Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Jun 1973

Vol. 266 No. 4

Social Welfare Bill, 1973 : Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Brennan

When I was concluding on the Social Welfare Bill, I was paying tribute to a staff that is very often made a scapegoat by many people who want, for ulterior motives, to cast aspersions on the social welfare system. I have taken this as my first opportunity in opposition to pay a tribute to a loyal and hard-working staff, to a staff which is frequently wrongfooted, and in the meanest possible manner, public servants who have not the opportunity to come back, who are doing an excellent job in one of the largest Departments of State, which has a huge volume of work. The percentage of administration costs in relation to the overall disbursement of the Department is very favourable indeed, and if we were to move towards the point of instant social welfare, as I frequently used to call what people were demanding, we would have to do one of two things or both, that would be, to turn a blind eye to many abuses, not to look for qualifications but to hand out money ad lib; or, alternatively, to double the amount of staff which is there at present. Thousands of cases have to be processed daily.

If some of these critics had access to the Department to see the sparse information that is often supplied with claims or applications, they would appreciate the difficulty involved in getting quick decisions which we would all dearly love to have. In saying that, I would hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would continue, as I have been trying to do, to expedite decisions in all cases. There are cases where there are unavoidable delays, but there are others where there are perhaps occasionally avoidable delays, and these should be eliminated. They have now installed a computer, which I took the decision to purchase in my time, and I hope this will lead to better and more expeditious handling of the growing volume of work in the Department.

As I said, it is ironical that it falls to a man who opposed entry into the EEC to administer the largesse which is made available by the EEC for social welfare in this country. I am glad it is one of the fruits of EEC membership that has become available to us. Winding up on the Social Welfare Bill last year I pointed out, and it is on the record, that apart from the money made available to us in savings on the agricultural subsidies, the EEC would be a necessary incentive to impel us towards harmonising our services with those of EEC member states, which means we must ultimately bring them into line with those countries. It is not that there is harmony between the services of existing members. They are all very different, but all of them are better than ours. This we admit.

We are a small country with a small population and a relatively small number of persons contributing, and we are inclined to milk very heavily the resources available to us in order to redistribute the national income to the best of our ability. I do not think anybody could accuse us of not doing that. The evolution of social welfare is one of the most commendable features of the whole of the Government's activities over the past number of years. All the talk about a comprehensive scheme, restructuring, bringing in a new code, is the greatest nonsense. Social welfare is something which evolves, something which improves from year to year. New services have come in; new schemes have been adopted, and, no matter what the public conscience or the Minister's social conscience dictates, he must be limited by the availability of resources. The many beautiful things we would like to do tomorrow very often must wait until the day after.

The Minister will now have to move towards social insurance for the population as a whole. This will bring everybody within the social insurance scheme, and we shall thus get the necessary contributions from the people who are in a position to pay them. As in the case of the income tax code the more people who contribute the easier it will be on all. By casting the net wider, the amount of the weekly subscription to social insurance should become less rather than more. This is the direction in which I was hoping to move rapidly and in which we ware moving in the past.

One has only to look back to see the number of schemes that have been implemented since the last war. It was actually 1947 before any improvement's were made, contributory pensions for widows and so on, ultimately bringing in every person who should be covered by the social welfare code. I would like to see self-employed people being able to share in some of the social welfare benefits which are now available only to insured persons, such as under the occupational injuries legislation which gives tremendous coverage to employed persons and will apply to self-employed persons when they are brought within the contributory system. This will be a more comprehensive contribution system when it is extended to self-employed persons and to all other persons, as it is in the UK.

These are the steps one would like to see taken. Our ambition was to reach a stage when we could not be adversely compared particularly with the six North Eastern counties or with Great Britain, and we can no longer be compared adversely with what they are doing there. Indeed, some of our social welfare schemes were brought in before they brought in some of their schemes. Granted, the greater resources available to them has enabled them to be more generous than we have been, but for a small country we have been moving as rapidly as the people expected us to move, always having regard to those who were responsible for providing the resources out of which any Government boasts of its generosity in doing things which the public conscience these days progressively wishes them to do.

