputy felt they were so arthritic they would not enjoy anything. He inferred that the whole rush was to get them out to vote, but if they are as blind and as deaf as he makes out, I do not think they would be of any great advantage as voters to the parties, either.

However, the matter must be considered in relation to what we can afford to spend and in relation to where the money is to come from. We know, of course, that people in general do not object to paying an extra shilling or two if it will mean a little extra in the contribution to widows, orphans or those who are sick. We give credit for that but, at the same time, let me say that when an extra shilling is added to the social welfare contribution of the working man, the employers complain that it adds to their costs. The employees may not complain at the time but as soon as there is an increase in wages, the basis for the claim is the take home pay packet and not the gross amount. Therefore, I do not think that anybody can claim they really pay extra money by way of taxation, directly or indirectly, so as to keep social welfare recipients in as good circumstances as we would wish them to be.

Anybody who has been in public life, who has served on a local authority, will be aware that at every meeting there are proposals for increases in salaries, wages, pensions, office equipment and so on. As a rule, these are granted without much comment but when the day of reckoning comes and the rate is being struck, these increases have to be taken into account. Very often, a month or so later the parish priest or local doctor will lead a deputation to the authority demanding some new or extended services and so the same procedure goes on from year to year.

Social welfare is a matter with which we are all concerned because the recipients are people who are not able to fend for themselves and who cannot get as much out of life as the average person. Many changes in respect of social welfare have been made in recent years. It is only within the past decade that the contributory old age pension was introduced. Before then there was the iniquitous system whereby a person who contributed a few shillings a week to a superannuation fund and who may never have missed a day at work could find himself at the age of 70 not being eligible for the old age pension by virtue of the fact that what he was receiving, as a result of his superannuation scheme which might be augmented by his employer, would amount to more than the statutory amount specified in determining eligibility for the old age pension. On the other hand, a person who might never have done an honest day's work and who might even have been in and out of jail at the taxpayers' expense, would receive the old age pension at 70.

The reason for that situation was simply that we could not afford to give a contributory old age pension but that has now been changed and the introduction of such a pension is an indication that we are now more affluent than we were ten years ago. The other benefits that are now granted to pensioners such as free fuel, free television licence and free travel are, to my mind, of greater value to those people than money. I know of many people living away from Dublin who can come to the city to see their sons and daughters who have been in business in Dublin for many years. If it were not for the free travel facilities, they would not be able to come. At this time of the year, also, they can take a bus to the seaside or elsewhere. This is of great personal benefit to them. In spite of what the previous speaker said, these benefits are greatly appreciated and I am glad to say that recently when I met visitors from across the water they were very impressed by these benefits and said that when everything was taken into account, there was no great difference in the circumstances of old age pensioners here and in England.

That brings me to the point where I wish to say a few words to those who have been comparing our social welfare benefits with the benefits that are payable in Britain, in the USA and in West Germany.

Mr. Bruton

And over the Border.

Dr. O'Donovan

Or in the poor country of Italy.

Mr. Healy

Yes, but as Deputy Dr. O'Donovan knows, in the world today we are among the upper ten in relation to our standard of living. There are countless numbers of people who are very much worse off than we but, of course, great care is taken not to compare them with us. Rather, we are compared with the wealthiest nations in the world — those highly-industrialised nations who have had self-government for centuries. At this stage, I do not propose talking to the "just society" people about their own record in so far as old age pensions are concerned but I would advise my young friend who spoke before me that he should look at their history in the past in this regard rather than talk about what should be done. If his party ever get into power — I am sure that some day they will have a say in the government of the country — I hope that at that time it will be possible for them to do what he visualises should be done. However, there is an unreality if one cannot say from where the money will come for all the services that are advocated.

One matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention is in relation to persons who, as a result of being absent from work through illness, have been drawing benefit but who, after a certain length of time, are sent for medical examination to the Department's doctor. That doctor may say that the person is fit for work at that time although he has a medical certificate from his own doctor certifying that he is not fit for work. The point I am making is that in such case the benefit is discontinued. The person may appeal but sometimes a considerable time elapses before the appeal is heard and, consequently, before payment can be resumed if the person is still unfit for work and the appeal is upheld. I wonder if it would impose any great hardship on the Department to give the recipient the benefit of the doubt and to continue payment until the appeal is decided? In most cases that I know of, it would be much easier for the State to bear the loss rather than the person concerned because the discontinuance of benefit often imposes great hardship on one who is entirely dependent on social welfare benefits. I would ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to that matter. It is my opinion that, as well as alleviating hardship, this would expedite a decision.

I wish to pay tribute to the officers of the Department with whom I deal in the city and county of Cork. I find them by and large most sympathetic in their dealings with the public and in their anxiety to stretch the regulations as far as they can. There are exceptions and there are times when like most human beings they become a bit exasperated but I think on investigation we can find that one of the usual reasons is that a certain type of person is trying to get something to which he is not entitled. Of course that makes it harder for the legitimate claimant when he comes to the counter. I feel, however, that they are people who are very often the butt of remarks hastily made by members of the public and by public representatives. My own personal experience is that they behave very well towards the public.

I want to compliment the Department on the new provisions, following those I have mentioned, the deserted wife allowance and the burial grants, which are a sign that the Department are not asleep. They are doing their best to make progress and they have nothing to be ashamed of with regard to the money they have spent over the past ten years. I hope in the next ten years we will show the same rate of progress. I hope when we are asked to give more money towards social welfare benefits we will be prepared to make sacrifices so that the less well-off people will benefit. The ordinary worker, the industrial employee, will realise that the less well-off section of the community are entitled to those benefits and that we are judged as a Christian nation by the amount we give them and with the willingness with which we give it.

Dr. O'Donovan

I should like to compliment the last Deputy on the succinctness of his speech and the limited amount of time he took. He referred to the previous speaker and said he listened for half an hour to him. I listened to him for an hour and 40 minutes and I cannot say that I was greatly enlightened. The trouble was I could not hear him for most of the time and I am sure that is true for the rest of the people in the House also.

This Bill, of course, is the great angle of this year's Budget just as the turnover tax is the depreciatory part of this year's Budget. I got some trade union information for the month of April, 1970 and this shows that in the year 1966 we spent £22 per head of the population on social welfare. The next lowest country in western Europe, since we are in the upper ten, was Italy, who spent £58. We hear a lot of talk about the amount of money spent by Britain but all they were spending was £77 per head of the population, although of course this probably does not include the health services. I suppose the health services in England cost an enormous sum per head of the population. Certainly in this country the figure I gave included the health services at that time.

Germany, as one would expect from the long history of social welfare in that country, are top of the league. In 1966, they spent £103 per head of the population. It does not matter that we have increased the allowances since because they have been increased in those other countries also. We are well at the bottom of the league. Italy spent more than two and a half times per head what we spent and Britain spent three and a half times. I remember during the 1950s there was a great deal of talk here about the welfare State across the water and how objectionable that was. From the way Deputy Healy spoke I suspect he would be one of the people who would say that they are going to blazes in Britain, that they are going down the mine and all the rest of it. Of course, they are trotting after the Common Market countries. All I can say is if we go into the Common Market, which God forbid, there is one thing quite certain which is that our approach to social welfare will have to be quite different. It might be the only thing which will come out of the Common Market if by any accident we get in.

There is no point in my pretending that there are not some good things in this Bill. Apart from the provisions for deserted wives the Bill is modest enough. In many cases the amount given will not cover the increase in the cost of living. In fact, for a period of three to six months the unfortunate recipients of social welfare will be worse off because turnover tax was doubled in May and prices went up by at least 10 per cent.

I always advocated giving an allowance to old age pensioners living alone although I never succeeded in getting the message across. I was told if there was a separate rate for old pensioners living alone some of our rural people would put their fathers and mothers living in an outhouse in order that they might qualify for this extra payment. I am not accepting that this is true. I have more belief in the kindness of our people than to swallow that argument.

