Returns to Writs: North-East Galway and West Galway. - Social Welfare Bill, 1975: Second Stage. – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Tuesday, 11 Mar 1975

Returns to Writs: North-East Galway and West Galway. - Social Welfare Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill is concerned with the extensions and improvements of the social insurance and social assistance schemes which were provided for in the budget. The Bill also provides for increases, consequential on the budget increases, in occupational injuries benefits and improvements of the scheme of voluntary insurance and the school meals scheme operated by urban local authorities.

As Deputies will understand, Bills such as this contain a number of provisions which are amendments to existing legislation and are necessarily technical. The explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill is aimed at clarifying these provisions and I hope that Deputies will have been helped by it in their examination of the Bill.

The provisions contained in this Bill represent a further advance in the Government's social programme. They fulfil the undertakings given to the people in the White Paper A National Partnership which stated that “the Government believe that those who are dependent on social welfare payments should be cushioned against price rises and should also be assured of at least an adequate maintenance of their position vis-á-vis other sections of the community”.

The increases announced in the budget and provided for in this Bill do not just keep pace with inflation. They represent a real increase and they are in line with the Government's policy of improving the position of all social welfare recipients.

With the implementation in April of the various improvements covered by the Bill, the rates of social welfare payments will have been raised by this Government since 1973 by figures which range from 66 per cent in the case of some personal rates of benefit, to 80-90 per cent for single-parent families and to 96-140 per cent for child dependent allowances. Children's allowances—which it is proposed to raise again for the third successive year—will have gone up since 1973 by 360 per cent for the first child, by 140 per cent for the second child and by 93 per cent for the third and subsequent children. In the same period, the cost of living has risen by between 35 and 40 per cent.

Total Exchequer expenditure on Social Welfare, that is on the services administered by the Department of Social Welfare, in 1975 is now estimated at approximately £210 million, compared with £92 million in 1972-73. This increase of over 125 per cent, which far outstrips inflation, is an accurate reflection of the expansion and improvement of our Social Welfare services which are regarded as central to the social reform programme of the Government.

The budget proposals for social welfare involved a substantial increase in the rates of non-contributory old age and blind pensions, a further easing of the means test and a further reduction in the qualifying age for pension from 68 to 67 years. The maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory pension is being raised from £7.30 to £8.85 for persons under 80 years of age and from £7.85 to £9.55 for persons aged 80 and over. The maximum weekly payment for dependent spouses who are not themselves entitled to pension is being raised from £3.65 to £4.40 so that the overall weekly payment for a non-contributory pensioner with a dependent spouse will, at maximum rates, be increased from £10.95 to £13.25 or, if the pensioner is aged 80 or over, from £11.50 to £13.95. In addition, increases of pension for qualified children of pensioners are being raised by 40p a week to £2.35 for each of the first two children and by 30p a week to £1.80 for each further child while the payment for a prescribed relative looking after an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £4.15 to £4.95.

The further easing of the means test, by disregarding the first £6 of assessed weekly means instead of the first £5 as at present, will again improve the position of existing pensioners who have less than the maximum pension. The increase in the amount of means which can be disregarded for pension purposes will apply only in the case of means in the form of current income. Generally, it will not apply where the means take the form of ownership of capital as the existing provisions in regard to the assessment of such means are sufficiently liberal.

In addition, the reduction in the qualifying age from 68 to 67 will bring some 10,500 new pensioners into the scheme. The total number of pensions affected by the improvements in the non-contributory old age and blind pensions schemes will be 156,000 made up of 124,000 existing pensioners, 11,500 new pensioners, 15,500 adult dependants and 5,000 children.

