Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1973 : Committee and Final Stages. – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Tuesday, 19 Jun 1973

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1973 : Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

The limits are set out "£9.50 not to exceed £10.50", and it is a case of whether there are dependants. I should like the Minister to let me know in how many cases of old age pensioners are there dependants and to what extent this affects the situation numerically. With the easing of the means test, the position is that anybody having over £9 per week will get only 65p. As a result of the publicity given to the changes, I have had a lot of difficulties with pensioners who believed they could get the full old age pension even though they have £9.50 per week income, whereas it must be made clear that this is the upper limit, that a person with £9 will get 65p and 65p only unless he has dependants. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when speaking on the section, to remind me what was the previous figure: where £9 now operates as the maximum at the top for pensioners without dependants, what was the previous limit in this case.

This is one case where the public have been more disappointed than with any other aspect of this whole new social welfare legislation which is implementing the budget proposals. The persons who supported the Coalition Government in the election believed they were doing so for the complete abolition of the means test for old age pensions. The abolition of the means test was one of the 14 points, whereas we have a paltry reduction from a figure which I cannot recall at the moment to £9. A pensioner will now get 65p if he has an income of £9 a week, and this is taking the place of a very explicit promise that the means test would be abolished. This is one of the greatest betrayals and it makes a mockery of the whole question of issuing and promulgating policies before elections take place. I think this is disgusting.

Consequently, the extra five shillings a week was granted to persons of no means. That was a second level rate to such persons. When the Parliamentary Secretary refers to only 21,000 people qualifying he is referring to the number of persons who qualified for the no means five shillings. My recollection is that 121,000 persons qualified for the full pension apart from the no means classification. It is quite misleading to suggest that the five shillings should be reckoned in what would be regarded as the full pension. The full pension was the pension minus the five shillings which was payable only as a result of pressure brought by voluntary bodies to pensioners of no means whatever.

A very good case could still be made for this. There is a vast difference between the type of old-age pensioners in the category of those with nothing and those who have the pleasure of enjoying the company of their own family at their own fireside. If a parent makes over his farm or land to his son he can qualify for full pension and he gets the full rate pension now. While that man continues to live with his family in the comfort of his own home, the person with no means whatever, living in a rented house, still gets only the same rate. The five shillings recognised the fact that there arc some pensioners much worse off than others. The Minister is using the extra five shillings to give the number of persons receiving full pensions as 21,000, whereas the number receiving full pensions, leaving out the special five shilling payment, was, if I remember correctly, 121,000.

The £4 per week income limit does not mean that a pensioner can earn £4 per week and still qualify for a full pension. All the other factors, the number of hens he has, the number of cattle he may have, whether he has a right to free lodging—anything he enjoys in the way of living will be put against him as means so that the £4 income, if he were earning it, would when the investigating officer finished with him, at least mean £8. That should be made clear because many people will be seriously disappointed, particularly When the Parliamentary Secretary's party promised to abolish the means test.

Mr. Gallagher

When any change comes about such as a rise in pensions, pensioners find their books are taken up and this causes great hardship to many of them. I ask the Minister to see that the Department try to expedite the return of pension books after such changes.

This problem also arises with British contributory pensioners who are receiving a small portion of the Irish pension. Because they do not qualify for a full British contributory pension they receive portion of a pension here. Every time there is an increase in the British contributory pension these pensioners are immediately asked to hand up their pension books here. This means handing up their books sometimes two or three times in the year. The Parliamentary Secretary might look into this question of a person here getting the British contributory pension and portion of the Irish old-age pension. When he gets an increase in the British pension that increase is immediately deducted from his Irish pension which really means that he gets no increase in pension.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into these matters and try to rectify the injustice which people suffer through their pension books being taken up for long periods leaving them with no money during such periods.

Mr. Callanan

I should like to endorse what Deputy Brennan said. This figure of 21,000 is entirely wrong. Definitely, there were people who had no means whatever and who were entitled to this five shillings. Other people got the full pension, less that five shillings. It is ridiculous to suggest 21,000 as the number getting the full old-age pension. I come from a rural area where a very small minority get this extra five shillings because there are few people in rural areas entirely dependent and having to live in flats or some such accommodation. Usually they have the comfort of their families and they are getting the full pension without doubt.

There is no doubt that promises were made to abolish the means test. Frankly, I would not agree with that because I do not believe in giving anything across the board. I do not believe it is right. Taxation should be collected for the purpose of bringing people on lower incomes up to a reasonable standard and not to make the rich richer. The increase in the limit in 1973 is ridiculous—£4 for a single person. That must be your total income and it does not mean you can earn £4; everything is taken into account. If your income is estimated at £4, that is £8 for a man and his wife and with the present cost of living this is entirely too low. I should like to see the limit raised much higher but would not like increases to be given across the board. The Parliamentary Secretary should realise that putting the limit up to £4 and considering the other factors that must be taken into consideration leaves it still very low.

There are two types of income for old-age pension purposes: the farmer's estimated income and the wage earner's cash income. Whatever you can do with an estimated income you can do nothing with a cash income. I have seen very hard cases in towns where the wife was 70 and the husband still under 60 and drawing a wage from, say, the urban council. Half of that wage was put against the wife and she could not get any pension. With present wage rates, if you take a man and his wife and allow only £8, who would work for £8? It is ridiculously low. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider seriously substantially increasing this limit. It is ridiculous to state that only 21,000 people were drawing the full old-age pension. That is the picture which should be made clear here. It was five shillings for people who had nothing else. They were penniless.

Mr. Enright

I agree with the tribute Deputy Brennan paid to the departmental officials. Frequently there is criticism of the Department in regard to delays in the paying out of allowances of all kinds. Of course, the investigations that have to be carried out because of the means test cause most of the delays for which the Department are blamed. The easing of the income limit up to £4 a week will improve the lot of many people because up to the present if a person had any means whatsoever he was debarred from getting the full old age pension. This was an additional cause of worry to people approaching 70 years of age because they had to consider what to do with any small funds they might possess, such as life savings. In many instances they had to transfer such funds to relatives in the hope that the money would be looked after for them. Many of them consequently, were unable to retain even small sums to meet emergencies.

Thus, this improvement in the means test will mean a lot to a great many people. In previous years people who retained the right of residence, or maintenance, or support on their farms or other property were disqualified for full pensions. Any person who had any money at all was debarred. Not only will this Bill mean a monetary improvement to such people but it will remove a great source of worry.

Mr. Wyse

I do not think it should go out from this House that the means test has been abolished. It was very firmly stated during the election campaign that the means test would be eliminated. We all know the hardships caused by the means test. I should like to get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will consider abolishing the old age pensions committees. Their existence means that many old age pensioners have their claims delayed for anything up to eight weeks. For instance, an applicant might reach the age of 65 years on a Tuesday. The local committee might have met on the previous evening and that applicant would have to wait for a month before his application was considered and sent to the Department. I suggest that applications should be dealt with directly by the Department and that the committees should be abolished.