I want to concentrate on the children's allowances angle of this Bill. The reason I want to do this is that I find even widows, who are probably the next worse treated, can speak up for themselves by comparison with children in large families. As I said before in this House I do not know who the social idiot was who decided that an allowance should be granted for the first child. Deputy Cunningham, the Parliamentary Secretary, raised this point with me the other day and said we are better than England in this regard. We give only 10s a month, which is about 2s 4d a week and only 4d a day. This would not feed a cat or a dog. It would barely feed a canary. This is the great contribution of the Fianna Fáil Party to children's allowances in this country. If that £1.8 million were given to the children in families larger than four it would do one thousand times as much good.

I have seen the conditions in large families and they are appalling. There is no use in Deputy Healy talking about our being in the upper ten. There are people as badly off in this country as there are in any country in the world. I am against giving an allowance for the first child. As I said before, people who have no children generally have either a cat or a dog so that they will have some living creature around the place. Subsidising the first child is absolutely wrong. It is a philosophy that stinks in my nostrils. It is a typical example of "Big Brother". If this party ever has any say in Government that money, and a great deal more as well, will be transferred to the bigger families.

The increase given last year was given only because the election was looming up. The allowances had been stationary for seven or eight years. This year the allowance is being increased for the third and subsequent child from £2 a month to £2 5s a month. All other social welfare benefits are written in in terms of weeks. We are told there is an increase of 5s in children's allowances — 5s a month, which is about 10d a week. Fianna Fáil are always quoting examples of people who get an increase of 10d a week. Here we have an increase of 10d a week in children's allowances this year. It would be much better if this sort of thing did not happen at all.

This costs the best part of £2 million a year. There are large families in dire straits; I will not say they are starving, but they find it virtually impossible to provide adequately for their children. How can a boy or girl under our system of education remain at school after 14 years of age when there are no proper children's allowances? The bourgeois taxpayer gets an income tax allowance for his children so long as they are attending school or university. After the age of 16 the child of the lowly-paid worker does not qualify for relief. What I notice about the philosophy of the Fianna Fáil Party is they look after those who are incapable of working at all and they do nothing for the lowly-paid worker except put a bigger burden on him. Only a few days ago I read a letter in the Evening Herald in which a young lad said he had done his intermediate certificate but could not go on and do his leaving certificate because the family income was only £10 a week. We all know there are such cases. The age was increased in the case of widows with children, but it has not been increased generally. Admittedly this is an improvement. Let us be frank about it.

Mr. J. Brennan

It was put up for more than widows. It was put up for disability benefit and unemployment benefit — a very important and a large section.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister means the people who are unemployed.

Mr. J. Brennan

Their dependants.

Dr. O'Donovan

They get the ordinary children's allowances as well.

Mr. J. Brennan

They do. They get it both ways.

Dr. O'Donovan

But the ordinary allowances are not put up.

Mr. J. Brennan

The age is not being extended.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is not extended to 18 years. I think this is all wrong.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy talked about the boy who could not stay in school. He did not have to pay for his education.

Dr. O'Donovan

Has he not to be fed and clothed and provided with bus fares? He might not have to pay for his school books, but there is a means test attached to free school books also.

I came across a case recently which illustrates the difference in treatment. The father of a family of 11 children was earning £16 a week and, for income tax purposes, he wanted to transfer two or three of the children to his eldest son who, although only 17 years of age, was earning £20 a week and paying £5 income tax. I saw the letter from the Revenue Commissioners: they said no boy could be regarded as adopting a couple of children while his father was still alive. I do not like that kind of thing. The ordinary income taxpayer gets £150 relief if he is earning less than £2,000 a year. This works out at about £40 a year which is £13 a year more than the children's allowances, which stop at 16 years of age. Where the father is earning more than £2,000 he gets £52 relief a year, which is £1 per week. Where he is in the surtax bracket the allowance is £75 a year. In other words, the concession become bigger and bigger the better off the parents are. In my opinion, this is the reverse of a proper system of public financing and a proper system of social welfare.