I do not think it is necessary to dwell any further on this piece of legislation. As I said at the start, it was my great pleasure year after year during my time in Social Welfare to announce improved benefits and extend the scope of the scheme each year. I hope that progress will continue, especially with regard to the most deserving sections—the aged, the infirm and those who are unable to assist themselves.

The Coalition grouping came together hurriedly before the general election and they were inclined to make many promises to attract extra votes. In their over-enthusiasm they made promises they were unable to carry out and this was inevitable. If they follow the course we had charted, which any Minister for Social Welfare must follow in the years ahead, we will have as good a social welfare code as any other country. I hope that the economy will be able to develop in the same progressive manner as formerly otherwise it will not be possible to provide any worthwhile benefits for the needy. It is a tribute to the soundness of the economy that the Coalition Government, a few weeks after taking office, were able to do certain things. I wish the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary success in this interesting, successful, and sometimes unduly criticised work.

Mr. Wyse

For the first time in the history of our country a Government had an opportunity this year to do something worthwhile for those in receipt of social services. The money was available and a substantial increase in the social services should not have necessitated a tax on the public. However, a great opportunity was lost when the Government presented the budget.

Before the general election the public were given many promises with regard to social services. In his statement today the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned an increase in the allowance for home help to £3.50. Sufficient emphasis has not been put on this important service. When a boy or girl gives up employment to look after an aged relative it should be worth more than £3.50 per week to the State. In such a case the person who gives up employment should be entitled to draw unemployment benefit. They have contributed to it and are entitled to the money but unfortunately the Act states that a person must be available for employment. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this matter. If an old person is sent to an institution it will cost the State £20 per week to maintain him there, but yet the State appears to consider it sufficient to pay £3.50 to a person to look after his or her old relative at home.

If in the event of a dispute and, in the heat of the moment, an employer dismisses a worker the employee on going to the Labour Exchange is informed he is not entitled to unemployment benefit until his case is investigated by the Department. We may be speaking about a man with a family but, nevertheless, he will be obliged to sign at the Labour Exchange and will not receive any money apart from home assistance. I have always maintained that in the event of a dispute between the Department, the employer and the employee, the latter should be paid unemployment benefit. He has contributed to it and is entitled to the money. I am surprised the Parliamentary Secretary did not refer to this matter in his statement.

The same injustice applies to a person in receipt of disability benefit. Doctors differ and patients die, but in some cases the patient may die from starvation because the Department's doctor differs with the private doctor and, consequently, disability benefit is not paid. The person concerned will not receive disability benefit until the Department's doctor agrees with the claimant's doctor. People who have contributed perhaps for 20 years should be allowed payment while a dispute is going on between the Department and a doctor, or between the Department and an official of the Labour Exchange. The Parliamentary Secretary as a trade unionist should know the great hardships.

Mr. Cluskey

In trade unions there are often demarkation disputes and I am afraid the Deputy is entering on them. He is making an Estimate speech.

Mr. Wyse

The Parliamentary Secretary knows the problems of the workers in this respect.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): He used to.

Mr. Haughey

He is moving into the ivory tower.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy has not left it yet.

Mr. Wyse

I want to endorse what Deputy Brennan said about the hardship being inflicted on small employers. Before I came in here I worked for a small employer who employed about 20 people and who was at his wits end to try to keep them in employment. The State comes down on him and demands that he pays the contributions for his workers. We have been inclined always to ask people who can least afford to pay. In this budget the middle class people carry the burden. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to give serious thought to the position of small employers who form an important arm of industry and who carry the heaviest share of the burden.