Mr. Cluskey

I am glad Deputy Brennan raised the question of the number of people who will qualify under this section because I do not think it is widely appreciated how many will benefit. His figure of 21,000 is accurate, although it is subject to fluctuation in the course of the year. Under the previous Government, only 21,000 people qualified for full pension but under this Bill the number is 108,000. That is the extent of the improvement. Can anyone fail to see the significance of the two figures? Many Deputies raised the question of the five shillings for what is described as free board and lodgings and I should like to stress that it is not possible for us in one fell swoop to do away with all the unpleasant aspects of the administration of these schemes.

Mr. Brennan

Why did you not say that before the election?

Mr. Cluskey

We did say it. I do not think we need apologise for the very significant step we have taken towards complete abolition of the means test. As one of their first priorities, the Government reduced the age to 69 years for qualification for the old age pension. People who heretofore were disqualified from full pension if they had more than 50p per week may now earn £4 a week. That is a considerable achievement which will affect a large number of people.

In reply to the Second Stage debate, I said that as far as the Minister, the Government and I are concerned, despite the very significant achievements we have made this year, we are only at the beginning, not the end It is not only the monetary needs of those in the social welfare field that need to be catered for. The significant difference between our aproach and that of Fianna Fáil is that not alone do we consider the monetary needs of those people but we also have a policy in relation to the entire concept of social welfare. Unless that concept is one of a comprehensive, all-embracing regard for the needs of the people concerned— not necessarily individuals but families—social welfare will not really deserve that title. That is what the ultimate goal must be. It will not be possible to do it all at once. I make no apology for the advances that have been made towards that goal in this budget.

Mr. Brennan

The Parliamentary Secretary's explanation is totally unacceptable to this House and to the country. Before the election we were promised the abolition of the means test. That poses no particular administrative problems; they either could or could not do it. They promised this when they knew they could not do it. I am not letting this through the House lightly today. I would even go to the extent of dividing the House because of this ridiculous cajoling of the people.

I am not accepting that, when the two-tier system is abolished, an extra few thousand will be brought into full pension. Under the two-tier system those with small means got 5s extra. I should like to have seen this made £1 extra because there is a vast difference, even at the level where full pension is payable, between the means of those who live with their families and those who have no means whatever. The voluntary organisations used to press me about some allowances for old age pensioners living alone.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Why did the Deputy not do it?

Mr. Brennan

We did a lot more than the present Government have done. The Parliamentary Secretary waxed eloquent about the psychological approach, apart from monetary gains. What did the present Government do apart from monetary gains? What did we do? We gave them heating, free electricity and free travel, apart from monetary gains. The present Government have done nothing about extending those to any other section of the community. We set a headline there. We gave something which monetary emoluments, weekly or otherwise, cannot give to the people. We enabled them to get out and live a fuller life in their old age and we gave them comforts which money alone would not bring to them.

Mr. Cluskey

If you have money you can get electricity. You can go to New York if you have money.

Mr. Brennan

Before the election the parties in the present Government promised the people the abolition of the means test. Many of the people believed this. We have to expose that here as a racket to get the support of the weakest section of the people. The Government did not live up to the promises they made before the election. We are told that a person can earn £4 per week and get the pension. Every party spent the EEC money, as it is known now, eight thousand times from every platform in the country over the last three years. When this party were in Government we carried the EEC Referendum against the Labour Party by pointing out that the money to be saved from the agricultural subsidies would be devoted entirely to social welfare.

Mr. Cluskey

It is a pity it was not there when we looked for it.

Mr. Brennan

I am on record in this House on at least two occasions as saying this and it was said also by the former Minister for Finance in this House. Most of the things which the Labour Party tried to prevent us having were promised eloquently by the present Government before the election. Now they are coming in to tell us what they did for the people with the money at their disposal as a result of our joining the EEC. The people were promised the abolition of the means test before the election but now it is only a partial reduction.

Farmers' produce is now fetching an increased price. The investigation officers from the Department of Social Welfare assess the income of a smallholder living in the remote mountains of Donegal. They are now putting down against the sale of sheep three times the figure they put down four or five years ago. Fewer people will now qualify for old age pensions as a result of the enhanced agricultural prices which were formerly assessed at a lower scale. We know well that any improvement in the means test is only in accordance with the improved income of the people applying for pensions.

The Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should not try to get away with the idea that their disposing of the funds we made available should reflect any credit on them. This is one case where the promises made should have been honoured. The people have shown their disgust at what was done by the present Government in their resounding vote in the Presidential Election, an election in which the Government said that a vote against them would be a vote of no confidence. The people were disgusted at the Government dishonouring a promise made before the general election. The Coalition parties made a political football out of the old people in order to gain votes. Unfortunately, it effects the Opposition as much as the Government, because we will eventually reach the stage where nobody in this country will accept anything said by anybody before an election.

Mr. Enright

I shall not get involved in Deputy Brennan's argument about Social Welfare being made a political football. There are 144 Deputies in this House and I believe every one of them should be in a position to criticise a Bill without blaming or praising one another. The social welfare recipients, the underprivileged and the old age pensioners should not be made a political football. Every Deputy should look at this Bill in a proper way. It should be criticised for what is or is not contained in it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing a section of this Bill, Section 2.

Mr. Enright

On section 2, I should like to say that this section is coming into operation on 6th July, 1973. I am in this House only a few years but on each occasion I spoke on a Social Welfare Bill or a budget debate one of the things I pressed for was that the old age pension should be paid at an early date. The procedure was that it was not paid until September or October due to administrative difficulties. Many people who would have benefited from the increase had passed away by the time it became payable. I am glad that this section of the Bill will come into operation on 6th July, 1973. I do not know what the administrative difficulties were but they have now been disposed of. This means that many people will benefit. You often find that, if you are waiting for money, when you get it, it is well nigh useless.

Section 2 provides for an increase of £1 to old age pensioners. This is a major and significant increase. We have not had an increase of this nature ever before. It represents a breakthrough in social welfare benefits. I hope it will be followed by further increases over the next few years.

I am pleased with the easing of the limit for the means test. In the few years I have been in this House, I have come across many instances of people who were terrified of getting a call from officials of the Department. They were afraid that whatever few pounds they had would interfere with their pension. I agree with Deputy Gallagher who spoke about the pension book being taken from people while their claims were being investigated. I hope that whatever administrative difficulty there is on this point can be resolved.

Mr. Tunney

I want to avail of this opportunity to put two propositions to the Minister which I think have some merit, and to which he might give sympathetic consideration. We all agree that ideally social welfare recipients should not be used in a political game. Social welfare recipients are in need of all the money they get, and could do with much more. There is a time during the year when every member of the community feels in need of as much money as he can possibly get, namely, Christmas time. I suggest to the Minister that, to indicate his concern and our concern for social welfare recipients, he might arrange that they would get a double payment in the week immediately prior to Christmas Day. I realise that there might be administrative difficulties but, when it comes to serving those people, administrative difficulties or difficulties of that nature should not be regarded too highly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should like to bring it to the Deputy's attention that this section deals with the means test.

Mr. Tunney

While the section refers specifically to the means test, other speakers have, with your permission. perhaps, strayed a little beyond it, and forgive me if I have done the same.

