Social Welfare Bill, 1972 : Second Stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill is concerned mainly with the extension of the existing social insurance and social assistance schemes to implement the proposals in the budget for improvements in those schemes and consequential matters. The Bill also contains a provision relating to social insurance for the Garda Síochána, and other provisions designed to further improve the social insurance system. The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill is aimed at clarifying the provisions of the Bill, which, because of its technical nature, and the fact that it includes many amendments of existing legislation, tends to be difficult to understand in places. I trust that the memorandum will assist Deputies in their examination of the Bill.

The budget increases in the field of social assistance will give an extra 50 pence a week to non-contributory old age and blind pensioners making the maximum personal rate £5.15 a week. To meet the special needs of the very aged a further 50 pence a week is being provided this year for pensioners aged 80 or over, which will bring their maximum personal rate to £5.65 a week. The increased maximum rates of pension will enable the scale of means and rates of pension to be extended so as to give an additional rate at the bottom of the scale which will be payable to some persons whose means are outside the present limits for pension. The amounts paid to non-contributory old age pensioners in respect of qualified children are being increased by 40 pence for each of the first two children and 25 pence for each additional child.

Widows' non-contributory pensions and deserted wife's allowances will also be increased by 50 pence a week thus bringing the maximum personal rate to £5.15 a week. The amount paid to widows and deserted wives for qualified children will be increased by 45 pence a week for each child.

As in the case of old age pensions, the scale of means and rates of pension will be extended to give an additional rate at the bottom of the scale which will be payable to some widows and deserted wives whose means at present exclude them from receiving pensions. Orphans' non-contributory pensions will be increased by 50 pence a week to £3 at the maximum. The improved payments for orphans and for dependent children of widows and deserted wives will continue the upward trend in the special provision being made in recent years for those having the care of children. The maximum rate payable to a widow with a non-contributory pension or a deserted wife with two qualified children will go up from £6.45 a week to £7.85 a week; from £8.25 a week to £10.55 a week where there are four children, and from £10.05 a week to £13.25 a week where there are six children. I have also found it possible this year to make a further improvement in the scheme of allowances for deserted wives. Experience of the scheme in operation has shown that the age limit of 50 which applies at present to those who have no dependent children has operated harshly, particularly in the case of persons in the 40 to 50 age group who have difficulty in finding employment. To meet this situation the minimum age limit for deserted wives without dependent children is being lowered to 40 years.

The rates of unemployment assistance for persons in urban and rural areas are being increased by 40 pence a week for the recipient and by a further 30 pence a week where there is an adult dependant. The maximum rate will then be £4.35 for a single person and £7.75 for a married couple resident in an urban area. Outside urban areas the corresponding rates will be £4.05 and £7.35. Where there are dependent children, the rates payable in respect of each of the first two qualified children are being increased by 40 pence a week and in respect of each other qualified child by 25 pence a week. These increases in unemployment assistance will have the effect of automatically extending the means limit for qualification for unemployment assistance.

All of the increases and improvements in relation to social assistance will operate from the beginning of August next.

The increases in rates of social insurance benefits and pensions announced in the budget will come into operation at the beginning of October next. These will provide an extra 70 pence a week on the maximum personal rates of old age (contributory) pension and an extra 60 pence a week on the maximum personal rates of widow's (contributory) pension, disability and unemployment benefit, invalidity pension and maternity allowance. The maximum personal rate of retirement pensions is being specially increased by £1.25 a week to bring retirement pensions up to the level of old age (contributory) pensions. Persons aged 80 or over receiving retirement pension or old age or widow's (contributory) pension will get a further 50 pence a week on their personal rates. There will also be additional payments for dependants. An extra 30 pence a week will be paid for an adult dependant in the case of old age (contributory) pension, invalidity pension, disability or unemployment benefit. In the case of retirement pensions, the increase for an adult dependant will be 70 pence a week to bring the level of payment up to that of old age (contributory) pension. For qualified children there are increases of 45 pence a week in respect of each of the first two and 35 pence a week in respect of each other qualified child for recipients of old age (contributory), retirement and invalidity pensions and disability and unemployment benefits. Recipients of widows' (contributory) pensions will get increases of 50 pence a week per child in the amounts paid to them in respect of qualified children. Orphans' (contributory) allowances will be increased by 50 pence a week.

Finally the rate of death grant payable in respect of an adult will be increased from £25.00 to £35.00 and there will be proportionate increases in respect of children.

These increases will make very substantial improvements in the payments under the various schemes. From October next under the old age (contributory) pension and retirement pension schemes, a single pensioner will get a maximum of £6.20 a week, or £6.70 a week if he is aged 80 or over, while a married couple will get £10.35, or £10.85 if the pensioner is aged 80 or over. A widow without children will get £5.60 a week by way of widow's (contributory) pension at the maximum and £6.10 a week if she is aged 80 or over. The maximum personal rates of unemployment and disability benefit, and invalidity pension will then be £5.55 a week and, where there is an adult dependant, the rate will be £9.30 a week. The increased payments for qualified children will greatly improve the position of beneficiaries who have dependent children, particularly in the case of widows. For instance, a widow in receipt of a contributory pension and who has two children will get £8.60 a week instead of £7.00; a widow with four children, £11.60 a week instead of £9.00 and a widow with six children, £14.60 a week instead of £11.00.

As I have already indicated, these increases in rates of social insurance benefits and pensions will come into operation from the beginning of October next, but certain rates of unemployment benefit which are payable where unemployment continues after 156 days and which are the same as the maximum rates of unemployment assistance payable in urban areas are being increased from the beginning of August next when the assistance rates go up.

These increases in rates of payment and other improvements in the social insurance system are estimated to cost some £13,595,000 in a full year. The social insurance system is based on the principle that the cost is met out of the Social Insurance Fund to which employers, insured persons and the Exchequer contribute in approximately equal shares. For a number of years the Exchequer was required to meet considerably more than one-third of the cost of the system and steps were taken in recent years to bring the Exchequer's share of the overall cost down to that level. However, in the last year the Exchequer's contribution to the Social Insurance Fund has again risen well above the one-third mark and the cost of the improvements now proposed would increase that proportion. Consequently, in order to meet the cost of these improvements and ensure that the Exchequer is not required to bear an excessive proportion of the cost of the social insurance system, it is necessary that the rates of social insurance contributions should be increased substantially from the beginning of October next. The increase proposed in the ordinary rates of social insurance contributions is 40 pence a week. Lesser increases are being applied where some only of the benefits concerned are covered. The increase of 40 pence in the ordinary rate of men's contribution will be shared by the employer paying 22 pence and the employee 18 pence and the total social insurance contribution will then be £2.12 a week of which £1.09 will be borne by the employer and £1.03 by the employee. The increase in the rate of voluntary contribution covering widows' (contributory) pensions only will be 7 pence making it 44 pence and the increase in the contribution which covers old age and widows' (contributory) pensions, retirement pension and death grant will be 17 pence making it £1.08.

A table showing the present and proposed rates of contribution appears in the explanatory memorandum.

With regard to the increases in contributions it is scarcely necessary for me to say that real improvements in social welfare invariably cost money and substantial improvements in the social insurance system must involve substantial increases in the contributions payable by employers and insured persons if the basis of the system as a contributory one providing benefits free of means tests is to be preserved. While, therefore, it may seem that the proposed contributions for ordinary insured persons are heavy, it should be borne in mind that the contributions for purely social insurance from October next for the ordinary male worker will be £1.03 which represents 4.74 per cent of the average weekly pay of industrial workers in December last, £21.70, while the overall contribution payable by him for social insurance, redundancy and health services, £1.21, would be 5.57 per cent of that pay. These percentages are not excessive when compared with the position in other countries. For example, in Britain, at the same pay level, an insured man would be paying £1.26 or 5.8 per cent of his earnings in contributions for purely national insurance and £1.47 or 6.77 per cent in the overall covering health and industrial injuries. In the member countries of the European Economic Community, the latest figures available show that for insurance in respect of pensions and sickness and unemployment benefit, the insured worker was paying 6.58 per cent of his earnings in France, 7.05 per cent in Italy, 11 per cent in Luxembourg, 11.05 per cent in Belgium, 13.15 per cent in Germany and 17.95 per cent in the Netherlands. It must be remembered that the employer also is required to contribute heavily towards the cost of these benefits on the basis of the worker's earnings— 18.32 per cent in France; 30.66 per cent in Italy; 9 per cent in Luxembourg; 14 per cent in Belgium; 13.15 per cent in Germany and 15 per cent in the Netherlands.

Arising out of the increases and improvements in the general social insurance system provided for in the Bill, it is proposed also to improve the benefits payable under the occupational injuries scheme. The increases proposed are 60 pence in the rates of the main weekly paid benefits and allowances with proportionate increases in other payments. All benefits under this scheme are met out of the occupational injuries fund which is financed by contributions paid by employers only which it is not proposed to increase on this occasion.

I will also be putting before the House the Redundancy Contributions (Variation of Rates) Order, 1972, which will provide for the weekly redundancy contributions for men to be increased by 3 pence to 8 pence and for women by 2 pence to 6 pence. These contributions are collected by way of the social insurance stamp for those classes of employees to be covered for redundancy purposes and are additional to the rates of social insurance contribution I have mentioned earlier.

The schemes under which allowances or increases of pensions both contributory and non-contributory are payable in respect of certain prescribed female relatives who give full-time care and attention to incapacitated persons aged 70 and over are being extended from October next to cover such male relatives as will be prescribed and will also be payable with invalidity pensions and retirement pensions. This is being done because cases have come to light in which it has been shown that the necessary care and attention is being provided on a full-time basis by male relatives and there would, accordingly, be a certain inequity in confining the scheme to female relatives only. In addition the rates of payment are being increased in all cases from £2.75 to £3.00, the increased rate being payable from August in the case of payments on the social assistance side and from October where the payment is on the social insurance side.

Apart from dealing with the budget proposals and matters consequential on those proposals the Bill proposes to implement the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commission on Garda Pay and Conditions to the effect that gardaí should be brought within the scope of the social insurance system. Employment as member of the Garda Síochána will, from a date to be appointed by order, become insurable and regulations will enable me to modify the Acts in relation to gardaí in the same way as is done for established civil servants who are insurable only for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes. The garda will also be excluded from occupational injuries coverage as the employment involves risks above and beyond those normally encountered in employment which is covered for such purposes and, in any event, the force have their own scheme of compensation for injuries received in the course of duty.

It is also proposed in the Bill to deal with a number of matters which have given rise to problems in relation to the operation of the social insurance system.