There is another injustice which the Parliamentary Secretary might look at. A man between 69 and 80 years will get £7.20 a week contributory old age pension. A contributory widow living alone will get only £6.60. Why does this distinction exist? Both have contributed and both are living alone. I am surprised the Parliamentary Secretary did not avail of this opportunity to bridge that gap. After all, both must purchase the same food, clothing and fuel. Indeed, the widow is not entitled to free electricity.

I should like to support Deputy Brennan when he said that everyone should be brought into the social services. It is vitally important that everyone should contribute and that everyone should share the benefits available. I know Deputy Brennan spent a lot of time exploiting this possibility and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to follow it up. It is the wish of us all that every person in the State should come under the umbrella of the social services.

Before I conclude I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment and I wish him success in the efforts he will make to improve the social standards of our people. I have no doubt he will receive the co-operation of every Member of the House. After all, we on this side of the House are the foundation of the social services and, therefore, it is only natural and logical that we would give the Parliamentary Secretary every possible support in endeavours to improve living standards.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): First of all, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment. He is a colleague of mine in my constituency and I am quite sure he will make a very able Parliamentary Secretary. Although I cannot wish him a long term in office, I am convinced that for as long as he is there he will carry out capably the functions of one of the most important Departments in the State. The Department of Social Welfare deal with the section of our people who are most vulnerable, those who cannot look after themselves. I have stated many times before that this is a Department which must be geared to the job of looking after the affairs of the people they are dealing with. Because it is vital that no mistakes be made—those people are depending on their benefits from week to week and on many Friday evenings they have come to me to tell me they had not received their benefit—it must be efficiently staffed.

The Parliamentary Secretary was fortunate in being appointed this year because the benefits which we see here and which we welcome are due in no small measure to the good housekeeping of the previous Government. It was due to the buoyancy in the economy and the revenue and to decisions taken in past years that the Department of Social Welfare have been able to increase the benefits which we are now about to implement. These increases have been brought about by the policies which we adopted throughout the years, one of them being the attaining of EEC membership which in itself meant a considerable saving to the Exchequer so that the Minister was able to transfer these moneys to social welfare recipients.

The only thing I am sorry about is that the increases are not greater. If they were greater everyone in this House would have welcomed them. As I have said, the Minister on this occasion had every opportunity to present one of the best social welfare budgets ever. Indeed, the majority of the people thought this social welfare budget would be something unique in the social welfare field. Unfortunately, it can be said there is nothing extraordinary about the benefits being given. I doubt if any Minister could come in here in 1973, with inflation and rising prices at their present level, and have the neck to offer anything less than £1 a week. I, therefore, give no thanks to the Government because nobody would have the audacity to offer old age pensioners and others anything less at this time. Anyone who circulates among the people and knows the massive price increases that are occurring and the consequent polarisation in our society will agree with me.

If the rate of inflation is to continue as it has been over the past 12 months, I am convinced that the benefits given here will be eroded in a very short time. I welcome what is given but I believe more should have been done with the money available. I certainly welcome some aspects of this Bill, particularly the new contributory benefits and those regarding the means test.

I have always felt that certain allowances should be made for people who were self-employed and, perhaps, find themselves in the situation where they have a small income of £2 or £3 a week which was subject to a means test in regard to the non-contributory pensions. I know that Deputy Brennan had this in mind in regard to the social welfare field. I believe if we were in Government now that we would certainly have followed those lines. The present Government have not lived up to the promise they made prior to the election when they stated that there would be a complete abolition of the means test. However, I welcome the increases, which are a step in the right direction.

Children's allowances in my opinion have always been the best way to direct assistance to married people. This reaches the section to whom it can be of most benefit. The increase of £1.50p is certainly welcome but to many in our community very little has been given in view of the restrictions placed on a man earning £2,500 a year. An income of £2,500 a year is not very excessive and the people this restriction will hit are those who are buying their own houses and who have always played their part in the community. Before free education was available they paid their way in education. They never looked for any social welfare benefits and they never had any health contributions because they were outside the social welfare limits. This section of the community has been taxed too heavily down through the years.