I come to my second proposition which refers specifically to the means test. While all great things happen by degrees, I would be happy if there could be a global removal of the means test. One area in which the Minister could do that forthwith, and there would not be any great cost involved —and it could be the foundation on which we could move towards the removal of the means test entirely—is in the area of the blind pension. I was very saddened during the year to discover that in the case of a married couple, both of whom were blind, because the gentleman was working and receiving an extra 32/- per week, the blind pension was reduced by that amount. There cannot be many married couples both of whom are blind. I think—and I said it to the Department at that time—that the appeals officer who adjudicated that the couple in question should be subjected to a means test had more regard for regulation, indeed for legislation, than I would like him to have. I hope the Minister will henceforth ease the minds of the appeals officers and remove the means test which exists in that area.

Mr. Cluskey

A few points have been raised. Deputy Brennan, when stating what the Fianna Fáil Government had done for recipients of social welfare benefits, mentioned the free travel and free electricity as an illustration of their deep concern for people who come within that category. As I mentioned by way of interjection, this is also a monetary consideration and a very welcome one no doubt; one that should not be downgraded. With the reduction of the qualifying age limit from 70 to 69, of course, the qualifying age for these benefits is also reduced. Even in that field an advance has been made. The point I am trying to make is that the whole approach is how one should define social welfare. If we are to define it as an assistance officer shoring up poverty by giving out a few pounds, and leaving it at that, that is exactly what will ensure that poverty is perpetuated from generation unto generation and one of the most significant features of the recent budget and of this Bill is the new awareness of what is needed and the realisation that we are not just dealing with individuals qua individuals but with families. That must be the approach if we are to have any degree of success in our campaign to eliminate poverty.

I wish Deputy Brennan would make up his mind. He sweeps aside the provisions in this Bill as insignificant; he says we are fooling the people. In the same breath he implies that I should be ashamed of myself since these marvellous advances have been made possible only because of our entry to the European Economic Community, something the Labour Party opposed. Now he just cannot have it both ways. He must make up his mind. Either it is a good budget because of our entry into the European Economic Community or it is a bad budget. He cannot have it both ways. It must be either one or the other.

I believe the provisions in the Bill to be extremely good provisions despite the fact that the money from the EEC just was not there. With regard to the Labour Party's opposition to joining the EEC, as I said before, I do not feel one bit ashamed either about this Bill or about the Labour Party's attitude to the EEC. We gave honest, honourable and legitimate criticism of some aspects of the negotiated terms, negotiated by Fianna Fáil, for our entry into the EEC. As I also said on another occasion when discussing this Bill, I am not nearly as fearful now about the EEC because I have far more confidence in the people going there to negotiate on our behalf. That has greatly lessened my fears.

Deputy Brennan made some very extravagant charges against our political honesty in regard to the means test and commitments made before the election. I do not know what Fianna Fáil's hopes were when they had charge of the Department of Social Welfare but, by heaven, I know what the realities were. I agree with Deputy Tunney when he says we should not use the provisions of this Bill as a political football, but not perhaps for the same reason as his. What this Bill will provide for people will be theirs by right and this is something we must get across. One of the really interesting things that has come to light in recent years is the tremendous amount of work done in the field of social welfare by voluntary organisations and one of the most significant features that has come to light is the degree of hidden poverty in our society. A great deal of that hidden poverty can be attributed to the fact that the stamp of the workhouse ward was put on social welfare. People who needed social welfare were made to feel that they had to go cap in hand and ask: "Please, sir, may I have something in order to provide the necessaries of life?" It must be brought home to the people that what they get by way of social welfare, be it contributory or non-contributory, is theirs by right and, secondly, it is theirs by right by virtue of the fact that they are citizens of this country and they do not have to come cap in hand for it.

It was no intention of mine to make this kind of speech on this Bill. I would have been quite happy to get the Bill through as speedily as possible. Indeed, that is still my hope. Deputy Brennan said a moment ago that he was going to expose this con man trick and, if necessary, he would divide the House. As I said, I am anxious that the Bill should go through as speedily as possible but, on the other hand, I would welcome a lengthy debate on the Bill because I do not believe the people really realise the advances that will be made in social welfare when this Bill is passed. It is up to Deputy Brennan now. If he wants to go on debating the provisions of the Bill I will welcome such a debate.

Mr. Brennan

I certainly did not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to say he wanted to curtail the debate on the Bill. Deputy Enright on the Government benches said that he is not concerned with what is in the Bill; he is concerned with what is not in the Bill. It is with what is not in the Bill that we are also concerned. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that we welcome the provisions in so far as they will benefit social welfare recipients, but we have the right to expose the promises that were broken. One of the promises was the abolition of the means test. That is what we are discussing in section 2. Section 2 merely seeks to keep parity with rising costs and improve the incomes of smallholders who are applicants for old age pensions. That is what we want to expose and we would be doing less than our duty as an Opposition if we did not make it known to the people that the Government, who promised the abolition of the means test before the election, are now not honouring that promise. We are not denigrating the improvements in the Bill, I had the pleasure of giving £1 to old age pensioners when there was not a penny for anything. I gave them a £1 last year and there was no song and dance about it. I did not regard it as enough and I would have liked to have been able to give more, but I did not promise I was going to do something I knew perfectly well I had no intention of doing. It is the broken promise we are concerned with and with the honour of the House and the disparity as between what people say and what they do. There is a vast gulf between the promise and the performance.

The Parliamentary Secretary's party promised the abolition of the means test and the reduction of the age to 65. Some people believed this. There never was a year since Fianna Fáil first took the line of improving social welfare when the people had the right to expect better benefits than they had on this occasion. They had this right because we shouted it to them from the housetops, from every platform on three occasions. We told them about the great improvements that were coming. We, in Fianna Fáil, told them what we had decided to give them and it is on record. We did not tell them anything we did not feel we could do. We did not promise the abolition of the means test. We certainly eased it each year. I would not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be fully conversant with all the workings of his Department but he will find out that each year social welfare benefits were increased. For old age pensioners the means test was automatically relaxed each year, in order to qualify for the minimum which now, over £9, gets the recipient 65 pence. Those are the things we are concerned about. The Parliamentary Secretary talks about a new approach, that the people are not going cap in hand. I candidly confess that I cannot understand what he means.

Mr. Cluskey

One really had to be a TD to find out what one was entitled to under the Fianna Fáil administration. Why should anybody have to go to a TD to find out what he is entitled to?

Mr. Brennan

I do not understand what he means.

Mr. Cluskey

If the Deputy was looking for some of the benefits he would find out very quickly.

Mr. Brennan

An applicant for old age pension completes a form, sends it to the Department of Social Welfare and after a time—sometimes a rather long delay—the investigation officer calls. There is no change in that system; there is no change in that approach. It is the exact same approach. What change has taken place? Is the Parliamentary Secretary trying to tell the House that he has done something new? The investigation officer comes in and asks the number of hens, geese, ducks and cattle you have. He must ascertain what your income is, what you enjoy, what he must put against you. There is no change whatever in that. Why the nonsense of talking about a new approach? I do not see it. The officer works out, on the scale presented to him by those of us who make laws in this House, what the man is entitled to. Is there any change in that system? The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to hang a debate on some sort of imaginary concept that I am not aware of. It is beyond me to understand what this talk about a new approach means.