Non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions are being similarly improved. The maximum weekly personal rate of pension will be increased by £1.55 to £8.85 and the first £6 of weekly means will likewise be ignored. The weekly amounts payable in respect of qualified children are being increased by 55p to £2.95. Together with the existing amounts of a widow's earnings which may be disregarded in assessing her means, the ignoring of the first £6 of weekly income will allow a widow greater scope for supplementing her income by earnings. Thus a widow with no other means who has two children could earn up to £9 a week and still draw the new maximum pension of £14.75 for herself and her two children. The increased weekly rates and the easing of the means test will apply also to the allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives.

An estimated 12,500 widows will benefit from the improvements in the scheme, of whom about 200 will be new pensioners. Additionally, some 2,600 deserted wives with 3,100 children, 2,200 unmarried mothers with 2,300 children and 100 prisoners' wives with 300 children will also benefit from the improvements. The weekly rates of non-contributory orphan's pension are being increased by £1 bringing the maximum rate to £5.75.

I turn now to unemployment assistance. The maximum weekly rates of payment are being increased by £1.35 to £7.70 for persons in urban areas and by £1.30 to £7.35 for persons resident elsewhere. The rate for an adult dependant is being increased by 95p bringing the maximum rate for a married couple to £13.25 in an urban area and to £12.80 elsewhere. The rates for children will go up to £2.35 for each of the first two and to £1.80 for the third and each subsequent child. It is estimated that the average number of persons who will benefit from these increases will be 62,000 including about 24,000 smallholders together with some 37,000 adult dependants and 102,000 dependent children.

There are increases also in the general children's allowances scheme. The monthly rates of the allowances are being increased by 30p for the second and each subsequent child. The rate for the first child will remain at £2.30 but the rate for the second child will become £3.60 and will be £4.35 for the third and each further child. The number of families who will benefit from the increase in rates is about 275,000 involving about 720,000 children.

Last year we introduced a scheme of allowances for single women who had attained the age of 58 years. The means test applied in this scheme is broadly on the same lines as for unemployment assistance and the maximum rate of allowance is the same as the urban rate of that assistance. The weekly rates are being increased by £1.35 to a maximum £7.70 and will, accordingly, remain in line with unemployment assistance for persons in urban areas.

The reduction in pensionable age affects not only the qualifying age for old age pensions but also the maximum age up to which short-term benefits such as disability and unemployment benefit can be paid. Liability for the payment of social insurance contributions will, of course, also cease at 67 years instead of 68 as at present. A number of "saver" clauses have been included in section 10 to protect the position of existing pensioners and persons approaching the age of 68 years. These saver clauses are similar to those enacted in last year's Social Welfare Act which also reduced pensionable age. I may mention here that in consequence of the reduction in pension age to 67 all persons of that age, whether pensioners or not, will now become entitled to benefit from the free travel arrangements. The free electricity and free television licence concessions will also be available to qualified pensioners over 67 years.

I come now to increases in the rates of pensions and short-term benefits under the social insurance system. In the case of retirement pension and old age, contributory, pension the personal rates go up by £2 a week to £10.50 where the pensioner is under the age of 80 and to £11.10 where the pensioner is aged 80 or over. The allowances for adult dependants are being increased by £1.15 for those under 67 years and by £1.40 for those who are 67 years or over. The payment for a prescribed relative looking after an incapacitated pensioner is being increased from £4.15 to £4.95 as in the case of non-contributory old age pensioners. The personal rates of widow's, contributory, pension and deserted wife's benefit are being increased by £1.70 to £9.50 a week. In the case of a recipient of widow's, contributory, pension who is aged 80 or over, the increase will be £1.80 a week. The new weekly rates of flat-rate unemployment and disability benefit will be increased by £1.65 to £9.40 for a single person and the allowance for an adult dependant will be increased by £1.05 to £6.10 a week. Maternity allowance is also being increased by £1.65 to £9.40 a week.

The allowances paid with pensions and other benefits in respect of qualified children are also being increased. In the case of widow's, contributory, pension and deserted wife's benefit the increase is 60p for each child and in the case of the remaining pensions and benefits the increase is 45p for each of the first two children and 40p for each other child.