One asks oneself why are children's allowances stated as so much per month? They have been so stated ever since the famous change in 1952 when they were paid a month in advance prior to three by-elections. The Fianna Fáil Party were in grave difficulties. Ever since then children's allowances have been quoted at a monthly rate. The reason is, of course, that they were so derisory no party could stand up to them being quoted per week. Our children's allowances compare most unfavourably with other countries. They are half the rate in Britain. I pointed this out on the Budget and the Parliamentary Secretary from north-east Donegal interrupted and said there was no allowance for the first child in Britain. Our children's allowances are half what they are in France and Italy.

We can prate as much as we like about how fond we are of children but I do not believe we are one bit fond of children. I think we hate children the same as we hate the poor in this country. It would bring tears to one's eyes to see how we treat children and the conditions in which large families have to live. I worked with the St. Vincent de Paul Society for about ten years when I was young and it would make one ill to see the conditions then obtaining. I did that work in desperate times and, were it not for that experience, I could not now witness present conditions without having to spend a day in bed to recover from the spectacle.

I want to talk about certain aspects of the non-contributory pension and to refer to section 36 in particular. Ever since the word "nil" was put in the total relief to old age pensioners, instead of "£26 5s", all kinds of anomalies have arisen. If it would be in order I would put down an amendment to take out of that section 36 the piece of it that is within brackets "(excluding any plot provided therewith)". It is an improvement that "the cottage" is being taken out and we must express our appreciation of what the Government have done here.

The new rate of old age pension will be £4 5s. Take the old age pensioner who lives in a vested cottage, with the usual plot of one acre with these old labourers' cottages, as they were called, the valuation of which would be £1 in any of the good land counties. This valuation means that the old age pensioner will lose 5s a week. Therefore, there is no change in their position just because they have a piece of land which is intended as a garden. The obvious answer is that, instead of "nil" which was inserted under the 1966 Act, I think, to put in £26 5s as the minimum rate — in other words, that a person whose means did not exceed £26 5s would get the maximum old age pension and that a sum like 10s a week would be regarded as a kind of "tuille", something that people would not expect to be mulcted for having.

I do not speak about children's allowances in the way I do for any political reason. I have a conviction that the present system is all wrong philosophically and practically and in every other way. I do not know who was responsible for it. If the Minister wants to make a worthwhile contribution in his new post as Minister for Social Welfare he should take out the first child — the £6 a year is worthless, anyway — and transfer the moneys to the really big families which are becoming fewer and fewer.

Mr. Bruton

Some speakers earlier in this debate — I believe Deputy Enright of my party was among them — advocated a separate Minister for Social Welfare.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be a matter for the Taoiseach. There is a Bill before the House now.

Mr. Bruton

When a Minister has to cope with two Departments, it is very difficult for him to do the fundamental thinking on social welfare which is so necessary and which I believe has not been done down the years in this country. A Minister who cannot concentrate fully on one Department would not be able to do this. Lack of fundamental thinking is very evident in the patchwork nature of our social services. This has been referred to many times. I admit that not many Deputies have attempted to put forward a comprehensive alternative system to replace in every particular our present patchwork system. I am not competent to do so either. It is fairly evident that our system is constructed not on the basis of——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

Is it not fair to say that to undertake an overall review would require legislation?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. The Deputy must keep to the provisions of the Bill. The Deputy might wish to say what else he would like to see in the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

This Bill should have incorporated the whole system of home assistance and disabled persons maintenance allowances and other systems which are at present administered by the Department of Health so that there would be a comprehensive system which would cover all people. Mention was made some time ago of the introduction of a system of flat rate benefits. As reported as column 709 of the Official Report, Deputy Boland, then Minister for Social Welfare, speaking on the Estimate for his Department on 19th March last, said:

I agree that it is time to depart from the system of flat rate benefits. It has been announced that the Government intend to introduce a system of pay-related benefits and contributions.

It is open to us to advocate that such a system of pay-related benefits should have been incorporated in this Bill. I had expected that the announcement would have been put into effect in this Bill. The introduction of a system of pay-related benefits and pay-related contributions, as distinct from flat rate benefits and flat rate contributions, is something we would possibly have to do in the EEC because all the EEC countries have a pay-related system and we have merely a flat rate system.