I do not see where the new approach is. I have already pointed out that the new approach is that the pensioners were promised the abolition of the means test and that promise was dishonoured. It is difficult to understand a new approach of this kind. Last year £11.6 million was spent. The Parliamentary Secretary does not understand what he is talking about. In every year when I was Minister for Social Welfare, and in years when I was not Minister in that Department, the Government gave the major allocation of what was available to social welfare. The Parliamentary Secretary said that that Department got the residue after every other Department were satisfied. Last year the social welfare recipients were the only people who got anything. It was of great benefit to them.

We did not include the children's allowances last year because the whole scheme was under examination due to pressure from the Labour Party mainly, although not entirely, to have selectivity introduced. We had an interdepartmental committee examining the possibility of introducing selectivity and it was pressed by members of the Labour Party every time they spoke on social welfare. We gave the social welfare recipients £12 million last year for a full year.

Mr. Cluskey

You gave them £11.6 million.

Mr. Brennan

We gave them benefits without imposing one single penny of taxation, without sending up the inflationary spiral and without bringing in a budget that would erode the fruits of what we gave them. We gave £1 to each old age pensioner over 80 years. We are now discussing the means test. We gave £1 to pensioners over 80 years of age and 50p to others. This was without any bonanza from the EEC.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not made the slightest attempt to explain to the House why the Coalition Government, with their 14- or 15-point document promising the abolition of the means test—just as they promised a complete prices and income policy, although that is not relevant in this section—acted as they did. We had to stand at church gates and at platforms and listen to candidates promising that there would no longer be a means test if they supported the Coalition Government. We must now stand here humiliated and submit to a Deputy on the backbenches saying that we did not do too badly but we did not keep our promises. We are delighted that the pensioners got something which they were promised a thousand times from every party in this House over the past three years. Why mislead them? That is unexplained. What about the new approach which nobody on this side of the House can understand? It is there somewhere. It is peculiar. It is a strange thing. It is supernatural. It is only possible with some sort of supernatural wisdom to understand this new approach. Every single pensioner in the country must undergo the same performance as heretofore. The Government get away with a lot these days. They must be allowed their honeymoon and all the assistance of the media that is coming to them, but they are building up in the minds of the people an image which will not assist them, in so far as distrust and mistrust are concerned. Explain why you have left them down about the abolition of the means test.

Question put.

The Committee divided; Tá, 58; Níl, 31.

Tá.

Barry, Peter.
Barry, Richard.
Begley, Michael.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Bermingham, Joseph.
Bruton, John.
Burke, Dick.
Burke, Joan T.
Byrne, Hugh.
Cluskey, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlan, John F.
Cooney, Patrick M.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Kieran.
Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
Desmond, Barry.
Desmond, Eileen.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Enright, Thomas.
Esmonde, John G.
Finn, Martin.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Governey, Desmond.
Griffin, Brendan.
Hegarty, Patrick.
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Keating, Justin.
Kelly, John.
Kenny, Henry.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lynch, Gerald.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McMahon, Larry.
Malone, Patrick.
Murphy, Michael P.
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Connell, John.
O'Leary, Michael.
O'Sullivan, John L.
Pattison, Séamus.
Reynolds, Patrick J.
Ryan, John J.
Taylor, Frank.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Tully, James.
White, James.

Níl.

Andrews, David.
Brennan, Joseph.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, Seán.
Calleary, Seán.
Colley, George.
Connolly, Gerard.
Crinion, Brendan.
Crowley, Flor.
Cunningham, Liam.
Daly, Brendan.
Dowling, Joe.
Fahey, Jackie.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Healy, Augustine A.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Leonard, James.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
MacSharry, Ray.
Meaney, Tom.
Molloy, Robert.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Desmond.
Smith, Patrick.
Tunney, Jim.
Wilson, John P.
Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B, Desmond; Níl, Deputies Andrews and Browne.

Question declared lost.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that the quorum bells were not heard in parts of the building.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair made allowances for that fact. It was brought to the Chair's attention and allowances were made.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any figures to indicate how many new recipients are likely to be brought into the scheme because of the relaxed means test? Also, regarding the 4th July as being the operative date, the Parlamentary Secretary made it reasonably clear that it might be impossible physically for the Department to have payments made on that date. This type of problem was one that we encountered frequently in dealing with these matters. The Department always assured me that it was not possible physically to make payments within a short time. I accepted that and that was why, in announcing our scheme before the election, we said that payments would be made as and from 1st April of this year but that they would be made in retrospect. The date of the commencement of payments would be determined by the ability of the Department to deal with the matter. I doubt that the Department will be in a posiion to have these payments made on the date mentioned unless extra staff is available to them. We are prepared to accept that if the payments are not brought in on the date specified they will be paid retrospectively. The obvious means of overcoming this problem was the line taken by us. That was that payments would date from April 1st of the current financial year and that they would be made retrospectively as soon as it was possible for the Department to effect them, probably July or August. We did not specify a date because of the great strain that such changes impose on the Department.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary let me know how many additional persons will be put on the unemployed register as the result of the improved means test in respect of unemployment assistance?

Mr. Cluskey

As the Deputy must be aware, it is not possible to give an accurate figure as to how many persons will be affected by this legislation, but some figures which I have may be of assistance to him. These are that it is estmiated that the total number of persons comprehended in the increase will be composed of 49,000 applicants. 29.000 adult dependants—wives—and 75.000 child dependants. Regarding the date of operation, we hope that the payments will come into effect from the 4th July but, in the event of this not being possible in all cases, payments would, of course, be retrospective. At the moment I am not aware that that situation will arise.

Mr. Brennan

I accept that it may be possible to honour the date specified in respect of the increased benefits which means merely increasing the amounts. The reason I was trying to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary the number of new claimants and, consequently, the number of new recipients who would benefit as a result of the changed means test, was that this is where the backlog of work could prevent the operative date from being adhered to. The applications of a large number of new claimants would have to be examined, thereby creating a blockage in the working of the Department.

The Parliamentary Secretary has been referring to a restructuring of existing schemes and to the introduction of a new comprehensive scheme and all that nonsense. The social welfare structure is sound. Basically, it is comprehensive, and requires only additions and improvements. When I introduced the Employment Period Order a couple of years ago I found that there were a large number of chronically unemployed persons in this country, persons who would not be taken off the unemployment register, irrespective of what employment might be provided. As the Parliamentary Secretary may verify from the records in the Department, my arrangement was to transfer such persons to national assistance, thereby not requiring them to complete a non-employment certificate each week. These are people who are not available for work for many reasons—for example, because of age, family conditions or infirmities—but they are persons who are in need of the weekly payments they have been receiving.