In addition to these flat-rate benefit payments, pay-related benefit is payable also as a supplement to unemployment and disability benefit, maternity allowance, and in certain circumstances, with occupational injury benefit.

Some examples of the effect of the increases may be of interest to Deputies. In the case of retirement pension and old age, contributory, pension a married pensioner whose spouse is aged 67 or over will, at the maximum rate, receive a weekly pension of £18.40 as against the present £15, or £19 as against £15.60 if the pensioner is aged 80 or over. A widow with two qualified children will get £15.80 a week compared with £12.90 at present, and one with four qualified children will get £22.10 as against £18. In the case of unemployment benefit and disability benefit a married man with two qualified children will receive £20.80 a week as compared with £17.20. A man with four qualified children will receive £25.20 a week as against £20.80 at present.

In line with the improvements in the general social insurance system, the Bill also provides for increases in the rates of various benefits payable under the occupational injuries scheme. The increase in weekly rates will be broadly in line with those provided in the general social insurance benefits.

I come now to the question of the increase in the rates of social insurance contributions which cover all benefits of the social insurance system. This year, the total increase in the contribution will comprise two elements of which the first will be in respect of increases in benefits and pensions and the general improvements to be made in social insurance schemes. The second element of the increase has its origin in the current unemployment position. Deputies will recall that in the course of his budget statement the Minister for Finance indicated that in view of the likely trends in employment in 1975 the Government had decided that it would be prudent to make available an extra £15 million against additional unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance claims above the level provided for in the published Estimate for Social Welfare. The Exchequer, the Minister stated, will provide £7.1 million of this sum and the balance will be raised by way of a special increase in the social insurance contributions. I would like to emphasise that this special increase will be strictly a temporary one to meet the current abnormal unemployment position.

The increase in contributions which will be necessary in respect of the first element will be 93p to be shared as to 63p by employers and 30p by employees. The amount of the special increase to which I have referred will be 31p, to be shared as to 21p by employers and 10p by employees. Thus the total increase will be £1.24 of which 84p will be borne by employers and 40p by employees. Increases of less than £1.24 will be applied to those rates of social insurance contributions which do not cover all the benefits of the system. A small increase of one penny in the contributions payable to the occupational injuries fund by the employers only will also be necessary towards meeting the cost of the improvements in payments under this scheme. Accordingly the new rates of contribution in respect of this scheme will be 12p for a male employee and 9p for a female.

The ordinary rates of contribution covering the social insurance services administered by my Department, including the increase of £1.24 and the new occupational injuries contribution, will thus be increased to £4.23 for men of which the employer will pay £2.59 and the employee £1.64. For women the new ordinary rate will be £4.12 of which the employer will pay £2.54 and the employee £1.58.

I would like at this point to comment briefly on the question of financing the social welfare and health services, and of the social welfare services in particular. The gross cost in the present financial year of the social welfare and health services will be in excess of £380 million. Where public expenditure is at such high levels it is obviously necessary to give careful consideration to all the implications.

It is essential that we seek to obtain the best return, in terms of genuine social service, for such high and increasing totals of expenditure. We must look initially at the effects of what we are doing in order to ensure that adequate funds are directed to the relief and eradication of particular hard-core problems. I welcome the recent publication of research findings which focus our attention on this matter and which, I might add, was brought to the notice of the House when I presented the Estimate for my Department last year.

In this country the major share of the cost of the social welfare and health services is borne by the Exchequer. Such a situation might be thought to imply a major element of vertical redistribution of income. However, it must be borne in mind that a very high proportion of the general taxation raised in this country comes from various forms of indirect taxation. Indirect taxation—and flat-rate social security contributions— tend to be regressive.

It is the intention of the Government that the present system of financing these services should be restructured over a period of years to ensure a more equitable approach, to bring our systems more into line with the situation in the European Community and to concentrate Exchequer outlays more directly on areas of real need. Accordingly, the Minister for Social Welfare has arranged to have this whole area examined with a view to appropriate proposals being formulated as soon as possible.