The first, which has caused distress from time to time, is the failure of some social welfare beneficiaries to make any provision for their families. This may be due to any of a number of reasons but where it happens, it is the family which suffers and hitherto the Department have been almost powerless to remedy the situation. In connection with the old age contributory pension scheme, however, power was taken in 1963 to enable that portion of the pension payable in respect of a dependant to be paid directly to the dependant or to some other person on her behalf where the circumstances of the case seemed to warrant such action. This provision has proved to be beneficial in operation and it is proposed in the Bill to provide similar powers in relation to other social insurance benefits and occupational injuries payments where dependants are paid for. It will be possible to extend those powers to the social assistance schemes by regulation.

The second matter relates to the recovery of arrears of social insurance contributions where an employer goes bankrupt.

Health contributions and redundancy contributions are, by virtue of the Health Contributions Act, 1971, and the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, respectively, deemed to be social insurance contributions. These Acts also give to redundancy and health contributions a period of 12 months priority in the disposal of the assets of a bankrupt or an arranging debtor. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, however, a period of only four months priority is accorded to social insurance contributions in similar circumstances. The Bill proposes to remove this anomaly by amending the Social Welfare Act, 1952, so as to give social insurance contributions the 12-month period of priority which applies to redundancy and health contributions.

A further matter concerns the contribution conditions for receipt of maternity allowance which is payable on a woman's insurance only. At present, eligibility for the allowance depends on the woman's insurance record in the last contribution year before the commencement of the sixth week prior to the expected confinement. This has been found to cause difficulty where a claim is made just after the end of a woman's contribution year because until the relevant insurance card has been surrendered to the Department, the claim cannot be decided. In the case of maternity grant, this difficulty does not arise as eligibility may as an alternative be determined on the insurance record in the previous contribution year and the Bill proposes that a similar alternative should operate in the case of maternity allowances.

The final matter relates to the position which will arise in August next, when non-contributory pensions are increased, where for the period up to the end of September next, when contributory pensions are increased, there will be cases where the non-contributory pension to which a pensioner might be entitled would be temporarily more favourable than the corresponding contributory pension which he holds. It was never the intention that the option which was given to contributory pensioners by the 1966 Act to switch to non-contributory pensions where it would be to their advantage, should operate for very short periods and there is provision in this Bill, as in previous years Bills, to prevent such switching where the advantage would only be temporary. The right of pensioners to switch where the advantage would be permanent will remain.

To conclude, I will summarise the cost of the various proposals in the Bill. On the social assistance side there is £3,884,000 for old age and blind pensions, £610,000 for widows' and orphans' pensions, £165,000 for deserted wife's allowances and £2,751,000 for unemployment assistance, the total cost being £7,410,000 in a full year, all of which will fall on the Exchequer. The gross cost of improvements on the social insurance side will be £13,595,000 in a full year, of which the increases in contribution rates will provide some £10,424,000.

I have much pleasure in recommending this Bill to Dáil Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. Creed

Fine Gael welcomed the increases announced in the budget and I should like to repeat what my party said on that occasion, namely, that any benefits that are given to social welfare recipients will be welcomed by us. However the benefits announced in the Minister's speech, which are increases to social welfare recipients across the board, are too little and have been given far too late. Even since the introduction of the budget the cost of living has continued to outstrip any increases given to these unfortunate people. Before dealing with the Minister's speech I should like to draw another matter to his attention.

This concerns representations made by Deputies and public representatives to the Department of Social Welfare. Public representatives come into contact with social welfare recipients every day and they know that many of them are destitute. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the flimsy acknowledgment that is sent by the Department of Social Welfare in response to such representations. There should be a better effort made with regard to the acknowledgment of these representations. Deputies would like to get an acknowledgment which might be sent to the people concerned which would assure them that representations had been made on their behalf and that their case was being considered. They should not be given the impression that they are ignored by Deputies and public representatives. The flimsy acknowledgment sent by the Department could not be sent to the people concerned. I would ask the Minister to look into this matter.

I should like to refer to the long delay that occurs in dealing with cases which have been submitted to the Department for decision. I wonder if there is any way in which the Minister could speed up this matter——

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter would be appropriate to the Estimate. It is not relevant on the Bill.

Mr. Creed

This is an urgent matter. The delay that occurs creates hardship for many people. Although we welcome the increases that have been given, while such benefits depend on taxation it will be difficult to give to these people a sufficient income that will enable them to attain a decent standard of living. For that reason it is necessary to examine some of those cases. There is an increase in the non-contributory pensions for widows but if one takes the case of a widow with two dependent children the amount she will receive now is £7.85 per week. Surely the Government must realise that it is not possible today for anyone to provide 21 meals each week for three people on that amount. Were it not for voluntary organisations such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, many of those people would be destitute. I might add that this House should give recognition to the amount of work being done by voluntary organisations such as the one I mentioned. These societies are necessary so long as people in receipt of social welfare benefits are not being given enough to enable them to provide for themselves the necessities of life.

In respect of the whole sphere of social welfare payments it is necessary to have a comprehensive scheme based on insurance but until we have such a scheme we must try to overcome the problem as it is by granting substantial increases to social welfare recipients. We must be concerned, particularly, with ensuring that children are looked after. If we cannot look after them we cannot hope to build the type of country that we would all like to see. Children who are dependent on charitable organisations may grow up to believe they are second-class citizens. They will have a grudge against society. There are a number of schemes with which I am concerned particularly. For instance, there is the free footwear scheme which I consider to be degrading. Rather than operate this scheme it would be much better to implement the cost of footwear by way of increase in the incomes of social welfare recipients. In that way children would not be subjected to ridicule by other children.

Our whole attitude towards social welfare seems to be how little rather than how much. We must get away from this attitude. Recently there has been much talk of the reunification of this country but if we are serious in this regard we must have a new approach to the question of social welfare benefits. While the increases being given are welcome it must be remembered that they will not come into effect for another two or three months and that a large percentage of them will be negatived by the uncontrolled increases in the cost of living. For that reason we must examine the whole sphere of social welfare. There must be reorganisation so far as the administration of social welfare is concerned. There are many people who are not aware of their entitlements. It would be very helpful to have information centres where people could ascertain what exactly are their entitlements under social welfare. There is necessity for a national minimum income in respect of social welfare recipients. In this respect it would be necessary to determine what should be the level of such minimum income. Our social welfare schemes are very much outdated. The day has long passed when a man and his wife could live on the amount they are receiving by way of non-contributory old age pensions. Such people must rely on the help of charitable organisations but this is degrading for them. Those people are giving a live service to the nation.

While increases in social welfare payments must be linked with increases in taxation under our present system I do not think the people will object to the imposition of a type of selective tax so long as they know that the revenue is being used to improve the lot of those who depend on social welfare. The people are generous. My involvement with a charitable organisation has made me aware of this generosity. I have found that the people respond magnificently to requests for help because they realise much more than the Minister or the Government realise, how bad is the plight of social welfare recipients. It ill becomes the Government, who have been in power for so long and who boast of a social conscience, to expect people to live on paltry payments.

Our whole approach to social welfare has been one of cheeseparing. This was brought to my attention very forcibly recently when a woman who was in receipt of an old age contributary pension and who was living alone found, because she let a room in her house, that her pension was reduced. Such rigid application of the law is not necessary or desirable. We should be more generous in regard to investigations. The present system of investigation is much too rigid.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be a matter for the Estimate. It does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Creed

It arises in so far as some of those people are concerned but I shall not continue in this way if the Chair does not wish me to do so. In the 12 months up to February this year the cost of food increased by 11.2 per cent. We must realise that the greatest proportion of the income of social welfare recipients is spent on food.

I am pleased that the Minister has decided to extend the prescribed relatives' allowance to male relatives and others who are looking after the aged. There is another problem which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. The increase is welcome but it is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The amount that is provided for a relative looking after an aged person is not sufficient inducement to get people to look after the aged. I have had the experience of meeting people who could not afford to leave jobs in order to come home and look after aged relatives. As a result, some old people will have to go to institutions or homes of some kind where the cost will be five times the amount that is being paid by way of prescribed relative allowances.

There are also people in receipt of invalidity pensions. Neighbours sometimes look after them but they do not qualify for allowances unless the invalid is a relative. The Minister should examine this point. There is a great lack of domiciliary services and services available to families at particular centres. Such services to people in their own homes are desirable. Such services would help many people. The aged should not be taken to county homes or institutions, but should be looked after at home as far as possible.

I welcome the increases in this Bill. We hope that the Minister in granting these increases realises that they are not sufficient to keep people in decency in their old age or to solve their difficulties if they are widows or orphans. A better effort must be made to provide a decent standard of living for such people.

Mr. Murphy

The Labour spokesman, Deputy O'Connell, has been called away on urgent business.

This Bill is now a hardy annual. It is discussed once a year after the budget when the Minister tells us how kind and considerate Fianna Fáil are in regard to those who have to exist, or partly exist, on social welfare benefits. In former years I have said that if any system requires restructuring it is the social welfare code which operates in this country. The allowances granted here average around 50p with a few exceptions, and are insufficient taking into account present day money values and the steadily declining value of money. Such increases are indeed exceptionally meagre particularly when we look around us and see those who, through their qualifications or in some cases through a little luck or patronage, are enjoying big salaries and increases not of pence per week but of hundreds of pounds per year under a system where increases are usually granted on the percentage basis which favours the people with high incomes and is a disadvantage to those on the lower scales.

A non-contributory old age pensioner with no means at all cannot qualify for more than £5.15 per week. If he owns the house in which he is living he is not eligible for this amount but must make do with £4.90. If he does not own the house but if he has a few pounds set aside for, perhaps, burial purposes and if that amount exceeds £25 it will cost him £13 annually or 25p per week. This is a very unfair system. We cannot take the group known as the "contributory pensioners" and deal with them as if their position was somewhat similar. In actual fact there is a great variation. The old man or woman who is living alone or with relatives who are not in very affluent circumstances and who may be partly disabled or suffering from some infirmity is more or less dependent on the £4.90 or £5.15 per week. It is exceptionally hard for such a person to live on that meagre amount at the present time. It does not give him much opportunity for enjoying "a little drop" after Mass on Sunday or an opportunity of having a comfortable smoke occasionally. Such a man or woman is in a very different position from an old age pensioner who is living with relatives who are reasonably well off and whose pension might be said to be available to him for the little items which I mentioned. A little spending money is most essential. The man who has to live on the money and the man who has help from relatives are entirely different. The man who has help from relatives is not entirely dependent on the money he gets from the State.