Discrimination in regard to people earning £2,500 a year cannot be justified. If the Minister for Health and the Government had accepted a figure of £3,500 I would not criticise them because I believe at that bracket and over it you would be fully justified in having some drawbacks. I know those people are most disappointed. I have spoken to many of them recently as regards this restriction. Many of those people who are buying their own houses have only gone into them during the past 4 or 5 years. The argument will be made that they have an abatement of rates but that is of very little value to the people on a seven years remission of rates because they do not get the full benefits here. It was totally unfair of the Government to fix a figure of £2,500.

The Parliamentary Secretary stated in his brief that 359,000 families would benefit from the increase in children's allowances. I do not know how he arrived at this figure unless he went to the income tax code in order to see how many will be caught in the drawback. I doubt if the Revenue Commissioners have supplied the necessary data to indicate this figure.

I welcome the extension of the children's allowances to 18 years where the children are obtaining a full education or are apprentices. I do not know how you will define the apprenticeship section of it. Trades vary as regards. apprenticeship and quite often people in apprenticeship for a short time who arc efficient qualify for senior wages. I can see certain complications in this but I am sure the Department will have some rule of thumb by which they will decide at what age they will go outside this category.

I agree with Deputy Wyse that the increase in contributions is very substantial both from the employers' and the employees' point of view. There is an increase of 42p on the employer and 15p on the employee. This is becoming a considerable burden especially on small employers who are operating on a very tight margin. We never hear about these changes in the budget statement and whether we like it or not they are additional taxation. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the contribution from the Exchequer runs from 32 per cent to 42 per cent. Is it intended, with the astronomical charge now being put on the employer, to reduce the contribution from the Exchequer from the normal guidelines or is it intended to increase it? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some indication of what the subvention from the Exchequer will be.

Is the full rate of contribution being charged to apprentices? I have always felt that charging the full rate of stamp to a young boy or girl starting a career, who are only earning £10 to £12 a week, is an enormous amount to stop weekly. I am sure they are paying in the region of 10 per cent of their wages in stamps. A sliding grade should be drawn up whereby those on the junior rate of wages should have a lower stamp rate until such time as they qualify in their trade or business. Some of the people in the lower grades will not be able to pay the increased stamp rates. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to have a look at that section and see if something could be done to ease the situation.

The Minister stated during the past week that it was his intention to abolish the upper limit of £1,600. We all welcome that. Unfortunately, no provision is made for the small self-employed man. Evidently he is to continue to pay his own way. Quite often he is in a far more vulnerable position than many people in employment who have the protections outlined in the Bill. If a self-employed person falls ill he is dependent on Voluntary Health Insurance which is limited in what it can do and covers only hospitals, doctors, surgeons and specialists. Eventually we will have to see if the self-employed person can be protected.

There are other factors which the Parliamentary Secretary could have taken into consideration this year when we all expected so much because of the amount of money available. Fringe benefits such as free travel were introduced by Deputy Haughey and Deputy Colley when they were Ministers. With the moneys available this year, a further extension of those fringe benefits could have been introduced for widows and various other categories. The Parliamentary Secretary had a glorious opportunity this year to do something for the weaker sections of the community but he failed to do so. He failed to realise that they exist in our community. They are in his own constituency of Dublin Central.

Many of the weaker sections of the community are still badly catered for and not given the protection they require in an age of rapid inflation. The Government missed this opportunity and the general feeling is that, while the increases are very welcome, they did not go far enough in this day and age, and having regard to prices. Down through the years the policy of this party was to introduce social welfare schemes. I trust the same policy will be continued and accelerated along the same lines as it would have been continued by Deputy Brennan if he was still in office. Let us hope that these benefits will continue to be paid. No thanks are due to the Government for distributing money which was already accumulated by sound Government policy over the past number of years. Some people who are now Ministers advised the people not to go into the Common Market but they did not accept that advice. Because of the sound advice given by Fianna Fáil we are now a member of the EEC.