The fact that a Green Paper concerning a national income-related pension scheme and the question of providing social security pension coverage for the self-employed is to be published during the year will of course have a direct bearing on this matter.

Provision is also included in the Bill to rectify a situation which arose following the abolition of the remuneration limit for compulsory insurance of non-manual employees. In this connection I should like to explain that there are two classes of voluntary contributors under the Social Welfare Acts: the first group comprises persons who pay higher rate contributions which provide cover for retirement pension, old age (contributory) pension, widow's (contributory) pension, deserted wife's benefit and death grants, and the second group are persons who pay lower rate contributions which provide cover for widow's (contributory) pension and deserted wife's benefit only.

The first group—that is, persons paying the higher rate contributions— are persons who, when they ceased to be compulsorily insurable, were in employment which was insurable for benefits which included retirement and old age (contributory) pension. The second group of persons paying the lower rate contributions are persons who were formerly compulsorily insurable for widow's and orphan's pension, deserted wife's benefit and occupational injuries benefit and for no other benefit or pension under the Acts. These are persons employed in the public sector and include civil servants, officers of local and public authorities, teachers, army officers and others.

Under existing legislation a voluntary contributor who becomes an employed contributor ceases to be a voluntary contributor. When the remuneration limit for compulsory insurability of non-manual workers was abolished with effect from 1st April, 1974, persons in the public sector who had until then been higher rate voluntary contributors again became compulsorily insurable as employed contributors for widow's and orphan's pension, deserted wife's benefit and occupational injuries benefit and for no other benefit or pension under the Acts. They were accordingly precluded under existing legislation from continuing to pay contributions as voluntary contributors for retirement pension and old age (contributory) pension and death grant. Provision is made in the Bill to enable persons in the category mentioned to continue as voluntary contributors so that they may continue their insurance cover for the benefits referred to.

The Minister for Finance in his budget statement announced that the weekly rates of the various pension, benefit and assistance payments would be further increased with effect from the beginning of October next following a review in the light of the rise in the cost of living. As the House may not be in session in the months immediately preceding October next it is proposed to effect this increase by regulations and the Bill accordingly provides that the Minister for Social Welfare, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may, by regulations, increase the weekly rates of benefit and so on. Provision is included in the relevant section of the Bill to ensure that the regulations will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made and, if a resolution annulling the regulations is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been laid before it, the regulations will be annulled.

As the Minister for Finance said in his budget statement, the October review will be designed to maintain the real value of the level of payments established in April. The erosion of the purchasing power of welfare payments in a period of rapid inflation is a cause of concern and the Government are determined to protect social welfare recipients against this result of the present economic difficulties.

This innovation is a fulfilment of the commitment given in the White Paper A National Partnership and it will be implemented under the terms of this Bill by means of a review of and further increase in rates of weekly payments, taking into consideration the movement in the cost of living and other relevant factors. I propose also to make an improvement in the school meals scheme operated by urban local authorities. Under existing legislation such authorities are empowered to provide school meals for children attending national schools in their functional areas. With the growth of local authority housing on the fringe of their areas large numbers of children who are living in an urban authority's area or in dwellings outside the area which are owned or have been provided by the local authority in question are attending national schools which have been built just outside the functional area of the urban authority. Consequently these children cannot be provided with school meals as the scheme stands at present.

To resolve this situation I propose to amend the School Meals Acts for the purpose of providing that, where not less than half of the children attending a national school outside the functional area of an urban local authority reside either in that area or outside that area in dwellings owned or provided by the urban authority, that authority may determine that school meals may be provided in the national school in question. In this connection the instance that will immediately come to Deputies' minds is the housing area of Ballymun. In this district the corporation have built over 2,000 houses in the county area and there are some 4,500 children attending national schools which are just outside the city boundary.