It is difficult in legislation such as this to overcome this difficulty. Some years ago I tried to have this position rectified by the Cork Health Authority. I proposed trying to get approval for payment of disabled persons' allowances to old people who are incapacitated. Subsequently, to some extent and to a limited extent, the dependent relative allowance helped in that respect, but the amount of the dependent relative's allowance, £2.75, increased to £3, with the qualification restrictions is not sufficient. I am sure the Minister knows it is next to impossible to get old people admitted to the many hospitals and homes due to overcrowded conditions. I understand that the latest figure for the maintenance of an old person in a cottage or district hospital is about £35 or, possibly, closer to £40 weekly, an exceptionally large sum. The trend is for this figure to increase rapidly and it is supposed to have increased by about 30 per cent in the past 18 months or two years. It is much better to pay additional allowances, particularly to incapacitated people, in the form of the disabled persons' allowance, which it is quite lawful to pay them if the local health board so decides rather than have them queuing up to gain admission to hospital.

From my experience and the information I have got in visiting hospitals and institutions, particularly those for old people, I find with few exceptions that most old people prefer to be in their own homes if at all possible. They want to end their lives within their own community and institutional life is not for them. I have great sympathy for such people particularly those who are forced into these institutions through financial circumstances. If some body were established to inquire in depth into such cases and, where circumstances warrant it, supplement their home incomes with a view to having them kept at home rather than transfer them to institutions, it would be much better.

In saying that I have always asserted and will continue to assert the responsibility of young people to care for their parents and immediate relatives. Except in exceptional circumstances I do not like the idea of children or adults trying to get the local authorities to care for their parents at the end of their days. I shall never approve of that. Everybody has an obligation, in so far as it is possible, to try to provide for their parents in their old age and keep them in the home and avoid sending them to hospitals or institutions.

I know there is difficulty for some in doing this. In my reasonably varied experience financial circumstances are often responsible and I sympathise with such people. The meagre £4 or £5 old age pension makes it impossible for a person to get necessary care and attention at home and even with the improvement in the dependent relative allowance and combining the two amounts, the £5 and the £3, to make £8 it is still a small income for two people particularly where the aged person needs constant or near-constant attention.

I know that money must be found to implement such schemes but I am in favour of providing money for our old people and incapacitated people and those who need care and attention at home. There is an obligation on us to be more liberal with public funds than we are at present in this regard.

I am sure the Minister for Social Welfare and his Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that the allowance under the Social Welfare Acts for the class of persons I have mentioned is not nearly sufficient. I need scarcely tell the House the difficulty in most cases such people have in getting supplementary income from the assistance authorities. So far as the contributory pensioner is concerned the type of letter one gets never varies : "Joseph Brennan is in receipt of a contributory pension and consequently he is not entitled to home assistance." I do not like that sort of statement. The contributory pension is £5.50 and it is assumed by health boards that is a sufficient income without regard to a person's disabilities and there is no further investigation. Once you have the pension you are deemed to have enough to live on.

I agree entirely with the principle of giving extra assistance to those over 80. We are all getting on and when a person goes beyond the 80 mark he is undoubtedly declining and needs more care and nourishment. Instead of having one "half" in a day he could do with at least two. Giving an additional allowance in such cases is good and all I can say is that it is a pity the amount was not £1 for those over 80 years of age.

We have got in the Minister's script details of social welfare contributions in other countries, particularly our nearest neighbour and our cousins now within the European Community, but the Minister did not give us any details about the qualifying age for old age pensions. I see no reason why the age limit set down in 1908 should continue any longer. It should be cut to at least 65 years. A large section of the Irish people qualify for pensions at 65 years and those who do not are mainly self-employed. Those people find it exceptionally difficult to make ends meet because social welfare does not cover them.

In all the countries within the Community the qualifying age for old age pensions has been reduced. In the northern part of this country the qualifying age is lower than it is here. When I raised this matter before I was told about the additional cost on the Exchequer if this was generally applied. When we take into account that a large proportion of the people are now covered at 65 years I do not see any reason why the balance should not be covered as well.

It is not unreasonable to assume that more than 30 per cent of the money given out in old age pensions on Friday morning finds its way back into the Exchequer. If a pensioner buys an ounce of tobacco and a half one he will find that the Exchequer gets back a fair proportion of the money he has paid out. The Exchequer also gets a share of the money that person pays when he buys bread and butter. If we provide old age pensions for people at 65 years and upwards, it is likely that up to 40 per cent of the money will find its way back into the Exchequer. There is not a Deputy in the House who would think it unjust if that qualifying age for old age pensions was applied to all sections of the community.

Last year when there was a Norwegian delegation in Dublin we were told that Norway was the only country in Western Europe which maintained 70 years as the qualifying age for old age pensions. The Norwegian delegation told us that they were ashamed of that and that this year they were reducing the age by three years to 67 years as the qualifying age. We are on our own in regard to the qualifying age, a qualifying which the British Government thought was right in 1908. In justice we must do something about the reduction of this qualifying age. If we look at our neighbours who have gone past 70 years of age we find that almost every one of them is incapacitated in some way and it is very difficult for them to enjoy any retirement. This is a further reason for reducing the qualifying age to 65 years.

I would now like to refer to widows' pensions. We have heard a great deal about widows' pensions in the past year because widows have organised themselves in different parts of the country and they have been making representations to public representatives, particularly Members of this House, with a view to getting an improvement in their pensions. The matter is easy enough to deal with so far as contributory pensions are concerned. A widow is allowed her pension irrespective of means and she is allowed a certain amount for each child. A step forward has been taken in this Bill by the allowance of 50p for each child which is given. The question here, so far as widows are concerned, whether they are in the contributory group or the non-contributory group, is when their breadwinners die—we are very fond of using the word "restructuring" and I think I can use it here for want of a better word—their lives must be restructured.

In the case of a salaried worker, unless there is another pension in addition to the social welfare one, the income is bound to decline in real value. The children must be provided for. It is all right to say we are providing free education but let us not forget that there are numerous incidental expenses. That widow is undoubtedly suffering great financial hardship because, particularly if the family are young, in the 14 to 17 age group, it is unlikely she will be able to take a job outside even if she wanted to.

We come to the case of the non-contributory widow and here the position is more extreme. She gets the same rate as an old age pensioner but she must have less than £25 a year and not own her house. If she owns her house she will not get the £5.15. What I see wrong with this is the number of widows anxious to get part-time employment to earn a few extra pounds. If a widow does so her pension will be reduced. Where it is possible to do so and where her family commitments allow, we should be encouraging such a widow to supplement her income. Instead of that, we have the Department following that widow around watching to see if she will earn a pound this week or next week. They do that in a big way. Widows are chased by the Department's officers, I am sure on the instructions of the Department, to ascertain whether their incomes have increased. If so, their pensions are reduced immediately. I ask the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Geoghegan, to look into this matter. We are moving into a more enlightened age and real incomes are low enough without trying to prevent widows from earning a little extra.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving into administration which is a matter for the Estimate.

Mr. Murphy

I do not propose to be in conflict with the rules of the House, but it is very difficult to find the dividing line. I will move along to another group of women, the wives of farmers and shopkeepers. They find themselves in great difficulty when the breadwinner dies, sometimes early on in their lives, and the means tests are applied so rigidly that if such a widow has no children she must have nil— how could one hold nothing?—to get £5.15 a week. She must not have more than £26.05 per year to qualify for £4.09 and if she has £26.26 she moves down to £4.25. If she happens to have £52 a year she moves to £4.40 and if she has the princely sum of £169.76 she moves to £2.40 a week. Take a widow with two qualified children who has £169.76 yearly income. She gets the princely sum of £5.10, after fierce investigation. The Minister and the House will appreciate that a woman with two young children will not be able to go out to work to supplement that income. If she does and if she were to move beyond an annual income of £192 there would be a further reduction in her pension.

These figures are unrealistic and I urge the Minister to review them and review the entire system which is outdated and in need of restructuring. There is general agreement that widows are in extreme hardship at present because of the levels of the allowances and the rigid application of the means test.

I will move now to the unemployed and the disabled. I understand there are more than 70,000 listed as unemployed. As far as our unemployed are concerned, in this country with a population of 2.9 million and with so much work to be done in so many different fields, candidly I do not understand why such a large number should be listed. Since I was elected to this House in 1951 I have been raising this matter here. The money paid out is not channelled in the proper direction. What we want for our men and women is productive work of one kind or another. The majority of our people want to earn their livelihood in productive employment and not through the medium of social welfare benefits. These people through the contributions they pay more than cover the unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance they may get. This money would be spent to better purpose if it were set aside for the purpose of putting schemes of work into operation. Departments employ workers and I have advocated some co-ordinating body which would direct labour from one scheme to another. That would be much better than declaring a man redundant and paying him unemployment benefit. We are obliged to pay this benefit. There should be a co-ordinating committee which would direct labour from one departmental scheme of work to another. You have the Department of Posts and Telegraphs providing essential services throughout the country. You have the Department of Local Government working in conjunction with local authorities in the building of houses. You have the Electricity Supply Board providing essential services. You have drainage and water schemes. How is it some system cannot be devised whereby workers could transfer from one scheme of work to another instead of becoming redundant?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving away somewhat from the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Murphy

No, Sir. My remarks are related to the payment made by the Department of Social Welfare to unemployment assistance recipients. It would be much better if this money were used to generate productive employment for people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate this does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Murphy

It is very hard to draw the line. It would be much more beneficial if work were provided for our people. I hope the Minister will do something to establish the kind of committee I have suggested. I am getting a little tired of reminding him. Unemployment assistance recipients receive pittances. Employment should be provided for these people. There is plenty of unskilled work. There are schemes all over the place and there should be no trouble in providing employment for these people. Some system should be devised to transfer those willing and able to work on to the active employment list. That would certainly be of benefit to all.

A great deal has been said both for and against the payment of unemployment assistance to small farmers. I believe that scheme to be soundly devised. It would be difficult for anyone to formulate a scheme which would close all loopholes. The defects in the last scheme were that improvements in incomes resulted in reductions in allowances. So far as self-employed people like farmers are concerned, the best way of making provision, if there is any way now, is on the land valuation basis. I know it is 102 years since the land was valued but, by and large, this scheme is working well and is a great advantage to many farmers. It is all right for individuals to point to a selected few in some areas who on the surface would not seem to qualify but, generally speaking, I have found that this scheme has been a great boon to our small farmers, particularly those with families.

Such farmers in the 12 western counties possibly do not see creamery cheques at all, where creamery facilities are available, because their supplies, if in existence at all in the winter months from November to May, are exceptionally limited and the credit which is given to them in the winter is not cleared by the time the summer ends. Therefore, the direct weekly payments to them are a great advantage. I know several people personally whose standard of living has improved. Again, is there some other way we could do the job? I leave that to the Minister.