Mr. Brennan

Excuse me if I interrupt the proceedings but, out of respect for the Parliamentary Secretary, some of his own party should be behind him in the House. There is not one.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present ; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): While we appreciate the benefits given in the budget they do not go far enough. Promises were made by members of the Government prior to the general election. The Minister for Health, Deputy Corish, said that there would be a massive review of the social welfare benefits and a vast increase for all sectors right across the board. I did not hear the Minister for Finance state in his budget speech that there has been any full review of the social welfare benefits or a restructuring of the Department of Social Welfare. Has there been any increase in the staff of the Department?

I welcome these increases and, now that we are a member of the EEC, I hope that our social welfare benefits will move into line with those of the EEC countries. I am delighted that we are moving towards having equal benefits with those in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is due to the policy of successive Governments to try to provide the same benefits as the benefits in Great Britain and Northern Ireland step by step in each successive budget. We have nearly attained that situation through the policies of the party on this side of the House. I hope the present Government will adopt that guideline and ensure that, eventually, our benefits match those in Britain and Northern Ireland.

I have very little to add, except to say that we welcome the Bill. As I said at the outset, there is no Government which, in this year of 1973, would have the brass neck to come in here and offer less than £1 per week to social welfare recipients, such as old age pensioners and others who are trying to fight inflation. We have really nothing for which to thank the Government and there is no reason for the song and dance. The economy was sound. Revenue was buoyant and these factors contributed to the present budget. Had they not done so this Government would have found themselves in a very difficult situation indeed. We are delighted these benefits have been given. Old age pensioners have served the country in the past and they are deserving of some consideration. So are unfortunate widows and orphans. No one will deny these any benefits the Government will give them. No one will criticise such benefits. The only criticism we can make is that the increases are not enough. Let us hope that, as time goes on, we will be able to give more. Those of us who go around this city know the price of food and clothing. Even with only one room an increase of £1 is little benefit enough, but it is something. We will have to ensure that the contributions given to these sections will increase substantially with each year that passes. I believe all of us have the same aim and object in this regard. I am not sure that the Government have made the best use of the money available to them. Nevertheless, we welcome the Bill. All we say is that the increases are not enough.

Again, I wish the Parliamentary Secretary every success in his office.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

I would like to thank Deputy Brennan, the previous Minister for Social Welfare, for his expression of appreciation of the staff in the Department and, in particular, his expression of appreciation of the secretary of the Department, Mr. Honohan, who retired yesterday on reaching the age limit. All of us in this House and everyone in the country owe people such as Mr. Honohan, who devote their lives to the service of the public, a deep debt of gratitude and I thank Deputy Brennan for his expression of appreciation in this regard.

I should also like to thank Deputy Brennan and, indeed, other speakers on the Opposition benches for their expressions of congratulation and goodwill towards me on my appointment. I fully appreciate that they hope the tenure of that appointment will not be too long.

Mr. Haughey

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cluskey

I noticed when Deputy Brennan was speaking that he, like other speakers, welcomed the improvements in the Bill. They might well welcome these improvements because there is no doubt in my mind but that the Bill represents a major breakthrough in social welfare. I should like to emphasise the word "breakthrough" because I do not regard even the position we will be in when the provisions of the Bill come into operation as being the desired or, indeed, the proper position from the point of view of social welfare. However, because of the commitments entered into by the Coalition Government in the field of social welfare, I believe all the necessary improvements will be made.

Deputy Brennan referred on a number of occasions to the fact that what was being achieved in social welfare was being achieved by virtue of the fact that we are now members of the EEC. He implied that I, in particular, should be ashamed of myself because my party opposed entry into the EEC but yet my party are prepared to take advantage of any benefits that may accrue as a result of that entry.