One has only to consider the situation that arises when a new factory goes into operation in any town to realise the veracity of what I am saying. If, say, there is an unemployment figure in the local exchange of 400 people and if a factory beginning production employs 600 people, it will usually be found that almost the entire 400 people continue to be registered at the local employment exchange. This situation results from the fact that industrialists seek out school leavers or other young and active people who have been employed in other organisations. Therefore, in regard to unemployment assistance, if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to engage in a useful exercise, I suggest that he follow up my proposed change in the home assistance field. This would provide that the chronically unemployed would be brought into a national assistance scheme and, consequently, written off the unemployment register. Apart from this aspect of the section, there is nothing in it to which I take exception.

Mr. Cluskey

Undoubtedly the staff in Social Welfare are and, indeed, will be under very severe pressure in order to ensure as far as possible that these payments will be made at the appropriate date. Having regard to the sheer volume of claims and reassessment of claims going through the Department, with the best will an the world, there will be some delay. I would ask Deputies to bear this in mind when the time comes. However, every possible effort is being made to ensure that the payment will be made on the appropriate date. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the tremendous amount of work being done by the staff to ensure that.

Deputy Brennan made one very significant point, and it relates to an exchange we had on the other section which is also appropriate to this one. Deputy Brennan said that we have— and it is quite true—a large number of chronically unemployable persons, and he suggested that we should remove them from the unemployment register onto the home assistance register. While accepting that we have a large proportion of people in that category, I do not accept that it would solve our society's problems to any extent to transfer them from one register to another or from one set of figures to another. Deputy Brennan also made the point, properly, that where a new industry is set up in certain areas and job opportunities become available in those areas, it does not have any significant effect on the number of people registering as unemployed in the area because of this large number of what he described as chronically unemployable people.

That is where the new approach to social welfare comes in. It is not a question of transferring people from one section to another but of realising that we have this problem, that it is not an individual problem but a family problem, because in the majority of cases, for various reasons mostly outside their control the people who fall into this category are the heads of families. Unless we do something more than provide monetary assistance we are perpetuating that type of problem. The whole approach to Social Welfare must be not only to assist the individual and the family in their immediate needs but to find ways and means of getting them out of this terrible situation in which they find themselves as a family. Unless we do that, we are not going to make any contribution whatsoever to solving this question of poverty which looms very large in our society. I am glad Deputy Brennan illustrated the high proportion of people we have in our society in this category.

Mr. Cunningham

The Parliamentary Secretary talked about heads of families, but when Deputy Brennan was speaking he mentioned specifically those who are excluded under the employment period order a couple of years ago and were as the Parliamentary Secretary will know, single persons.

There are signs of persons being approached and asked: "how long is it since you sought work? Have you evidence of where you worked?" This is periodical. This happened before. It is happening now, too. The Parliamentary Secretary is talking about a new approach, but if this is done these people will find themselves without any means. My suggestion was that the newlyorientated home assistance scheme, being nationalised, would make a national assistance payment to these people without dragging them in weekly to sign a certificate that they were capable of, available for, and genuinely seeking employment. These are people who could not exist without some weekly assistance to which they have adapted themselves for many years. Some have invalid brothers, some elderly parents and some are themselves not in a position, through bodily infirmity, to undertake work. This is a section that is being provided for under the Unemployment Assistance Acts for a long time but which in actual fact does not qualify under these Acts. I am not suggesting that payment should be discontinued; they must get something although it is being erroneously described at present.

Mr. Briscoe

In regard to the separate list for what are termed chronically unemployed, I am quite certain that Deputy Brennan had no intention of simply transferring people from one list to another; there was much deeper thought behind it. It is something which I have felt for a considerable time we should do, that is, have a list of the people who have been unemployed for, say, two or three years and who could be considered as chronically unemployed. I should like to know what specific proposals the Parliamentary Secretary has to deal with these people? Will he set up a special unit in his Department to investigate the rehabilitation of these people? Something like that might be worthwhile. A sample might be taken of people in an area where—to cite Deputy Brennan's example—an industry arises with 500 jobs to offer and the local employment exchange shows little if any fall in the number registered there. I am sure that new industries would want a realistic assessment of the true unemployment figure in an area. If there is an area of high unemployment, where it can be shown that work is available within a reasonable distance, an industrialist considering the area will want to know why. Possibly he would be interested in taking on some of those who have been unemployed for a significant length of time.

From the Government point of view also I should have thought they would be most anxious to know the true unemployment figure. As public representatives we have all met people who would not work in a fit: unfortunately such people exist in every society, people who will make no attempt to get a job and if sent for interview will not take the job. I see nothing wrong in the suggestion that a study of such people be made and, if possible, a list of people made out, people who have been unemployed longer than two or three years. This is not to say that such people are the flotsam of society—that is not suggested—but, I would emphasise, in order to arrive at a true figure a study like this must be undertaken. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this or tell the House now what specific steps he has in mind to deal with this matter.

Mr. Cunningham

I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's statement regarding his lack of knowledge of the fact that there seems to be a fairly widespread—I can only speak of my own constituency—reinvestigation. There has been an issue of forms which have to be completed. During a previous Coalition period, 1954-57, I remember that definite instructions were given to key Fine Gael members in certain areas—I raised this in 1954-55—to report on people who in their opinion were wrongly receiving unemployment assistance. A copy of a letter was there suggesting to a certain Fine Gael supporter from the Fine Gael organisation that people of this kind should be reported and reinvestigated. I raised the matter in the House then and went into it fairly thoroughly. I am satisfied such instructions were given. I hope that is not what is happening now: I am not making the same charge. At a time when the previous Minister says that in order to operate the provisions of this Bill it will be necessary to have all available staff engaged on it, I cannot see any good reason why if the Department's staff will be put to the pin of their collars to meet the July 1st deadline this reinvestigation is taking place now. I hope no appreciable number of people will be knocked off the unemployment assistance register as a result of what is taking place. I emphasise that I can only speak for my own constituency.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Corish)

I want to assure the Deputy who has made the allegation on two occasions to the effect that there was an attempt by the Department of Social Welfare to knock people off unemployment assistance that the contrary is the fact. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary said it—I gather from Deputy Cunningham's remarks that he did during today's debate—but, rather than engage in that sort of activity every single section of the Department is being strained to the utmost to ensure that people will get the benefits applicable from the first week in July. To do this is indeed a big task but I have every confidence that the vast majority, 99 per cent of the people, will get their increases in the first week in July. That was the instruction given to the officials of the Department and as far as the Parliamentary Secretary and myself are aware within the Department the machine is certainly operating.

I also want to assure Deputy Cunningham, because I think I was Minister for Social Welfare in 1954-55, that such an allegation was never brought to my notice or if so, I do not remember it. I have nothing but contempt for those who give certain information in respect of social assistance to any of the investigating officers to the effect that some man is working. On the contrary, I want to tell the House that I am also telling the Department to ignore every anonymous letter that comes in. I agree that in some cases they may be valid but in the vast majority of cases, as far as I am aware, they are only mischief makers who make a lot of extra work for officials, locally and in the Department.