I would make a strong appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to try to embody in the next Social Welfare Bill some measure to cover all our citizens. I am sure he will appreciate, as well as I do, that many self-employed people are contributing as much, if not more, to the development of this nation as others. I am not standing up here and asking that a magic wand be waved. I know this will cost money and time and effort but I think it is essential and justifiable.

The other items in the Bill centre around particular details and they are clearly set out. When another social welfare measure is brought before this House in 12 months time, or long before that, I hope it will contain a provision to lower the qualifying age for pension for all our people to 65 years and that it will contain a social insurance scheme for self-employed people, better concessions for old people particularly those who are incapacitated and have to live on the allowance. I know it is difficult to meet all the demands made by organisations such as the widows organisation but I hope the Bill will help in a reasonable way where help is necessary.

If the Minister—if he should continue in office—would do this he would make a name for himself forever as Minister for Social Welfare. He would secure a place in history as the man who, belatedly though it was, reduced the qualifying age for the pension from 70 to 65 years. He would confer a benefit on the Irish people and the people who would have to pay for it would not cavil at it or deem it unfair to be asked to make their contribution to those laudable schemes in the social welfare field.

Mr. Moore

The Minister has again proved his dedication to advancement in the social welfare code, as he has done each year. One speaker has asked whether he is not complacent. The Minister has given evidence each year that he is far from complacent. Each year we take a step forward towards at least an improved social welfare service if not a perfect one. I know it is possible for any speaker to take any item and say: "Not enough." I do not think anybody would say it is enough but in this Bill £13½ million extra is being provided for social welfare. We may disagree on one or two points in regard to the allocation of money to the various sectors but we must remember that there are calls on the State for other services. Our social services are comparable generally with those obtaining elsewhere. It is inevitable that we should compare ourselves with the UK and the Six Counties but in one or two categories our social services are ahead of theirs. I do not say this in any boasting way but to try to bring home to people who criticise our services that we are moving towards parity of service with Britain and the rest of Europe.

The Department has been criticised because of its methods of investigation of claims. I am sure the officers of the Department are just as concerned as the rest of us that the money at the disposal of the Department is distributed in the very best way.

The question is whether the State is the right organisation to administer these services. I want to avoid the question of administration but I would suggest that when the Minister is preparing the new social welfare code he should consider the reduction of State involvement in social welfare administration and of providing revenue to bodies of a less official nature who, because of their expert local knowledge, might be in a position to ensure that the service would be applied in the best possible way to those most in need.

Countries which have almost perfect social welfare services have got the highest suicide rates and the highest rate of mental illness. That aspect should be borne in mind in examining the question of the distribution of wealth to those most in need. I do not intend any reflection on the Department who must comply with the regulations. In connection with the preparation of the new code the question should be examined. Admittedly, with regard to unemployment benefit, which is a contributory scheme, the State is the best administrative body but in the case of other services such as those for the blind, the widow, the deserted wife, the administration of the services could be handed over to some other agency of a local and charitable nature. It would also be worth considering involving the local health board in such administration.

Deputy Murphy made a remark with which I agree, that apart from State aid to social welfare recipients, families and children have a duty to contribute to the upkeep of aged parents and aged relatives. The vast majority of people agree with this concept but there are cases in which it should be brought home to persons that they have this duty. Our objective should be to avoid having to send aged persons into institutions where the cost will be heavy and the persons will not be so happy as they would be at home. The Minister should consider increasing the payments to persons caring for aged parents or relatives in their own homes.

There are many women who have made tremendous sacrifices in order to care for an aged parent. When the parent dies the person who has cared for him or her may find that she is past marriageable age and too old to train for employment. The State should give increased recognition to these persons and should be generous towards them so that they could keep the aged parent in frugal comfort and be in a position to acquire some means.

Deputy Murphy also mentioned the fact that Norway and Ireland are the only countries in which 70 is the qualifying age for old age pension and he said that Norway was reducing the qualifying age. In a recent international conference on social welfare a paper was read indicating the qualifying age for old age pensions in various countries and it was indicated that Ireland and Norway were the only countries that had not pensions before 70 years of age. I pointed out that there were retirement pensions at 65 years of age in operation in this country. This was news to the rapporteur. The Norwegians did not give any indication of their intention to alter the qualifying age although their delegates indicated that they would like to. I am sure that Norway is striving, as we are, to reduce it to 65 years of age. We know that it will come. I do not know what the Minister's plans are but I do know that he will have the qualifying age reduced to 65 at the earliest possible time. We look forward to this.

There are reasons why the qualifying age should be reduced as soon as possible to 65. At least, it should be optional for an insured person to continue working beyond the age of 70 and to draw the old age pension. This idea may be frowned on by some sectors of Labour. It is a question that must be considered. It is important that a worker should be assured of some comfort in his retirement.

Our social welfare services should be examined in the context of the EEC. The Minister listed a number of European countries and gave the social insurance contributions in each case. In nearly every case the contribution is higher than it is here. This is not something to be happy about but it does indicate that in countries which pay higher benefits the beneficiaries contribute a great deal more than is the case here. We must be realistic. We must ensure that the wealth of the nation is distributed equitably. That is the basis of our philosophy. The Minister is conforming to this philosophy in introducing the Bill under which another £30½ million is disbursed.

The Minister might also consider the question of voluntary contributors to social welfare and an extension of the benefits available. He might consider the possibility of a publicity drive in order to attract voluntary contributors. Persons who have passed the age limit for inclusion in social welfare could become voluntary contributors and thus maintain themselves in benefit and ensure that in the event of their death their widows would receive a pension. In urban areas, in particular, there is a bone of contention among voluntary contributors. They consider they should get something from the scheme into which they have paid substantial amounts. Despite the fact that the salary limit has been raised, more people will be entitled to benefit. There will be more money available for the general social welfare fund and this will ensure that people will know that they can obtain some benefit from the State.

When the Minister is preparing a new code for social welfare benefit he should ensure that the scheme is enlarged. For instance people who need home help should be able to avail of this facility. From the point of view of economics it would be worthwhile if we could ensure that as few as possible are forced to enter institutions. From the humanitarian point of view it would be worthwhile also; old people prefer to stay at home, regardless of the care and attention they might get in an institution. It will cost the State at least £20 per week to maintain a person in an institution; therefore, it would be worthwhile considering a payment of, for instance, £10 per week to a person to look after an aged relative in his home.

There is also the case of the person who might wish to retire at the age of 65 years. He should be allowed to do this if he wishes. We should increase allowances given in respect of children. This is important at a time when the family is under attack; it is the duty of the State to protect the family. By adopting my suggestion it might help to have a better social welfare code and, consequently, a happier people.

Mr. Begley

I welcome this Bill but I do not think the Minister has gone far enough. All of us know that there has been a price explosion in the last 12 months and this has affected severely those dependent on social welfare benefits, whether they be old age pensioners, blind pensioners, people in receipt of sickness or disability benefits or home assistance, or those receiving a deserted wife's allowance. The standard of living of these people has dropped substantially in the last 12 months. Up to now it has been possible for them to eat meat three times a week but, having regard to the price of meat at the moment, it has not been possible for them to have meat more than once per week. The Minister should have regard to the fact that if they are to survive and remain in good health they must eat meat more frequently.

People in receipt of social welfare benefit must watch every penny they spend. During the winter they will have to buy coal to keep their house, or room, adequately heated. That problem may not be as acute during the summer but during the winter if they have not adequate heating they will suffer severe hardship. It these people are not adequately fed there will be unnecessary deaths. It is not good enough that old age pensioners should have to depend on the St. Vincent de Paul Society or any other charitable organisation to help them survive. It is a sad reflection on this State that we have people forced to live in such conditions. We are not doing enough to ensure that they can have a reasonable standard of comfort in their old age. Fine Gael are convinced that top priority should be given to old people and all those dependent on social welfare benefits.

There is much hidden poverty in this country. There are many people who have had sufficient means up to the present but now they are too proud to say they are in want. Many are retired pensioners, people who by their sweat and toil have built this nation. I cannot understand why successive Governments have allowed this problem to become so great that now it will require a major effort to ensure that these people are given a reasonable standard of living.

It is true that in some county councils home assistance is given to old age pensioners. The odd thing about home assistance now is that some county councils handed it over to the regional health boards while others continued to operate it themselves. It is about time that the Minister made up his mind as to whether home assistance is to be administered by the Department of Health or by the Department of Social Welfare. Some months ago Deputy Spring and I were told in reply to a question here that the Minister would make a statement shortly on the matter. We were given a long-winded reply at the end of which the Minister said the whole matter was being given urgent attention and that he would be in a position shortly to tell us which Department would be responsible for home assistance. I hope the Minister will tell us what are his proposals in respect of home assistance. This form of assistance is very valuable to such persons as old age pensioners and widows whose income may not be sufficient to cover the ordinary necessities of life so that an extra £1 or £2 in the week may make a lot of difference to them. Substantial increases in the grants towards home assistance should be given to the county councils and the regional boards concerned. There is the personal touch in the administration of home assistance and this is important.

Old age pension committees have outlived their usefulness. When these committees sit to adjudicate on particular cases it is a useless exercise if the pension officer is not prepared to attend. At this point I might level a little criticism at those social welfare officers.

Acting Chairman (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan)): The Deputy seems to be getting into the field of administration at this stage which is not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Begley

If the Chair will allow me to develop the point I wish to make he will realise that what I have to say is relevant. There is a lack of common sense and, at times, a lack of Christian charity on the part of some social welfare officers. To illustrate what I mean, I will take the case of a farmer who decides to hand over his land to his son. This farmer completes an application form for the old age pension. He then goes to a local solicitor and tells him of his wish to hand his land over to his son but that at the same time he wishes to retain certain rights, for instance, the use of a room in the house for his wife and himself for the remainder of their lives and also the use of the kitchen. When the pension officer goes to the household to make his investigation he ascertains how much money the man has saved.

Mr. Cooney

He will probably count the hens too.

Mr. Begley

Yes, and if there are in-calf heifers outside, he will probably ask whether they are being handed over also. However, that is not the point I am making. My point is that it usually takes three or four months before the transfer of the land has taken place officially. Such delay is not the fault of the farmer or of the solicitor but is the fault of the Land Registry who are slow in having transfers dated and stamped. This brings me back again to the administration aspect.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will appreciate that administration is not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. Begley

I understand that, but I am making the point that once land has been transferred by a farmer and the transfer is in the hands of a solicitor, the farmer should qualify for an old age pension without any delay. It is not fair to deprive him of that pension for as long as three months when he has done all in his power to get the pension.