I should like, first of all, to refer to the statement by the Minister for Finance that this marvellous bonanza we were supposed to enjoy for the benefit of social welfare was just not there when he got to the cupboard. That did not, however, deter the National Coalition Government from honouring their commitments with regard to social welfare.

Mr. Brennan

I do not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but that is not correct. He has only to look at the Book of Estimates to see that provision had not been made for moneys to subsidise agriculture.

Mr. Cluskey

I do not know that it is not correct. I believe the statement made by the Minister for Finance with regard to this sum of money.

Mr. Haughey

How could it be missing if it is only going to come in during the current year?

Mr. Cluskey

With regard to the position of myself and other members of the Labour Party vis-à-vis the EEC, I should like to say that when we opposed entry into the EEC we did so honestly and honourably and, immediately the result of the referendum was announced, the leader of our party, the Tanaiste, made a statement to the effect that we, as a democratic party, accepted the decision of the people with regard to the EEC and now that we were members of the EEC, we would endeavour to the best of our ability to ensure that any benefits deriving from membership of that Community would be used for the betterment of the people. I have not anything like the same fears now that I had then, funnily enough——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The Parliamentary Secretary has seen the light.

Mr. Cluskey

——with regard to our membership of the EEC and I attribute that to the fact that I have a great deal more confidence now in the people who are going there to negotiate on our behalf than I had when the referendum was held.

Mr. Haughey

That is quite the subtlest way of eating humble pie I have ever heard.

Mr. Cluskey

To come back to social welfare, Deputy Brennan said that the Fianna Fáil Government had charted a certain course and he hoped the Government would pursue that course. I do not want to take away from any achievements and, undoubtedly, some achievements were made by the Fianna Fáil Government, but I do not think we can get away from the fact that in 16 years of unbroken Fianna Fáil Government none of the omissions about which we have heard so much from the Opposition speakers on this measure were made good, not to mention the things that are in the Bill that were never done or never attempted. I regard Deputy Brennan as a man with a social conscience and a man who, within the confines of the party of which he is a member, which are fairly constricting in regard to social welfare, did his best. Apart from the very large increase in expenditure that is provided for social welfare in the present budget there is something more significant in this Bill, and it is in some other social welfare provisions, and some of them spill over into health: it is concern for people.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Will that buy meat for them?

Mr. Cluskey

Concern, linked with the present increases, will go some distance towards providing them with the necessary basics of life. The Deputy has asked a good question which illustrates, better than I could possibly illustrate, the approach of the Deputy's party towards the whole concept of social welfare. The provisions of this Bill illustrate something else and I think this is the real difference—not so much the money although it is very considerable—but the real difference is the concept of what social welfare should be about. There is no doubt in my mind and there is no doubt in the mind of this Government that social welfare is not just a matter of a few bob here and a few bob there. It is a total, comprehensive all-embracing concern for the needs, not necessarily confined to the monetary needs, of the recipients of social welfare. Basically this is the real difference between the approach of the former Govemment and that of the present Government.

Mr. Haughey

Concern is the "in" word.

Mr. Cluskey

I beg your pardon.

Mr. Haughey

I am listening with interest.

Mr. Cluskey

Several questions were raised and one about which considerable concern was expressed was the price of a stamp and the way it was proportioned between the employer and the employee.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): And the State. That is important.

Mr. Cluskey

Extremely. Deputy Brennan stated that not only could the Fianna Fáil Govemment have done as much as the present Government without imposing this heavy burden, as he described it, on the employer but that they could have done more without increasing taxation. That is a fair good trick and I would like to see it done.

Mr. J. Brennan

We did it last year.

Mr. Cluskey

What you did last year—and this is not a matter of opinion, it is on public record that your total expenditure on social welfare was £11.6 million compared with an expenditure of £51 million by the present Govemment. What you also did last year was to increase the stamp by 40p. I do not know how you arrive at those marvellous conclusions.

Mr. J. Brennan

We would make the State pay more.