Deputies Briscoe and Brennan asked about a change in the system for determining the number on the unemployed register and the types. I know there are a big number of unemployable people but I should hate to have them designated as unemployable. The whole question does not impinge so much on social welfare and in this measure it is not intended to do anything dramatic now in the entire social welfare field. All we are doing is giving £38 million or £39 million towards the relief of people who need it. The other problems will begin to be tackled this year.

I announced in Blarney last week at a conference of social workers that my intention, as Minister for Health is to employ many more social workers and to give them the necessary funds for training and so on. These workers can investigate the types of cases Deputies Brennan and Briscoe referred to. These people may have domestic troubles or mental problems which make up their mental attitude to work. I have the greatest sympathy with the fellow who was sacked 15 years ago, who tried to get work for five years thereafter and who then gave up trying.

This raises the whole question of unemployment. As a TD for my constituency I have to attend the courts of appeal and it is there we see the real problems. I have had occasion from time to time to say into the ear of the assessor what I knew about this man or that. I have found him to be very humane. I have had to say: "If that person were offered a position he would not be acceptable to the employer", or "If he thought the job would last for only two weeks he would not accept it".

I know the former Minister, Deputy Brennan, had some tentative proposals, as I suggested in a speech some years ago, for the establishment of a system of national assistance. I would not be wed to such a system. I have seen Deputy Brennan's tentative proposals. I realise this is a problem and my Parliamentary Secretary, with special responsibility in this field, realises it, but do not let anybody think that there will be any effort on my part as Minister or on the Parliamentary Secretary's part to reduce the numbers of unemployed by the method suggested by Deputy Cunningham. There is no question of any directive being issued to any official to try to take anybody off social assistance.

Mr. Reynolds

I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for having given the social welfare classes the substantial increases contained in the budget. It is all very well to ask which changes have come about but one can recall that for every £1 spent last year on social welfare there will be £5 spent this year. That is a great change and it is badly needed. It is also an excellent idea to try to pay the increased benefits from 1st July. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary fails in his attempt to do this at least he will have tried. For donkey's years we have been told these increased benefits could not be paid until October or January. There was always a song and dance about it, although the people who paid for the increases, those who take a drink, who smoke or who burn petrol, had to pay the increased duty on the day it was announced in the budget. Thank God this change has come.

In regard to chronic unemployment, about which the Minister and Deputy Brennan have spoken, there is no doubt the list will have to be looked into seriously. I agree that unemployable people have been getting benefits for years. Perhaps in their early stages they were fully entitled to them but they have remained in that category and the Department never did anything to take them out of it.

I do not agree with the suggestion that they be taken off unemployment assistance and put on home assistance. They would have to go to the home assistance office, fill in forms and then queue for their benefits on Tuesday or Wednesday. If they are to be removed from the present list, and I sincerely think they should be, putting them on home assistance would not solve the problem. For instance, local authorities who contribute towards home assistance from the rates would blame the Government for shedding their responsiblility in this respect. The obligation is on the Exchequer, on the Government of the day, to see that those people are looked after in a proper way.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

This makes better provision for widows. They have created a very strong lobby in recent years and I am sorry to say they had difficulty in striking a chord with those associated with social welfare. Last year, with £12 million at my disposal, I gave to widows' dependants a better increase than to the dependants of other social welfare recipients.

My feeling always has been towards widows with dependants, although I have not a lot of sympathy for widows without dependants. Such widows are not very different from single women, although some of them may be saddled with trying to maintain houses left to them by their husbands. On the other hand, the widow with dependants deserves our best efforts. She cannot go out to work or go out into the social world because she must look after her children by every means possible. Section 9 of this Bill makes certain provisions for widows in that they will not be liable for contributions when they work.

Last year I relaxed to a limited extent the amount they could earn before it reflected on their pensions. I thought the Minister would have gone further in that direction this year. When I met representatives of the widows' organisation in a deputation and when I confronted them on telvision they had two complaints. One was that widows were only allowed half the benefits when they applied for unemployment assistance or disability allowance as a result of the contributory rights they had built up when in employment. The second complaint was that when recipients of non-contributory pensions were employed and they earned over a certain figure they lost part of their allowance. I do not want to appear to be talking too much about what I would have done but I must say that widows have a genuine case and I would like to have done something for them towards easing their situation.

The allowances here are unlikely to benefit the widow who is confined to the house and who cannot accept employment. The widow without dependants is likely to remarry but the widow with small children is not likely to remarry. Any social welfare benefit that can be given to widows would be welcomed by all of us. We lag very much behind the UK social welfare system. They give a lump sum to a widow at the time of her husband's death. We do not do anything like that. As well as that, the UK give very generous payments for six months and then the widow goes on to the ordinary widow's allowance. I thought the lump sum was very justifiable and I would like to have done something for Irish widows perhaps by giving them something at the time their husbands died. Widows could be given better assistance particularly during the first year after their husbands die or until some of the children cease to be dependant on them and are able to contribute to the family income.

Some years ago I extended the age limit for dependants of widows from 16 to 18 years and up to 21 years if the dependants were still at school. That was a move in the right direction. When widow's dependants cease to receive an allowance they are put out to work too soon so that they can earn money which is needed so much at home.

I have no quarrel with anything that is given in this section. We are giving £1 here. In the scheme which we announced before the election we would certainly have been very generous towards widows and their dependants. Any worthwhile widow's pension scheme should be considerably weighted in respect of widows with dependants as against widows without any dependants.

Mr. Cunningham

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say if the allowance paid to those in full-time attendance at post-primary schools up to 18 years of age and also those serving full-time apprenticeships will be paid to other categories up to 18 years of age who are physically unable to do either? I refer to those people who are unable to attend school because of physical or mental ailments. Those people are not able to attend apprenticeship courses either. Will that category be covered here?

Mr. Cluskey

Actually, for those who come within that category the age is 21 years.

Mr. Cunningham

Does that mean that the type of person I mentioned will be covered up to 18 years of age?

Mr. Cluskey

The categories which are now covered up to 18 years in two-parent families will be eligible in the case of widows' children and if they meet those other requirements up to 21 years of age.

Mr. Cunningham

In the case of two-parent families where children's allowances are payable up to 18 years of age if they are attending school they will be covered. Perhaps this does not come under this section.

Mr. Cluskey

The extension from 16 to 18 years comes under section 6.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy might raise it when we come to the section.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

This section which relates to orphans makes provision for £4.50 a week for them. In most cases they are under the charge of guardians and somebody draws the children's allowances in respect of them. Will orphans who are cared for in institutions receive this allowance and the children's allowance? This has always been a sore point with the people in charge of institutions. Many of these institutions which are run on a voluntary basis, depend on the subscriptions they get from the general public and, perhaps, a subvention from the Exchequer through the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health. They always felt aggrieved about the payment of orphans' pensions and children's allowances. Has the Minister any change here? In what circumstances are those allowances paid while the children are in institutions?

Mr. Cluskey

There is no change in that regard. It still continues as it was in previous years.

Mr. Brennan

I am afraid we will have to look at that next year.

Mr. Cluskey

Please God we will, too.

Mr. Wyse

Would the Parliamentary Secretary define "apprentice"? I know of a case of a widow with a young girl who may wish to become an apprentice computer programmer or something of that kind. Would she come under that category?