Mr. Geoghegan

There would be nothing to stop him from beginning to transfer at the age of 69.

Mr. Begley

Many of these people are not aware of the delays involved. People in Kerry, for instance, may not be as smart as those in Connemara. So far as assessments for widows' pensions are concerned, the rules are much too rigid. Anyone knows that after the death of a man, the small business he may have been running, will never be the same again. In such cases there should be a certain amount of leniency and flexibility in dealing with the application for a widow's pension.

Another matter I wish to raise is that of persons who have a certain number of stamps and who qualify automatically for sickness benefit. I cannot understand why these people should have to wait for ten to 14 weeks before getting any benefit. Once a person signs for sickness benefit and is found to be entitled to it, he should not have to wait for this length of time before receiving payment. How is such a person to exist in the meantime? Here again a little common sense should be applied. Perhaps the Minister will consider the adoption of a more streamlined method in processing applications for sickness benefit.

Acting Chairman

Again, the Deputy is referring to administration. That would be appropriate to the Estimate but not to this Bill.

Mr. Begley

Since we have not had the opportunity of discussing social welfare for a long time I am sure the Chair will be a little lenient in the knowledge that we are making these points for the good of the people as a whole. These are the points which I wish to make. These are the grievances which each Member of this House has met in his constituency. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to all applications. Perhaps he could cut through the waffle and reduce the delays that make the situation agonising for the people waiting for the benefits. I hope that the Minister will take note of what I have said and refer to these points when replying. I am particularly concerned with the case of the old age pensioner who signs over his land.

Dr. O'Connell

Like other Deputies I have no hesitation in welcoming any proposals for increasing the meagre allowances of the less well-off section of our community. In spite of the fact that the increases are negligible in relation to the spiralling cost of living, it is some solace to these people to know that they are getting an increase.

I would like to ask the Minister why we have this anomalous situation again where there is a lot of criticism from insured workers because they do not get benefits payable to them until October although the non-contributory benefits commence in August. Would it be possible for the Minister to arrange for a uniform date of commencement so that all workers might get benefits in August? This happens each year and is a source of irritation to insured workers. There may be some way of correcting this. Many representations have been made to me about this point.

The Minister has justified the increases in the social welfare contributions. The Minister says that the State are paying an increased contribution to the social insurance fund and that the State's contribution has to be maintained at one-third while the employers and employees pay two-thirds. The Minister has compared the position here with that in Britain. I do not think that there is any relation between the benefits paid in Britain and Northern Ireland and those paid here. The Minister's argument is not relevant and does not justify his statement. The Minister has openly admitted that it would cost £100 million to put our social services on a par with those in Northern Ireland.

People would gladly pay an extra 1 per cent to the social welfare scheme if they were entitled to the benefits accruing to social welfare contributors in Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister's argument falls flat on that basis alone. The Minister put up a ridiculous argument when he said that if we allow for the health service contributions paid by an insured worker the payments for redundancy and health services would be £5.57 whereas in Britain the figure is £6.67. That is a ridiculous argument having regard to the fact that there is a comprehensive health service in Britain covering every person. It is an audacious remark and cannot be justified by any means. The Minister should look seriously at this point and be realistic about it. He should not try to bluff us about this kind of statement. There is no relation between what is payable in Britain and what is payable here. The 800,000 workers would gladly agree to pay an extra 1 per cent if it would give them the benefits that the British workers have. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he will consider doing this.

It leaves us at a disadvantage. We cannot discuss it because we have no indication as to the reason for these increases.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan) : In fairness, the Minister did not realise that we were discussing it since he was introducing it after this.

Dr. O'Connell

I hope he will give an adequate explanation for this remarkable increase. The means test makes it very difficult for widows and deserted wives to succeed in a claim. For a deserted wife or a widow with two children to manage on the amount provided, even with the increase, is almost impossible. The allowance is inadequate to meet the present cost of living. One can live on a level where one forgets how these people try to manage on what they are paid. We might remember that there will be a further wage increase but these people will have to wait another year for an increase. They are falling behind all the time and the increases are not sufficient to enable them to cope with the spiralling cost of living. I have seen cases where such people are worrying about pennies. We are inclined to forget this. I know there is a limit to what can be paid but as the Minister knows there will be a free-for-all and these people will be left behind. There is a certain greed in our society and everybody wants to get as much as he can, forgetting the less well-off sections who are left to live at, or below, poverty level.

I should have thought the Minister would introduce some sort of income supplement by way of national assistance instead of home assistance to bring these people above poverty level. Over 250,000 people are living at or below poverty level at present. This is a very high figure. The Minister is not bringing them up with the present benefits. Also, the new benefits do not come into effect until August, at the earliest, while in the meantime costs have gone up and by the time they get their benefits these have been eroded by the spiralling cost of living and they must wait another full year for an increase. This makes it very difficult for them to live and we should have some national scheme to cope immediately with cases of poverty such as these. The Minister who is dealing with these people should be more aware of the problems than anybody. The benefits are granted too late and these people live more on hope of an increase than on anything else not realising that the increase is being eroded and that when they get it it is not adequate to cope with the increased costs.

Despite all the promises the Minister made about dealing humanely with applications for deserted wives' allowances I do not think he has succeeded. The means test, the proofs they must provide, the humiliation of these people and the negative attitude of the Department are still a great difficulty. I am sure the Minister genuinely and sincerely believed he could operate this scheme humanely but red tape takes over and as a result many of these people cannot succeed in their claim for a deserted wife's allowance.

I am glad the Minister brought up the question of the payment of social welfare benefits to a person with dependants. Sometimes the dependants do not get this benefit. I am very pleased to see that the Minister has tried to correct this anomaly. In many cases there are people drawing social welfare benefits in respect of dependants but they are not supporting them. The Department have not been able to assist very much here because of the restrictions put on them. I ask the Minister to consult with his opposite number in Britain because we have cases of people drawing social welfare benefits in Britain for their dependants in Ireland but when people here make applications to the Ministry of National Insurance in England they do not get any satisfaction. They say that they know these people are drawing those benefits but they cannot do anything about it. There are thousands of cases like this. If the person applies to the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin and the matter is taken up with the particular Department in Britain on the person's behalf a grave injustice might be avoided.

I should like to refer to the case of people who have been insured here and who go to Britain. They only get benefits at the Irish rate. If a person has been in England for years and comes over here he gets only the Irish rate. That is not reciprocity. If they only get benefit at the Irish rate in Britain why can they not get benefit at the English rate here? I have had experience of this in one case and the Department succeeded at least in getting Irish benefit for the person in England. Why could they not have paid this person at the English rate? Reciprocity means that it should operate both ways but it is not operating to the benefit of people in Britain who are paying the English contribution rate but are getting benefit at the Irish rate.

I would like to refer to the question of employers who do not stamp their employees' cards. I am glad to see that some extra action has been taken in regard to this. At long last there is some redress for the employee. If a case has occurred prior to the rectification of the injustice can it be retrospective? What can the Minister do about this very important point? Could we have some assurance that there will be continuity of contribution for those people who in the last few years found that their employers had not stamped their cards and there was no redress at that time other than to sue the employer, which was an impossible task? The impact of this could be felt in the next few years, especially in regard to retirement pensions and old age pensions. There are not many of those people but some of them suffered very badly because there is now a gap in their contributions. It would be much appreciated if the Minister could rectify this.

Mr. Hussey

I would like to welcome this Bill and to congratulate the Minister for Social Welfare on having introduced it. In the main it gives effect to the improved scheme of social assistance and social insurance which was announced in the budget statement of the 19th April. It also brings the Garda Síochána within the scope of social insurance. This is bringing more people under the umbrella of social insurance.

In spite of what has been said by Opposition speakers I believe our social services compare very favourably with other countries. Our ambition is to move up social welfare benefits in relation to the improvements in the general standard of living as resources permit in an expanding economy. It is the job of the Government to ensure that the economy is capable of paying continually increased benefits. The redistribution of wealth in an expanding economy must essentially result in a better scale of social welfare benefits. This is something which the Fianna Fáil Government have always done, particularly during the last decade. Many improvements have been made and every year more and more people are drawn under the umbrella of social welfare.

Our social welfare schemes are often compared with those of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but when making those comparisons people forget that in Northern Ireland insurance applies to almost everybody. If we are able to extend our insurance scheme to embrace all sections of the community we could make much greater payments. The unemployed in the North pay their insurance contributions to national insurance as do self-employed and the employed. If this system operated here it would enable the Government to increase benefits very considerably.

I intend to deal only with the sections of the Bill which affect the rural area in which I live. Section 3 of the Bill provides for an increase of 40p in the personal rate of unemployment assistance in both urban and rural areas and 30p a week in the rate for adult dependants. Where there are dependent children the rate for each of the first two children will be increased by 40p and for the third and each subsequent child by 25p a week. These increases will be effective from the 2nd August, 1972, and payable from the 10th August, 1972. They will automatically raise the means limit for qualification for unemployment assistance and will thus extend this scheme to include such persons whose means prevented them from qualifying for assistance. This is very important because it will include people who are at present deprived of this assistance and who feel they are entitled to it. I am glad to see this improvement has taken place. We remember that last year, when the unemployment assistance was taken from unmarried people in the west, there was a great outcry from the Opposition. I was one of the people very concerned then because it affected my constituency and I was a member of a deputation to the Taoiseach and the Minister to try to have it rectified. I am therefore glad to see these improvements and to learn that the assistance will be payable all the year round. We know that the money saved by that curtailment was very usefully spent and the work done with it eliminated some of the hardships suffered in the west due to bad roads.

I dot not know whether it is relevant to the Bill, but from time to time we get complaints from wives of men in receipt of unemployment assistance. They tell us it is not being spent in the way it should be. I hope that the Department of Social Welfare will arrange to have this money paid to the dependants of those people who would be prepared to use it properly.

I am glad to see in section 6 that "prescribed relatives" are to include male relatives. Until now it was restricted to female relatives only and the change is welcome. Many men have to stay at home to look after their parents and are therefore deprived of opportunities to take up employment. The payment of these allowances will help to keep old people out of institutions, something every Government should encourage because, no matter how well they are looked after in institutions, to those people there is no place like their own homes. It should therefore be our ambition to contribute more towards their maintenance at home.