There are a number of advantages in a pay-related system. First of all, it is a guarantee against inflation in that, as pay goes up, so do contributions and benefits; whereas at present increases in social insurance benefits are purely at the whim of the Government and are not immediately and concretely related to increases in pay, which are usually related to the cost of living. I feel that if benefits were on this pay-related basis the recipients would be protected to some extent against the erosion of inflation.

There is an additional benefit to be considered and it is that people who are at work and earning a certain amount enter into long-term expenses appropriate to their standard of living. If they are at work and earning quite a considerable amount and then suddenly find themselves through disability or for some other reason out of work, under a flat rate system the fall is much steeper; whereas if the benefit were pay-related the drop would not be so great. In this context there is something to be said in favour of a pay-related system because people do enter into long-term expenses: buying certain items by instalments, starting off their children in a type of education which may involve greater expense. Under a pay-related system they would be able to continue these expenses without great disruption because the benefits they would be receiving would be related to what they had been earning previously and on the basis of which they had decided to undertake these expenses.

On the other hand, there are certain disadvantages in this proposal which are worth mentioning. First of all, it involves to some extent moving away from the concept of social welfare provisions acting as an instrument for redressing an imbalance in the distribution of income in the community in that people who are earning more will get more from social welfare when they are not earning and people who are earning less will get less. This in a way perpetuates, during the period when these people are out of work and relying on social welfare, the divisions of income in the community and, to some extent, involves a moving away from the principle that social welfare should be used as a method of equalising income distribution within the community.

It is also true that it would be to some extent regressive. Under this system the people who earn more get more, and that is regressive. I have not a very definite conviction as to whether we should have a pay-related system of benefits and contributions. This is something which needs to be considered in much greater depth. There is a considerable degree of urgency in this because of the fact that we may be entering the EEC in the near future and we would need to do some very hard thinking on both the benefits and the disadvantages of a pay-related system.

Social expenditure in this country as a proportion of our gross national product, if the figures I have are correct, is six per cent whereas all the EEC countries and Britain spend in the region of 13 to 16 per cent of their gross national product on social welfare. These figures would seem to indicate that we are spending less than half the amount on social welfare than other countries are. This, on the face of it, looks very bad, although we must qualify it to some extent by pointing out that the State contribution to social welfare here is much greater proportionately than the State contribution in other European countries in that much more of the schemes there are financed by employers' and employees' contributions than in the case here. For example, the State contribution to social welfare in general here is about 66 per cent of the cost, whereas in the EEC countries it is somewhere ranging from 7 to 22 per cent. This is something we must say to qualify the bald use of these figures.

It is something to consider that the State has taken overall responsibility, even if it does not pay for it all itself, for a much greater amount of social expenditure in the European countries than is the case here. Many of the schemes which are undertaken under the State umbrella by the EEC countries are financed by private insurance schemes here. We should consider whether we should extend our field of State-directed social expenditure to the level which obtains in the EEC countries, because this would ensure that these social expenditures were directed towards maximising the community welfare and were not merely administered by private schemes as is probably the case here.

There is another question which has not been considered and it is that of selectivity in social welfare services: the question of whether or not these services should be given only to those who are in great need — this obviously necessitates a means test to be applied — or whether they should be given to all members of the community. The obvious advantages in selectivity are that it minimises cost and it is a more progressive system in that whatever money is there is being spent on the least well-off and is not being wasted on people who can provide for themselves. On the other hand, means tests involve a certain incursion on people's dignity and can result in certain anomalies in that these means tests, which are devised by human beings, are never perfect: people can fail to get what they are entitled to or, on the other hand, get benefits to which they are not entitled and which they would not get if the system was perfect.

This whole question of selectivity is one of the fundamental issues in relation to social welfare which has never been considered in this country on anything like a broad basis. We have always been introducing schemes here and there of a patch-work nature which are largely selective but sometimes are not. There has been no fundamental thinking as to whether selectivity in this field is or is not desirable. This is one of the questions on which fundamental thinking has unfortunately been lacking in our whole approach to social welfare.

Debate adjourned.