In the past two years the budget improvements in the social welfare scheme were brought into operation from the beginning of July. Previously increases in the rates of social assistance operated from August and in the rates of social insurance benefits from October. This year, because of the change in the financial year which now coincides with the calendar year, all the improvements proposed in the Bill will come into effect much earlier, that is, the beginning of April next. Further increases in weekly payments are, as I have mentioned earlier, also to be made from October next.

Thus, rates will have been increased only nine months after the previous rise and will be further raised after six months. An example may serve to underline the impact of this change. In June, 1974, the old age contributory pension for a person aged 69 years was £7.20. In April, 1975—just ten months later—a person at the age of 67 years will receive a pension of £10.50. That is an increase in pension rate of 46 per cent in ten months, with a two-year reduction in qualifying age.

These combined increases will add considerably to the overall expenditure of social welfare. On the social assistance side, including children's allowances, the increase in cost to the Exchequer will be £22.4 million up to the end of December, 1975. On the social insurance side the gross increase in expenditure from the social insurance fund is estimated at £26.6 million to the end of December, 1975, of which £23.7 million will be met by increased contribution income, leaving £2.9 million to be borne by the Exchequer in that period. The total cost to the Exchequer for the period April to December, 1975, will therefore be £25.3 million.

As I have indicated already, the Exchequer will, in addition, provide £7.1 million towards the cost of additional unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance claims. The special contribution increase of 31p is intended to provide a further £7.9 million towards the cost of these additional unemployment claims. The Exchequer will also meet the cost, estimated at £430,000, of the extension of the schemes of free travel, electricity and television licences which, from April next, will result from the further reduction in pension age.

In bringing before the House a measure such as this, I am more than conscious of the complexities of our social welfare legislation at this point in its development. The Bill's title of itself indicates the range of legislation governing this area—with reference being made to Acts including the Old Age Pensions Acts and the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts and covering the period from 1908 to 1974.

There are approximately 60 basic Acts and at least 350 regulations governing the schemes operated by my Department, not to mention innumerable examples of case or precedent law arising from the application of these.

I have initiated work in my Department on the codification and simplification of the whole field of social welfare legislation. This will be a long and complex task and one which should ideally lead to the production of a new consolidated Social Welfare Act. The work on this badly-needed improvement will be proceeded with with all possible speed.

I am happy to be able to sponsor the improvements covered by the Bill, which I recommend to Dáil Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that there are approximately 60 basic Acts and at least 350 regulations governing schemes operated by his Department as well as innumerable examples of case or precedent law arising from the application of these Acts and regulations. I have the greatest sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary in that respect, and it is heartening to hear that he intends conducting a campaign of modification and simplification of the whole field of social security legislation. Since being given the brief for this party of "shadowing" the Parliamentary Secretary, this situation has been of great concern to me. I have tried to ascertain the number of Acts, but I have succeeded in discovering only about 39. This indicates clearly that my research must continue. It is a revelation to find that there are 60 basic Acts. Therefore I expect that if I spend another week on this type of research I will discover those I have missed.

The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that he intends adding to the number of regulations and that this will enable him to bring increases in payments to the notice of the House by way of regulation. This will add to the burden and the complexity of the whole area of social welfare. The proposed Bill is highly complex. It is directed at benefiting financially the less well-off sections of the community and on behalf of Fianna Fáil I welcome the increases in social welfare payments. Any Government that have come before the House down through the years with social welfare Bills have invariably announced increases in social welfare entitlements. It is interesting to note that since the latest increases were announced, that was on January 15th with the increases to come into effect at the beginning of April, the cost of living, which is increasing at about 20 per cent per annum, will have eroded them by at least 5 per cent. However, the Parliamentary Secretary intends dealing with that problem by enshrining in the legislation a section which I would describe as an inflationary compensatory clause. When the situation is reviewed in October I trust that this clause will be used to compensate for inflationary increases.