I should like to see some changes in the unemployment benefit scheme. Particularly I should like to see the income limit of 50p per day increased. People who have more than 50p per day are debarred from benefits because officially they are regarded as being employed. The figure is very unrealistic and it is hard on people with sufficient stamps to be told after long and exhaustive inquiries that their means exceed 50p per day and that they are therefore not entitled to anything. I find it hard to accept that the appeals officer in those cases should have the final say because in many cases I have had contact with in the past three years I could not understand how the appeals officer arrived at his decision.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a matter of administration and would be more relevant on an Estimate.

Mr. Hussey

I accept your ruling but I thought it would be no harm to refer to it in passing. There is not much more I have to say except again to ask the Minister to look into the points I have made and to endeavour to make the changes suggested.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Any Bill introduced to improve the lot of the social welfare classes must be welcomed. In saying that we are glad to see something being done for those classes, we must look realistically at what is being done. If one had been out of touch with things for several years, one would think the present rates or the proposed rates of benefits were generous, based on a contributory old age pension for a single person of £5.15 per week; but when one looks at them against the background of the present value of money and the present cost of living, one certainly should not be complacent. One has only to consider the amount of respect there is for 50p to realise what is being done for the social welfare classes. A few years ago a 10s note was regarded as a fair piece of money to have in one's pocket but at the present time 50p is regarded in a very different light, as being of very little value.

It is in this light that we should look at what is being done for the social welfare classes. I am not saying this in any offensive way, but I believe that the gap is widening instead of closing. What we are doing each year for the social welfare classes is not catching up with the increase in the cost of living or the diminishing value of money. Somebody put down a parliamentary question yesterday asking the Minister how many old age pensioners are in receipt of home assistance and the answer was to the effect that statistics were not available. However, it was conceded that a considerable number of those people are in receipt of home assistance. We know home assistance is the last refuge of the destitute: it is paid by health authorities only to people who are in extreme poverty. It means therefore that old age pensioners who are receiving home assistance are in a pretty bad way.

If we are to give better benefits we will have to have further taxation. It is a type of taxation to which no one with a social conscience would object. The gap is widening all the time and these people on an existence level see money being spent lavishly in other directions and that brings home to them just how badly off they are. The Members of this House will have to shoulder their responsibility in this regard and vote more money for more equitable social payments.

Will the Garda Síochána under the recent proposal be compulsorily insurable and will they have to pay contributions?

Mr. J. Brennan

They will be the same as civil servants.

Mr. Coogan

Just to clarify that, if a garda retired with ten years stamps will he qualify?

Mr. J. Brennan

No. He is insurable like the civil servants.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Am I to take it the gardaí will be insured only for widows' and orphans' pensions?

Mr. J. Brennan

Yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They will not be insured for sickness benefit.

Mr. J. Brennan

For the hospitalisation element.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I know they are excluded for occupational injuries. I made a plea on previous occasions for an amendment in the law to enable contributory old age pensions and non-contributory widows' pensions to be paid while the recipients were living abroad with their children. This is socially desirable and, with an amendment in the law, it could be administered in conjunction with the appropriate Department of State in the country in which the recipient is living without a great deal of trouble. There are many parents living here, lonely and isolated and, if they could bring their pensions with them, they could live with children abroad. Some of these are being maintained in institutions.

It is possible to draw the pension for a period of three months, but that does not fill the bill. The Minister knows the case I am making. It would be economically wise to do this because it would save maintaining at least some of these people in institutions. The Minister may say that if the children are not prepared to take the parents without these pensions, then they are not very charitable. That is not the point. These old people do not want to leave the pensions behind them. A public representative very quickly learns the attachment these old people have to their pensions; they would suffer anything rather than lose them. I appeal to the Minister to use the ingenuity at his disposal to make what I propose possible.

I am glad the Minister is amending the law in relation to the payment of additional pensions to old age pensioners who have to rely on relatives to look after them. This was confined to female relatives. It is now being extended to male relatives. The Minister will come across cases in which sons are living on bits of land. I deliberately say "living on bits of land" because one could not call them farms. Will these male relatives be excluded on the basis that they are gainfully occupied looking after one or two cows? I will put a typical case: I know a boy who came home from England to look after his mother. There is a little farm but in actual fact the boy is wasting his time. He is not full-time employed, or anything like it. When the Minister is drafting the regulations will he be generous? Will he avoid regulations which will make it virtually impossible for a male relative to qualify for this additional allowance unless he is standing up, with one hand as long as the other, doing nothing? If he is in that position he will probably be getting unemployment benefit and he will be ruled out but, if he is living on a small farm and looking after his parents, will the Minister ensure that he will not be ruled out? There are cases in which sons and daughters work nearby and attend to their parents in the morning and again at midday and spend the evening with them. Will the Minister be generous in this respect? This is a very worthwhile scheme and, if it were properly worked, it could save the Exchequer a good deal. If a person is charitable enough to look after an old person this additional allowance should be paid. I will give the Minister briefly the contents of a letter I have here:

She is an old age pensioner and a widow. She is 78 years of age. Her husband is dead 2½ years. She lived at such a place and she arrived at me when her husband died. If she is not here she would be in the county home for she has no one to take care of her. She is very hard to put up with and, if it is not possible to give her an allowance, she will have to go to hospital. I have a son living with me but I do not think there is any responsibility on him to keep her.

Mr. J. Brennan

She probably gave them the farm.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not think so. The Minister can investigate that. If she is being properly looked after in a neighbour's house, why not give the allowance? Would that not be an economic proposition? It is not an answer to say she might not be properly looked after. There is an abundance of social workers or people who act as social workers or investigation officers of one type or another, and they could keep a check on this sort of thing. I believe that, in keeping with the policy at the moment to encourage elderly people to remain at home or not to go into hospital, this scheme, if it were properly, generously and sympathetically worked, would go a long way to relieving old people's homes and institutions from having to care for many persons of that type. Therefore, when the Minister is drafting regulations under this scheme in regard to the male relatives he should not draft regulations that it will be impossible to bring oneself within, because that only leads to frustration and a lot of correspondence for the Department.

(Cavan): No, but it would be in order for me, if I wanted to, to put down an amendment on the Committee Stage of this Bill seeking to implement what I am now arguing, and if that is so I think I am in order. At any rate, I believe I have made the case fairly clearly to the Minister. It is something about which I felt very strongly when it was brought to my attention and I ask the Minister to do what he can to remedy the position. If he can do it without legislation so much the better.

A section of the Minister's Department deals with dental benefit. In my constituency during the recent withdrawal from the scheme by certain dentists insured people had to go to other dentists. They could not be blamed for that. Now they are not being indemnified against the bills which they incurred or not being paid dental benefit. That is unreasonable. I may be getting out of order in pursuing that, it may be administration, but the Minister knows what I am getting at. There were a few months when in my constituency there were no dentists operating this scheme and insured people went to dentists who had been operating the scheme. Now the Minister will not pay the bills. That is not fair. He should pay them.

The Irish Wheelchair Association want the Minister to amend the law to provide free radio and television licences and free electricity for people confined to wheelchairs on the same terms as those benefits are given to old age pensioners. That is a reasonable request. I recommend it to the Minister. I hope he will do it.

Somebody said the Minister's Department are not good at replying to letters. I should like to dissociate myself from that remark. I find the Minister's Department in that respect, and within the limits of their authority, very courteous and helpful when representations are made to them. There are delays occasionally in the payment of benefits and these delays should, even if it entails the employment of further staff, be cut out because delays in making payments to people in this class are serious. As I said before, in the case of old people, it is like promising a child a toy and then withholding it. I should like the Minister where possible to cut out these delays.

I should like to join in the plea that has been made for the payment of old age pensions at 65. I also think there is a lot to be said for a scheme of social insurance or social services based on contributions and payable to all who join. That would eliminate the necessity for the means test. That type of scheme should be encouraged, should be investigated and I hope it will not be too long before such a scheme is introduced.

Mr. Wyse

I welcome this Bill. It is another step forward in improving the standard of living of those in receipt of social welfare payments. It has been the policy of this Government down through the years to avail of every opportunity to improve social services. The Minister's speech this morning shows, beyond all contradiction, that he is fully aware of the many defects there are in our services and that every effort is being made to remedy them. Improvements in social services can only be made by a Minister with the money that is available to him. Another important factor is that you must ensure the least possible hardship on those who must finance the services. I, like many others, would be only too delighted to stand up and make a case for various increases but we must keep in mind the impact on the people who are paying for the services. I am glad the Minister has given much attention to the case of the deserted wife.

Mr. Coogan

There are some of them in Cork.

Mr. Wyse

This is very important.

There was a very big injustice done for many years to the unfortunate woman over 50 who was deprived of any subsistence. I am glad the Minister has seen the defect in this part of the service and has now remedied it. We will have to have quite an amount of examination of this service in the future because there is an injustice not alone by the State but by the person who is mainly responsible for maintaining a wife and family.

I am glad too the Minister has increased the retirement pension. However, I should like the Minister to take into account that when a person retires at the age of 65 he is still capable of making a contribution to the State by way of part-time employment. It is important for him to have work available to him even though it is only part-time. This should not affect his pension rights. This is very important because many people are not adjusted to meet old age and this must be done gradually. I should like the Minister to give further consideration to this aspect of retirement pensions. It is very important for people to keep themselves occupied and they should not be deprived of a pension if they take up part-time employment.

The matter of the failure to stamp insurance cards comes up very often. I do not think we are hard enough on the people who fail to fulfil this obligation. It is the employee who suffers. He is working on the understanding that his employer is stamping his cards. It may cost the State more money to ensure that there are more inspectors calling on employers to see that they are stamping their cards and that they are up-to-date. Much hardship has been caused in recent times and I am glad the Minister has an eye on the situation.

I welcome the Minister's move in bringing the Garda Síochána under the social services. This is long overdue. It will be welcomed by gardaí and by members of their families because it gives them security for the future.

The allowance given to a relative who is looking after an old person is also worthwhile. Whatever money is available should be provided in this direction. There is a saving on hospitalisation. All old people wish to end their days in their own homes. We could do quite a good deal in this field. The only injustice I can see at present is that a person who is prepared to give up employment to stay at home and look after an old relative is, when that relative dies, deprived of all social services even though he may have contributed for 20 or 30 years. I mentioned this on the last occasion we were discussing the social services. I know the Minister is looking into it. There is an injustice here and it is a disincentive to a person to give up employment to look after an old relative. I would ask the Minister's officials to give this matter urgent attention.

I also welcome the death grants. On the death of a relative people really need money. I have no doubt that the Minister is keeping this in mind and that at the first opportunity he will increase the grants in this sphere. This Bill will be welcomed by everybody. It is a step forward in improving our services. I am convinced that the Minister is fully alive to the many defects in the services and that he intends to remedy them. I welcome the Bill and I have no doubt that it will be welcomed by all who will benefit from the various increases provided for.