Mr. Cluskey

I think that is on section 6.

Mr. Wyse

A child will qualify if he is receiving full-time education, is an apprentice or is disabled.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

I still deprecate the fact that we have not introduced a measure of selectivity here other than the clawback system which takes back children's allowances from the unfortunate taxpayer. If I interpreted correctly the motion before the House when the budget was going through, he is compelled to apply for children's allowances, and then it is clawed back in his income tax. This takes only a few within the net and the limit set is not high enough anyhow. We will still be paying children's allowances to fairly wealthy people and, if we were not, we would have money to give to the big families of poor parents.

I will deal with some of the points raised. Deputy Brennan said he knew some people who regarded children's allowances as a nuisance. All I can say is that it must be nice to know such people. I do not come across too many in that category and the response I have had to the proposed increases in children's allowance has been, to say the least, very favourable. One great advantage it has which has been acknowledged generally is that it helps where help is most needed. It helps large families and gives the type of financial assistance that is welcomed by these people. The question arises not only of the increases but also the extension of the qualifying age from 16 to 18 years for various qualified children.

As far as the clawback is concerned, that is a matter for the Department of Finance It does not come within my scope at all. If someone does not wish to apply for the increase he should, I suggest, make that fact known to the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Welfare will be only too glad to confirm it. I will go no further than that.

I want to support Deputy Brennan on this because for some time I had been talking to him about this scheme. I do not think sufficient emphasis is placed on it. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to give a lot more attention to this. This scheme is saving the State thousands of pounds if not more by keeping people in their own homes. It is the wish of every old person to end his days at his own fireside. This is being made possible by relative's and being backed up by voluntary work. Voluntary associations are coming to people with meals-on-wheels, home nursing, et cetera. Anything the Parliamentary Secretary can do in this respect is worthwhile because it is saving the State an amount of money. Recently I checked with an institution about an old lady of 83 and they told me that it was costing £24 or £25 to keep her. That is not the place for old people but their own homes. We have certain obligations to help families to keep their parents in their own homes. Wonderful work is being done. It must be backed up by this service.

Mr. Cluskey

I was particularly impressed by the concern and sincerity of both Deputy Wyse and Deputy Brennan speaking on this subject. I accept fully the desirability from every point of view of doing as much as possible to encourage the development of this scheme. I can assure the House that I will encourage this development.

Deputy Wyse is talking about cases where the grandmother may have custody of the child for the time being.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

This is the section where the widow is exempt from contribution either by the employer or the employee.

Mr. Cluskey

No.

Mr. Brennan

Yes. The Explanatory Memorandum reads:

In the opening speech reference was made to this. It was stated that the ordinary tests of inability for employment would be applied and it is only natural that they should. One of the most important aims of any party or Government is to achieve full employment. We must accept that every employment agency operating in this country, and the manpower service at the Department of Labour, have a big list of vacancies for female workers. There is a shortage of female labour in this country.

Deputy White can verify that in his home town of Ballyshannon a factory was, at one time, short of as many as 200 female workers. The question of work being offered to females by the employment exchanges is a very important factor in this service. I shall speak on another occasion on what is likely to happen between the employment exchanges and the manpower service. The employment exchanges may feel that they have no longer a duty to offer employment to people. This was the purpose for which they were set up. Vacancies existing in an area should be frequently made known to those who are applicants for assistance. This does not necessarily disqualify them because the question of distance and suitability in regard to the state of their health and age comes into the reckoning in deciding whether they should be deprived of benefits when they refuse the work.

There are sufficient opportunities for female workers and a shortage of them. In making it possible for them to easily obtain benefits the Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening speech, said that these tests for availability would be applied and I agree with him. I agree with this section.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Before Deputy Brennan divides the House, I would welcome the opportunity of appraising him of some of the facts. One of the objectives of this Government is the elimination of the means test. Deputy Brennan states that had there not been a change of Government he would have reduced the qualifying age in respect of old age pensions to an age lower than 69. I think he mentioned 68.

Mr. Brennan

We were not committed to a specific age.

Mr. Cluskey

Apparently, Fianna Fáil were not so committed since 1908, the year in which the qualifying age of 70 came into operation. I cannot hold the Minister responsible for what happened since 1908 but surely it would be fair and reasonable to hold him responsible for what happened or did not happen during the 16 consecutive years of Fianna Fáil Government even if we ignore the other years they have been in office since the foundation of this State.

I find it annoying to hear Deputy Brennan try to latch on to this issue as if it were a political confidence trick that we played on the people. What was spelled out in specific terms by the now Taoiseach in a speech at Rathmines in regard to social welfare during the general election campaign has been honoured to the full. It is and will continue to be the goal of this Government to achieve a comprehensive scheme that will not involve a means test. I find it difficult to apologise for having achieved in three months one-fifth of what we set out to achieve when Fianna Fáil could not even get off the ground in these matters. I can assure the Deputy that before Fianna Fáil drain the Shannon we will have brought the qualifying age for the old age pension down to 65.

Mr. Brennan

What I take exception to is the promise to reduce the qualifying age and then not to honour that promise. Three years ago we reduced the age to 65 in respect of contributory old age pensions. It would be my hope that every person would be put on a contributory basis. In this way I had hoped to eliminate the means test. There are four times more widows in receipt of contributory pensions than there are in receipt of non-contributory pensions.

Mr. Esmonde

Is the Deputy not discriminating?

Mr. Brennan

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about. These people on contributory pensions may go abroad or work, if they wish, while continuing to draw the benefits. The means of reducing the old age pension qualifying age to 65 would be to put everybody on a contributory basis. However, the important point is that we did not make a promise which we did not honour. Let us remember, too, that in 1908 the average life expectation was much lower than it is today. At 70 today, a man is only young. There are many such persons on the other side and they are like young fellows.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

As I said on the Second Reading, section 14 deals with the increased rate of employment contribution. I have a suspicion which the Parliamentary Secretary refuted in his closing speech on the Second Reading—that the Department of Finance have succeeded in extracting from him on the Estimate more than their normal amount and that they will not have to contribute to the social insurance fund the 33? per cent approximately which they contributed in the past. The real information can only be ascertained in retrospect by asking a question at the end of the financial year and the Minister's Estimate now will be caught up with whatever the factual position will then be.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the increase of last year but this year there is no greater strain. About two years ago we gave a £1 across the board increase, the same as the Minister is giving this time, and there is no greater strain on the resources of the social insurance fund this year than there was then. Why should the increase be greater now? The Department of Finance will always seek to get the better side in all these cases unless the Minister is eternally vigilant. I believe that the employer who is already mulcted with more than the usual portion and the employee, to the relief of the Exchequer, are coming to the aid of the social insurance fund this year through this amount being added to the stamp. I put that assertion on the record.