Down through the years the various increases in social welfare benefits have been related generally to the cost of living. The Minister for Finance, no doubt having been urged by the Parliamentary Secretary, has been reasonably generous in relation to social welfare increases. Unfortunately, what he gives with one hand he takes back with the other. I will distinguish this Bill as the March budget. In addition to the Social Welfare benefits it contains an element of income taxation. I will describe the budget we had earlier this year as the January budget. Of course, we also had the petrol budget before Christmas.

The Minister for Finance in the January budget raised income tax allowances to take account of increases in the cost of living. Now the Government have shifted the method of payment from income tax to social insurance contributions. Any possible benefit the employee received in the January budget has now been clawed back in a rather crude fashion by the March budget. In addition to our own point of view on that particular problem, no less a group than the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union have said that the social welfare taxation enshrined in this Bill almost completely wipes out the relief given in the recent budget, that is the January budget.

We are concerned with the general economic strategy of the Government. This concern is highlighted by the approach outlined in this Bill. Their approach to the economy at present is one of continual taxation. In four months, from before Christmas to this month, approximately £50 million was raised in taxation by increased petrol charges, postal charges and health contributions. We had the budget of 15th January introduced by the Minister for Finance, which raised approximately £48 million. Now in the Social Welfare Bill before us, or the March budget, the Government propose to raise approximately £40 million between the employer and the employee through increased social welfare contributions. They will receive £27½ million approximately from the employer and £13 million from the employee, that is 84p paid by the employer and 40p paid by the employee on the social insurance stamp. That typifies the approach of the Government.

That is the philosophy behind the increase in the social insurance contributions. We would have thought the central Exchequer in a socialist milieu would have been concerned with the payment out of social welfare entitlements and the payment out of social insurance obligations. However, in the circumstances it is difficult to understand why the burden is being shifted from the central Exchequer to the employer and the employee.

In relation to the employer and employee, the manager and worker and industry generally, our spokesman on finance, Deputy Colley, in the debate on the January budget stated that industry required an injection of some £25 million. All it received then was £13 million. Now industry is being requested to pay £27 million, its portion of the social insurance stamp, that is employer vis-á-vis employee. This taxation acts as a disincentive and may result in smaller firms going out of business.

In respect of the pay-related benefit scheme, which was operative for the nine months up to 31st December, 1974, it is generally agreed that income over that period was in excess of £8 million and the outgoings on that figure were less than £3 million. This leaves a balance of approximately £5 million. If that £5 million is available, why was it not given towards the alleviation of the social insurance contribution? If this £5 million is in existence, what is happening to it? The Parliamentary Secretary might deal with those matters.

The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the reason for the special increased element is that it has to take account of the special circumstances of current unemployment. The employer is being asked to pay approximately 64p for improvements and 20p for special increases. We presume the special increases are towards the payment of benefits under the employment benefit scheme. Of the 40p the employee is being asked to pay, there is a breakdown there of 30p for improvements and 10p for special increases. This will give a total increase of £1.24. Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to give an undertaking to the House— I know they are difficult to get from any Government—to honour the promise that when we reach 4th April, 1976, these special increases will be abandoned, or does he intend doing away with the special increases? We all look forward to the day when the unemployment figure is considerably reduced. If that day is not reached is it the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary to increase the special increases, as outlined in the Bill?

I touched on the question of the equity of shifting taxation to the employer and employee in this fashion. There is apparently no specific reason given for the shifting of this considerable burden of an increase of 84p to the employer and 40p to the employee. There is mention of what is happening in the EEC countries. I do not think that is a sufficient reason to put forward what we consider is penal taxation. This is unwarranted taxation, particularly in the current economic climate. Instead of this we should encourage small, medium and large business firms to induct as many people as possible and not penalise them with the payment of this form of taxation. Will it be the practice of the Government to shift the burden of the social insurance contribution from the Exchequer to the employer and the employee? We wish to have this matter clarified.