Mr. Coogan

This Bill is brought in because we are going into Europe. It is the thin end of the wedge with regard to what we will have to do for the underprivileged.

Serving members of the Garda Síochána will now come under the social services. This is laudable but there are a number of gardaí who helped to found the State and the institutions of the State and who gave great service to the country and to whom we owe a great deal. They are men who led active lives and who retired in the past ten years. They paid their social welfare contributions and they should also be brought in under this Bill. Will retired gardaí who have paid their contributions be deprived of the same rights as ordinary citizens? I should like the Minister to clarify that point.

I bow to the Chair but if this group cannot keep up with the Joneses in this respect they will be deprived of their rights. Yesterday I referred to an increase in the population. It is nice to see that. The previous speaker asked where would we get the money to pay for all this. I suppose he will advocate the use of the pill now so that we will not have to pay this money, putting the Minister in the position of Old Mother Hubbard going to the cupboard and finding it bare. Money is being spent otherwise which could have been spent in this direction. Children's allowances and old age pensions will have to be increased when we go into Europe.

Women who looked after bed-ridden parents made great sacrifices. They sacrificed their chance of marriage and when their parents died that chance was gone. I do not know how the Minister could give some form of recognition to this group. They did a great deal of good. They kept their parents out of hospital. They did not do that for the sake of getting money. Some of them did not know about the allowance which was available for minding old people and they made this sacrifice out of Christian charity and for love of their parents. Many women who are not so young now made great sacrifices to look after their parents. They helped the State by keeping their parents out of an institution where their maintenance would have cost a great deal more. There are certain conditions governing the payment of the allowance. There are many people who made great sacrifices in looking after aged parents who do not qualify. The Minister will not always be in charge of the Department—it is our intention to shift him shortly—but the officials of the Department could advise Ministers that there is another group entitled to recognition for what they have done.

It is not the Minister, it is our entry into the EEC, that has caused the increases indicated by the Minister to be made. Let Fianna Fáil not claim at an election that they gave these increases voluntarily. The screw was put on them by virtue of our entry into Europe.

Mr. Governey

While I welcome the increases, meagre and insufficient as they are, given in the Bill to social welfare recipients, I do not think the Minister has gone as far as he should have gone. I do not want to deal individually with the increases. The Minister said that the increases in the field of social assistance will give an extra 50 pence a week to non-contributory old age and blind pensioners, making the maximum personal rate £5.15 a week. These increases are grossly inadequate. It has been the policy of the Government over the last few years not to bring budgetary increases in social welfare into effect immediately they are announced. One would assume that such increases would be tied to increases in the cost of living. Between February, 1971, and February, 1972, the price of bread increased by 17 per cent, the price of butter increased by 10 per cent, sugar by 17 per cent and tea by 5 per cent. The price of clothes increased by 9 per cent. Fuel and light increased in the last few years by 10 per cent. All these increases affect social welfare recipients.

I may be criticised for suggesting that an old age pensioner or other social welfare recipient is entitled to his pint of stout or a drop of spirits. These items also have increased by 8 per cent. They may be regarded as a luxury but to some elderly persons they are not a luxury; they are necessary.

Widows and orphans are to receive the niggardly increase of 60p. Old age pensioners are to receive an extra 120p. The Government have not been over generous to these categories of persons.

I want to make a suggestion to the Minister—Deputy Fitzpatrick also mentioned the matter—for his sympathetic consideration. The suggestion is that the provision of free electricity and free radio and television licences, already in operation in the case of old age and blind pensioners, should be extended to deserving persons, regardless of age, who are suffering from prolonged and substantial disability and whose income is derived wholly or mainly from social welfare benefit and assistance schemes and that the regulations governing such a scheme should include the necessary safeguards against abuse by non-deserving persons.

The Minister is well aware of the many persons suffering from prolonged illness but who do not come within the old age pension category. For instance, there are those who have to spend their lives in wheelchairs. Regardless of age, these persons should be entitled to this concession. I strongly recommend this proposal to the Minister.

I am greatly worried and concerned about the position of persons who have been in receipt of disability benefit, which benefit has for some reason or another been suspended. I may mention as an example a case in my constituency of a married man with five children who had been in receipt of a disability benefit and in whose case the disability benefit was withheld as from 1st May last. The amount of the benefit he received was £12.15 a week. Up to last Saturday this man was still waiting to be called before a medical referee. I cannot understand why this person who, in my view, will be disabled for years to come, if not for life, should be left in that position. He was in receipt of £12.75 per week from 1st May but up to last Saturday he has not received anything from the Department. He is still awaiting——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter of administration.

Mr. Governey

I realise that, but I feel so strongly about this matter——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not doubt that but matters of administration cannot be dealt with here.

Mr. Governey

I merely wish to draw the attention of the Minister to this matter. There is another matter to which I should like to make reference. When Deputies write to the Department of Social Welfare they get a reply: "Fuarthas do litir . . . "

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, that is a matter of administration and should not be referred to here.

Mr. Governey

I have raised this matter several times. However, I shall bow to the ruling of the Chair. I am not satisfied with the increases that have been given to social welfare recipients because the increases in the cost of living have been in excess of these increases. I would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to a suggestion which I have made already, that television and radio licences and free electricity be given to persons who are suffering from severe and prolonged disability. This should be given to all such people irrespective of age. All Deputies would welcome such a decision and I would ask the Minister to give the matter sympathetic consideration and to amend the legislation accordingly.

Mr. Cooney

There are a number of points I should like to make on this Bill. I recall that some time ago the Minister, or some prominent members of his party, indicated that the thinking in his party's policy had been formulated to have social welfare payments on a wage-related basis. As the House is aware, the benefits payable under our social welfare code are flat payments, the only difference being that there is a distinction made between those who have a spouse only and those who have a spouse and children. The difference in payments has no relation to the earning capacity of the recipient.

In their policy document issued quite a number of years ago, Fine Gael suggested that social welfare payments should not be provided on a flat basis but in relation to the wages of the person in need. The reason was a simple social reason. If a person in receipt of £20 per week falls ill he will receive the same benefit as a person who received £15 per week before he became ill. Assuming both people have the same marital status they will receive the same benefit. It is obvious that there is much greater hardship for the person who is in receipt of the larger salary to adjust to the social welfare benefit. While it would not be possible within the limits of the national budget or the capacity of the contribution system to equate benefit with wages, nevertheless the disparity between wages and benefit should be removed. I am disappointed the Minister has not taken this opportunity, on the eve of our entry into Europe where many benefits are superior to those obtaining here, to introduce the principle of wage-related benefits.

Even within the system of the graded flat benefits considerable injustices result. One can mention the case of a tradesman who falls ill. A single man receives approximately £5 per week but a married man, depending on the number of children, can receive approximately £12 per week. There is a considerable difference between the benefit received by a single man and that received by a married man with no children. This is getting back to this incongruity which runs right through the public sector, namely, that wages and salaries are greater for married people than they are for the single man or woman. We have not equal pay for equal work; in the social welfare code for sickness we do not give equal benefit. I concede that a married man should be compensated for his extra responsibilities but why should a single man be prejudiced because he does not have that responsibility? He may have other, equally heavy, responsibilities. The trauma of his illness, coupled with the adverse change from a salary to benefit, can be equally difficult on a single man who might have domestic dependants.

The introduction of the prescribed relative allowance was an effort to compensate in some way for the disadvantages of the flat rate but I suggest that in practice we have seen in the working of the prescribed relative allowance that it has been unduly narrow and restrictive. There are many cases which are excluded although I do not think that it was intended that they should be excluded.

In this connection I have in mind the case of a pensioner with two children, a daughter and son. If the mother should fall ill, it might happen that the daughter would be compelled to return home to care for her as the son would not be competent to carry out the nursing involved and, in any case, he would be out of work if he should have to return home. Because the pensioner is not living alone she is deprived of the extra allowance for the daughter who may have given up a satisfactory job to take care of her.

A similar situation exists for a married couple who maintain the mother of one of the parties. If the prescribed relative is the daughter of the pensioner and if her husband lives in the house the allowance is not payable. If it is held that the wife is maintained by her husband she is not entitled to the allowance. The conditions attached to this allowance should be considered again.

These are matters relating to the general philosophy behind our social welfare payments. I complain, and my party have consistently complained, that these payments should not be on a flat basis. We advocate that they should be related to the wage of the person concerned. The justice of this is obvious and the social desirability of it is equally obvious. The Minister indicated some time ago that he accepted the principle but I regret that he has not had the energy to extend that acceptance into this legislation.

The increases proposed in the Bill are welcome but I suppose it is only natural that those of us who have experience of the social welfare code in practice are not satisfied completely with the level of the benefits. There are anomalies right through the code. The anomaly that grieves me most and which I consider needs to be removed urgently is that relating to domestic workers. Domestic workers are prejudiced if they become unemployed because they cannot obtain unemployment benefit unless they have been contributing for many years to the insurance scheme. There is also a second condition that they must have reached a certain age in order to qualify for benefit. So far as I know this is the only class of worker discriminated against in this regard. In continuing this discrimination the Department are, perhaps unwittingly, reflecting an out-of-date and Victorian attitude towards this category of workers. The fact that these workers are referred to as servants very often in local authority and central government correspondence and legislation seems to suggest that the Victorian thinking has not departed altogether. It would be a blow for justice and fair play if this discrimination were removed and these workers treated as all other workers with regard to benefits.

I suppose the thinking behind the discrimination is that there is such a demand for domestic workers they should never be unemployed. That thinking is out of date and it is no longer valid because, happily, the wages of domestic workers are now so high that the number of persons capable of employing them is diminishing. Consequently, the employment opportunities are diminishing also and should a worker become unemployed in an average country town the opportunities for being re-employed are not available automatically. Therefore, considerable hardship results to the unemployed worker who is unable to receive unemployment benefit. The result is that such a worker is forced either to go to England or to migrate to another part of the country. This is the only category of worker who is put in this position. There is no justification for that. It is another serious omission in this Bill that in this year of 1972 and on the eve of going into Europe, this type of Victorian discrimination is not removed once and for all.