Mr. Cunningham

Section 14 deals with increases in contributions. I want to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary a class of contributor against which I think there is discrimination. A large volume of the country's shirt production is carried out in the northern part of Donegal. When married women who become unemployed apply for unemployment benefit they are refused in many cases. I do not say it happens in every case but it has been my experience that if a shirt factory worker applies for benefit, especially if she is married, it is refused. The argument is that there is no unemployment in shirt factories and that the reason she is not employed is not a shortage of work but because she has to look after a child or children. I, with other Deputies, attended meetings of shirt factory workers, especially married workers and as a result they, through us, requested that the Minister meet a deputation from them.

In the shirt industry, which is a very skilled business where each girl is individually trained in a certain operation within the factory, it can and does very frequently happen that in some operations there may be a shortage of workers while in others there may be surplus workers and unemployment. Again, there is seasonal unemployment and part-time operation. I know that some factories at present are operating three days a week. Yet, if a married woman applies for unemployment benefit she is invariably refused. I think they are being discriminated against, even more so now when the contributions they must pay are being increased.

Mr. Wyse

I think there is a danger in regard to these contributions. There was no necessity this year to increase the contribution by worker and employer. If increases were given across the board contributions were also certainly taken across the board. The middle income group suffers the impact of all this. The increase could be dangerous particularly in the case of a small employer, a man employing 15 or 20 people and living from day to day. He is saddled with this increase. I know small employers because I have worked with them and sometimes this type of increase can lead to redundancy where an employer will say: "I cannot pay the extra amount; it means I must dismiss at least one worker". There is this danger. Personally, I am disappointed with the Parliamentary Secretary that he did increase the contribution this year because what the workers have got did not necessitate this increase.

Mr. Cluskey

As Deputy Brennan said, it is only possible to judge the Exchequer contribution in retrospect. The basis on which the total estimate was made up did not anticipate any reduction in Exchequer expenditure. Whether this will be the fact can only be borne out by time. In regard to the proportion of the stamp being borne by the employer, I think I did say on the Second Stage that this only follows the normal established pattern in other EEC countries. Indeed, we would have to burden the employer substantially more than has been the practice if we were to come any way near some of the other EEC member countries. If Deputies look at the situation realistically they will see that whether the employer be small or large the percentage of the stamp contribution of his total wages bill is very small.

Mr. Brennan

It is not fair to make comparisons between a State which employs 350,000 people and a country with three or four million workers, with a country which has full employment in respect of the weekly mulcting of people for stamps. The Parliamentary Secretary said the percentage of an employer's bill paid towards stamps is very small. It is not. The contribution is at least £3.13 per week in relation to each worker, and there is a motion for discussion in the House to have the redundancy stamp increased. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that £3.13 is about twice what road workers were being paid when Fianna Fáil came to power. An employer who has five or six workers must pay £12 a week in stamp money. It is not skittles, as the Parliamentary Secretary says. We do not object to the principle but I object to putting out the impression that we could not charge the employer enough, that the more we charge him the better. We must go as easily and as carefully as we can with the goose that lays the golden egg.

Mr. P. Belton

The customer always has to pay.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed : "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Wyse

During the Second Reading I drew attention to injustices in regard to disability and unemployment benefits. In connection with the latter, a dispute may arise between a worker and his employer and in the heat of the moment the employer might dismiss the worker who reports to the local exchange to be told that he cannot receive any assistance for six weeks while the case is being investigated. He could be a married man with a family. Benefits should be paid while the matter is being investigated. After all, the man has contributed towards those benefits and may have been doing so for 30 or 40 years. He has not abused the service. He has been accused by the employer and by inference by the Department who say he will not get his benefits until he has proved himself innocent.

Mr. Cluskey

It may present problems but I am glad the Deputy accepts it is well worth trying.

I think it will because, if the amendment were not made, they would be at a disadvantage.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages today.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Brennan

Briefly, the benefits in the Bill are very welcome. Every single year for the past 16 years social welfare benefits have been improved. This year, by reason of the many campaigns which were conducted on referenda and elections, the people were not merely led to believe that they would get generous benefits but were told explicitly the benefits they would derive as a result. We spelled out our scheme and so did the Coalition. The Coalition schemes, the £1 across the board benefits, were much the same as what we spelled out, except that we had £1 for adult dependants and the Bill provides 50p for adult dependants. We had a selective scheme for children's allowances. We were exceptionally generous to big families of poor parents. It was a good scheme. The recipients were led to expect a lot. The EEC Referendum was sold to them on the grounds that the money made available would be used for social welfare purposes. They must be sorely disappointed that the Government have not lived up to the promises they made—the reduction of the pension age to 65 and the abolition of the means test. To the old age pensioners this must be a grievous disappointment.

Mr. Creed

The benefits given in this bill are welcomed by social welfare recipients. I want to deal with a point made by Deputy Brennan, former Minister for Social Welfare, who has great experience in that Department. When he was Minister and we were in Opposition, we brought to his attention the delays in his Department in dealing with applications. He referred here to the reduction of the qualifying age for non-contributory old age pensions. He must realise at this stage that when you reduce the qualifying age from 70 to 69 you are in fact, processing two years' applications in one year.

I do not know what they voted against, but they could muster only 31 out of a total of 69 Deputies, which clearly indicates that the Deputies opposite believe in the budget.

Mr. Browne

If I were on the Government benches I would not follow that line of argument. We are trying to assist the Government side as best we can——

Mr. Reynolds

God bless you.

Mr. Browne

——by pairing no fewer than 12 of their Members in this House today. We could have another 20 Deputies if we were not prepared to facilitate the Government.

Mr. Creed

That is a ridiculous argument. We have only two of a majority.

Mr. Kelly

I wonder would you allow me to acknowledge now the courtesy I received from both Deputy Browne and Deputy Andrews, the Opposition Whip, in regard to pairing. What Deputy Browne has said is perfectly true; we were facilitated in regard to these II or 12 pairs, but that does not detract from the force of the argument as to the disproportion between the votes cast on the Government and on the Opposition sides of the House.

Mr. Colley

I had not intended to intervene and I shall not delay the House, but I am prompted to intervene because of what Deputy Creed said. First of all, I want to make the point I made in the debate on the budget: whatever Government was in power, if there had not been substantial social welfare benefits in the budget, that Government would have been run out of office overnight, and we all know that on both sides of this House. The second point I want to make is that Deputy Creed, lest anybody who may listen to him may believe that what he said is true, is quite wrong in saying that the National Coalition made no commitment to reduce the qualifying age to 65 and to abolish the means test——

Mr. Creed

In one year.

Mr. Colley

——for non-contributory pensions. There are thousands who heard the commitment being made by the present Minister for Local Government, who was then spokesman on finance for the Labour Party, and he was in the company of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was then the spokesman on finance for the Fine Gael Party: the latter did not demur in any way When the present Minister for Local Government said on television that the National Coalition Government would in its first year of office reduce the age to 65 and abolish the means test. Whatever argument the Coalition may wish to make to get out of that now, let us not argue about whether or not the commitment was made; there were too many thousands Who heard the commitment being made to argue about the fact now and Deputy Creed could usefully use his ingenuity in explaining away non-compliance. There is no doubt the promise was made.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 19 Jun 1973

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare Bill, 1973 : Committee and Final Stages.

Tá.

Níl.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 Jun 1973