We wish every success to those negotiating the national wage agreement; anything said in this House that might damage the prospects of concluding that agreement would be anti-national and unpatriotic. There has been mention of a figure of an 18 per cent increase being asked from the employers and when we consider the other increases that have taken place recently, for instance, the petrol budget in December, the January budget and now the increases recently imposed, we can understand how industry is creaking so much. The Parliamentary Secretary has made a commitment to the House that he will pursue the consolidation of the social welfare legislation and regulations. This is an important commitment and we hope that by its introduction some sanity will be brought into the complex area of social welfare legislation.

As a Parliament we must ask ourselves whether it is sufficient to decide every year that we will give a certain amount to social welfare recipients and then to conclude that we have done our duty. That is not satisfactory and I am sure the House will agree that we will have to look deeper into the problem. If we give a person a 5p, 10p or 50p increase in social welfare payments we will have to consider how that will affect him, and how it will improve the quality of life for him.

The Minister for Social Welfare has set up an advisory committee on pilot schemes to combat poverty and he has placed before the EEC a number of exercises, including a welfare rights project, a home assistance project, a community research project and a social service council project. These works are to be welcomed and perhaps in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us when they will be put into practice. In addition to increasing the weekly entitlements of social welfare recipients, we will have to consider what we can do to uplift them in the cultural, environmental, medical and community sense. To date the Dáil has not considered fully the proposition that there is more to social welfare than cash payments on a weekly basis.

In relation to pilot schemes to combat poverty, one of the most important aspects is a re-examination of the whole area of the home assistance scheme. This is well known to Deputies and to public representatives as the lowest level of social assistance —by that I mean as the bottom level of social assistance. Home assistance as we understand it today derives from the Poor Law and it goes back to 1833. It developed into the outdoor relief scheme and, in 1922 when the State was founded, it became the home assistance scheme and thus it has remained.

It is encouraging to note that the Parliamentary Secretary has set in train an examination of the possibility of abandoning the home assistance scheme. I hope we get into the position of direct intervention in relation to people who are currently in receipt of home assistance. The officers concerned are doing a difficult job well but it is not reasonable to expect them to be thoroughly trained in the whole area of social welfare and social services. We would have to integrate the community in the direct intervention programme which I have in mind. It would be direct intervention by the community, by the medical care people and by qualified social workers. In other words, it would be an effort to lift the people out of a feeling of beggary, to give them hope and to lift them out of themselves. If we cannot do that, if the only thing we do is to call home assistance by another name, it will be useless.

It is interesting to note that the home assistance scheme was discussed at some length in a social studies booklet, the Irish Journal of Sociology. On page 447 of the document it sets out clearly the type of thinking that should be involved in the area of social work and home assistance generally.

It states:

The nature of social work is neither easy to define nor to describe but Peter Leonard's definition would be acceptable to most practitioners:

We may use the term social work to denote the processes used by welfare agencies to help individuals, groups or communities to cope more effectively with their problems of social functioning. Thus, social work consists of social casework (with individuals), social group work (with groups) and community organisations of community development (with communities)... Social work is a professional discipline which has its own body of knowledge based upon practice but scientifically largely unvalidated. It makes use of the results of academic work, such as sociology and psychology, and consequently owes allegiance to certain scientific assumptions. Yet because social work is a means of implementing society's decisions on the handling of certain forms of behaviour, it is concerned deeply with values and with the use that can be made of knowledge for social action.

This, in my view, is the crunch line. rather than knowledge for its own sake.

Leonard quite explicitly considers social work as a profession. He refers to it as a "process used by welfare agencies" and as "a professional discipline". It may, however, be argued that the essential characteristic of social work—"to help individuals, groups or communities to cope more effectively with their social functioning..."

As I understand it a home assistance scheme does not take cognisance of all that is required in dealing with the human being in his or her social functioning. The social assistance officer who is doing his job within the existing fabric given to him basically by this House, where the blame lies in the first instance, has to do his duty as he sees it. He has to examine each case for financial assistance on its merits. A person may be in need of a pair of shoes, of "Communion money" or clothes for a child or children.