Another point I would like to raise concerns occupational injuries benefit. To elucidate, I would like to refer to what was the position of an injured workman prior to the introduction of the occupational injuries benefit under the social welfare code. Prior to the change an injured workman got relief through the Circuit Court under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. There was provision for him to bring his application to the court and the court, having heard the medical evidence and the facts to establish that the accident occurred in the course of the man's employment, and having heard the medical evidence to establish incapacity, made a finding, generally in the first instance, of full incapacity. The full compensation then became payable although that compensation was a meagre figure. If an employer thought that circumstances had changed it was open to him at any time to go before the court again and have the case reviewed as to the continuing incapacity of the worker. At that stage the court, having reviewed the case, could continue its order of full incapacity or, if the medical evidence so indicated, it could make a finding of partial incapacity. In other words, it would say that the workman was partially incapacitated only and was capable of some work. The matter would then be adjourned to see if the workman could obtain any work suited to his partial incapacity or, if he could prove to the court there and then that no such light work, as it was called, was available, the court was empowered to make an order finding partial incapacity but treating it as total incapacity so as to enable the workman to continue to receive full compensation. That was a power which the court had to use very frequently and it enabled the court to adopt a humanitarian attitude towards many cases of chronic injuries which were not fully incapacitating but which were sufficient to prevent a man from doing more than light work. Anybody who has any connection with ordinary life must know that light work is non-obtainable. It is a contradiction in terms because by and large in rural Ireland there is no such thing as light work. Who will employ a man who is capable only of light work? It would not be feasible to do so.

This power of the Circuit Court to make a finding of partial incapacity but because of the absence of light work, to treat it as total incapacity, has not been carried over into the social welfare code. Under our Occupational Injuries Act it is possible to have a situation where a workman is found to be partially disabled in which case a percentage scale of disablement benefit applies. Consequently, a person who was found to be partially incapacitated might receive benefit of, say, £1.50 per week, and be told to find work which would provide him with whatever more money he should want. Of course, the reality of the situation is that there is no work available for such a man. There should be power for some officer of the Department to treat such a situation in a way that would enable that person to receive the full benefit.

I find a differing practice in relation to the workman who is suffering from a chronic injury. Under the old Workman's Compensation Acts a man who was in receipt of benefit for a long time and who might appear to have recovered physically from his injuries would find if he were to go before the courts, that the courts invariably applied the attitude whereby they took into account the long number of years that he had been away from work. They took into account the psychological effect on the man from having been away from work for so long. Invariably, the courts in their humanitarian attitude found partial incapacity. They found that the original trauma had resulted in a psychiatric inability to work and that in itself is a definite medical complaint.

I find now that the differing approach by the Department of Social Welfare in relation to this type of injury is resulting in injustice because the Department are inclined to apply the law according to the letter. One cannot blame them for doing this because they have an obligation to the Legislature to ensure that the laws passed are applied strictly. They have not got the discretion or the traditions of the courts in interpreting Acts in a manner that may, perhaps, appear to infringe the letter of the law but which comply with the spirit of it.

I am aware of cases falling within the occupational injury code of persons suffering from the effects of a very old accident and who, on strictly physical terms, cannot be said still to show the signs of injury and to the medical referee or outside consultant whom the Department sometimes bring in there is no trace of injuries and the apparently obvious deduction is made that the person is fit to go back to work. I stress that in such cases the psychiatric element should be looked into at the instance of the Department and it should not be left as a matter of appeal for the workman or his advisers. In order to administer this branch of the code as fairly and as humanely as possible the Department should take the initiative in putting beyond doubt the capacity of a man to go back to work. The psychosomatic condition of that type of worker should be investigated at the instance of the Department and if there is any justification for a finding of partial incapacity it should be treated as total and in this way treat humanely a man who may have been ten or 15 years off work. That man is not capable of going back to work and it is contrary to what should be the spirit of the social welfare code to force him back to work. In such a situation speed is of the essence. The procedure, as I understand it, is that in the periodic review if the medical referee—and I mean no reflection on the professional competence of medical referees when I say some of their findings are puzzling to their colleagues in busy general practices—finds, as he very often does, that incapacity has ceased, from that finding the benefit is cut off and is not restored until the whole tedious procedure of appeal has been gone through. I suppose there is no alternative when the Department's own medical officer says this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This seems to be administration.

Mr. Cooney

Possibly, but I think it also bears on the question of policy and I am dealing with the policy approach of the Department in relation to difficult cases of partial or total incapacity.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These would not be relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Cooney

But with respect, it is a matter of policy. The Minister dealt with a number of matters that had given rise to problems in relation to the operation of the social insurance system. This is why I say the occupational injuries code has defects which are more than just the defects in the scale of weekly payments. The Bill merely seeks to improve the scale of payments to some extent. I think it is a pity it does not go farther because it is very important for the morale of persons injured at work or who are at work and may suffer injury to know that they will be sympathetically and compassionately looked after by the Department of Social Welfare. This one change is the main change I recommend, the power to treat partial incapacity as total, thus enabling the worker to receive full benefit and not put him in the ridiculous position of asking an employer for light work and having people laughing at him.

It might assist this part of the code if there was a different procedure. It was a pity the matter was entirely taken out of the hands of the courts because while going to court had disadvantages in that the person had to employ lawyers and face the ceremonial of a court, yet the ambience in court was always in favour of the worker. There was no question of the court being a wing of the establishment and its perspective was absolutely independent. That was very valuable for the worker and if something akin to this were restored it would go a long way towards improving the position.

I welcome the increase in old age non-contributory pensions and the increased means level ceiling. While regretting that the means test has to be applied, one can see the need for it. We can only hope that it is applied as liberally as possible and that the person who is thrifty does not find himself prejudiced when he comes to qualifying age and that it is also applied liberally to persons who decide to part with their property. I am aware that there has been a considerable improvement in the Department's attitude towards accepting transfers by persons on the eve of the 70th birthday as genuine dispositions of property and not just transfers made for the purpose of qualifying for an old age pension. There should be a question of discretion as to whether such transfers are accepted or not. All transfers of property by persons in their 69th or 70th year are socially desirable and should be encouraged. If a person knew that by transferring his property it would help him to acquire an old age pension it would encourage him.

Some transfers are still disregarded if the Department feel they were entered into for the purpose of qualifying for a pension. I think I am correct in saying it has become the practice of the Department to accept transfers from parent to child without question but transfers from uncle to nephew or from older brother to younger brother are sometimes disregarded. This is socially wrong. The Department's attitude at all times should be to encourage such transfers and encourage older persons to give up property and give way to younger people who may be only comparatively younger. If, as a consequence, somebody qualifies for an old age pension what of it? He has given a lifetime of work to the State and the few shillings available on foot of a non-contributory pension in the comparatively few cases involved are trivial. I urge the Minister to arrange that all transfers be henceforth accepted and not condemned on the grounds that they were entered into purely for qualification purposes.

I have no more to say other than to mention again my disappointment that the principle of wage-related benefits was not introduced in this Bill. The Minister is in favour of the principle and once his mind is running in that direction——

Mr. J. Brennan

We are committed to it and are actually preparing a scheme.

Mr. Cooney

I am glad to hear it. The other point I wished to make is in regard to the occupational injuries code. I suggested to the Minister some ways in which a defect in the code might be amended. Generally, the increases are welcomed and we can only hope they will continue to grow and that the wage related scheme, when implemented, will ease the lot of many recipients.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I am always in a position to be able to pay a tribute to the Deputies who contribute to debates such as this but more so this year than at any time. I always regard the debate on such a Bill as an occasion when I get a lot of information which I can use as a feeler to know in which direction we should move most rapidly and where we are failing to make the necessary impact. These can only be found when there is a realistic constructive approach to the debate.

This year, fewer Deputies than ever before referred to our social welfare code as being antiquated. Only one did so and not with any great conviction. I should like to say at the beginning that if the examination of the code, which has been going on for a number of years on every aspect, reveals one thing more than another it is that our code does not compare unfavourably in its scope with that of any other country, and when we hear talk about a need for a restructuring of the code we realise it is nonsense. We have only to fill in a few gaps, make a few changes such as advancing the rates.

At the present time, we cover old age, widows and orphans, the blind, the disabled, births, marriages and deaths, and other matters, together with the dependants of all these classes, and that is as much as any country in the world is doing at the present time. Other countries may have different twitches here and there with regard to particular fields, they may have a few things which we have not got, but many of the things which we urgently need, such as pay related benefits, are being worked on at the moment.

The important thing is that the form of our code need not necessarily be discarded and the legislation we have passed need not be repealed. All we need to do is to move forward to the field of social insurance and this is the area in which I should like to move as rapidly as circumstances permit us.

I should like to see social insurance extended and become more comprehensive to give greater cover to a great many more people. Any Minister would desire this because it will relieve us of many of the things about which complaints come in, above all the disgusting system which we have to put up with while we have a means test.

Before moving on to a general discussion on the social welfare system, I should like to get people to understand that social welfare investigating officers are appointed to assist people in getting the benefits to which they are legitimately entitled. On the other hand, I should like these officers to realise that they are not there to keep benefits from the people but to ascertain what they are entitled to and, of course, their qualifications. These two things do not always seem to harmonise and the result is that an officer approaching a household is regarded as being someone who is trying to keep something from the household.

Dr. O'Connell

In their own way the officers help to cause that attitude.

Mr. J. Brennan

I know the attitude of the officers of the Department is that they should appear as persons whose duty it is to interpret the legal implications so that persons may get the benefits for which they qualify. There is one thing people must remember and that is that there are abuses.

It is the people who abuse the system who cause the burdens for those who should not suffer the disadvantages of the necessary investigations. We have many abuses. We have abuses in the matter of disablement benefits for sick people. We have persons frequently being brought to court because they have worked and drawn benefits simultaneously. They are the people who use up the money which should be available for people who really need it and in that way they are the cause of harassing others.

When the day arrives when we will move into the wider field of social insurance, and when the means test largely disappears, then it will be necessary only to ascertain the qualifications which one would have under the insurance scheme. This will be necessary, too, and it brings me to a point about several complaints we get about delays.

Persons who are insured are entitled to certain benefits and in certain circumstances we must ascertain their qualifications. They are required to have so many contributions within the contribution year and if we are not able to ascertain these simple qualifications we cannot pay the benefits immediately and consequently delays occur.

Deputy Begley was mistaken, it was a slip on his part, when he spoke about sick benefit applicants being made to sign at the exchange every week. Such applicants do not have to sign at the exchange. They may have to send in certificates repeatedly without getting their money but this is always due, when traced down, to some justifiable reason. We cannot pay benefits unless we are satisfied the persons are qualified. People make a living out of writing to newspapers about these delays, and, of course, they always will because this will always be an emotive subject and the Department will always have to face a certain amount of odium. However, we will continue to try to ensure that there is expeditious handling of all cases and we ask the public to co-operate fully with us in this respect.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 28 Jun 1972