Mr. Cluskey

I am stating facts that are on public record. I agree there is a shift to the employer to bear a greater proportion of the stamp but Chat is quite in line with every member country of the EEC. The proportion we require our employers to pay, even with the present increase, which I do not regard as being exorbitant, is still far below what other member countries of the European Community require employers to pay towards the stamp. I do not know why this great hullabaloo about stamps was raisd at all because it is strictly in line with what other countries are doing and does not impose any undue burden even on the small employer. We are talking about a relatively small percentage of any employer's total wage bill. We are talking about a very small percentage indeed when we talk about the increases he will have to bear under the present scheme. I do not think there is much mileage for Fianna Fáil in it and I would not recommend that they should pursue it at any great length.

The half rate of benefit for widows was mentioned. In my innocence I sat here and wondered Whether we did this originally, whether we were responsible, whether I had slipped up somewhere along the way and that this was imposed by the present Tánaiste or the present Taoiseach.

Mr. Brennan

That is not the way I raised it. I was being hammered on this every year by you people.

Mr. Cluskey

Deservedly so.

Mr. Brennan

You hammered me every year.

Mr. Cluskey

To our credit we did.

Mr. Brennan

And now you had your chance.

Mr. Cluskey

And we availed of it.

Mr. Brennan

Will the widow now get more than half benefit if she becomes unemployed?

Mr. Cluskey

She will not but she will pay no contribution either.

Mr. Brennan

That is not the point.

Mr. Cluskey

That, in effect, is an increase in income to the widow of anything up to £1.12 per week. I must be very thick-skinned but I do not stand here hanging my head in shame over that aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Brennan

She still only gets half benefit.

Mr. Cluskey

She gets half benefit for no contribution; she got half benefit for contribution under the last Government. After three months of a National Coalition Government a fairly reasonable amount of progress has been made with regard to that particular injustice.

Other points were raised. My colleague in Dublin Central, Deputy T. J. Fitzpatrick, raised the point about the price of the stamp for young workers. This is a relative point. This has been a problem for some considerable time but when the pay-related benefit comes into operation it will go a considerable way towards abating the problem.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): It will not reduce his contribution on the present rate.

Mr. Cluskey

His contribution will be related to his benefits.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): There is no reduction.

Mr. Cluskey

At the moment there is a uniform benefit with uniform payments. Under the pay-related benefit scheme, the benefit will be related. There will be a change in that situation.

I am not anxious to prolong the Second Stage of this Bill. In fact, I am most anxious to have the Bill completed so that the necessary arrangements can be made to ensure that the people will be paid the money they are due on the 4th July.

I referred to a point in my opening brief and I would like to refer to it again now. Deputy Brennan, with his experience of being a former Minister of the Department, also referred to this point, and it relates to the absolutely staggering volume of claims and correspondence that come into the Department of Social Welfare. With the implementation of the provisions of the Bill now under discussion, this volume will increase very considerably. This will place a tremendous burden on the staff of the Department and also on the staff in the post offices throughout the country. Every possible effort is being made to ensure that people will get the increased benefits at the rate to which they are entitled.

Every possible effort is being made to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays. It would be less than realistic, with the tremendous volume of work that is being dealt with, not to realise that there will be delays in some respects. I hope that Deputies who have heard Deputy Brennan speaking—with his experience as Minister—will accept this fact and acknowledge the difficulties that confront the staff and the very good job they are doing in the circumstances. Every effort will be made to minimise the delays. While saying that, I should also say that I am not completely satisfied that all delays are unavoidable. Particular attention is being given to this aspect of the Department's work.

I thank Deputy Brennan for his co-operation and also the other Deputies for giving us the Second Stage of this Bill this evening. I hope and anticipate that we will get the same co-operation in finishing the Bill, in order that these payments may be made.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 19th June, 1973.

Mr. Brennan

We will co-operate fully.

Mr. Haughey

A most reasonable Opposition.