Whereas that is important in itself, I do not think it is unreasonable to look behind the reasons why money must be expended in that fashion and why these people have to approach the home assistance officer and ask for money. A lady who approached me recently told me she found this humiliating. I can well understand that. I did not want to embarrass her by asking why she had to place herself in that humiliating situation. She did not want to go to the home assistance officer but she had to do so due to various reasons. I do not want to go too much into that case because the individual could be easily identified but I am aware of the reason why that person had to go to the home assistance officer. Her husband was not in the least concerned about his obligations to his wife and children. We can dismiss that husband and say that if that is the way things are we will have to look after his wife and children but we should try to find out why the husband found himself in the position that he did not wish to look after his wife and children. There was a reason for that also and we cannot dismiss the husband blandly and say he was a social dropout.

We should look behind the social assistance scheme and see how we can help the husband and try to stop that type of problem arising. I accept the local voluntary organisations have been doing their bit for that family but that family does not necessarily want cash to continue to have the necessities of life, to exist on a day to day basis, on a grass-hopping basis with no hope for the future. What that family wants is the father and home assistance is not providing that family with a father. For this reason the Parliamentary Secretary is to be congratulated on the fact that his advisory group on poverty recommended to the EEC a pilot scheme to look into the whole home assistance scheme.

In my view it will be a worthwhile examination and I hope it will bear fruit. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary is dedicated to his job, is concerned and I believe he will urge the EEC to make their finding known as a matter of urgency. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us when this pilot scheme will be brought into operation and where it will operate? I understand that one scheme will operate in rural Ireland and another in urban areas. If that is not the position, it should be.

Urban Deputies know poverty from an urban experience but that does not absolve us from recognising that there are areas outside the borders of the urban constituencies we represent in rural Ireland. These schemes should operate in those areas at the same time and as a matter of urgency. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when the home assistance scheme will be abandoned and replaced by a sane and uplifting one? What is required is that we return to the individual the dignity that will permit him or her recognise themselves as members of society. One wonders whether it is too much to return to those individuals their dignity.

In addition to the various home assistance schemes many voluntary organisations operate in this area and they deserve the praise of the Members of this House. If these voluntary organisations were not in existence I could see a breakdown of the whole fabric of the health and social welfare services. What has the State done to help individuals assisted by the Simon Community, the Samaritans, Alcoholics Anonymous? Alcoholism is a form of poverty. The individual is deprived of his dignity in the first instance and his intellect becomes poor, it lessens in its degree of perception but the extension of alcoholism is that it deprives others. If the alcoholic is married and has a family or if he is looking after his aged father or mother they are hurt in these circumstances.

Those of us who know of the work of the Simon Community, dedicated young men and women who take their nights and early mornings off to look after dropouts, are aware of their devotion to this type of work. I have never gone on a visit with members of this Community; I have never gone on an "evening jaunt" with them to discover where individuals are sleeping, but I know that they take such people from under car wrecks and return them to the Community houses in the city. The Association of Widows in Ireland is another noteworthy organisation and the work done by members of this association cannot be over-stressed. They are doing a wonderful job and as one who is fairly closely associated with them I know the kind of work they are doing. They are helping those widows who cannot face up to the challenge of life on their own. There are some widows in that organisation who are well able to face up to the challenge of life and they are doing a wonderful job on behalf of the widows who are not.

In respect of organisations like the Simon Community the Parliamentary Secretary might consider a schools programme. We have heard suggestions that people between the ages of 18 and 19 might be conscripted into the Army. I do not accept that at all. I believe such young people should seriously consider involving themselves in organisations such as the Simon Community. The Parliamentary Secretary could set up some form of schools programme urging young people before they take up employment or becoming university students to give at least six months, nine months or a year to working in the interests of the community. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is a person who is open to reasonable suggestions. I believe my suggestion is reasonable. Many programmes have been put before school leavers which do not seem to get off the ground. I do not subscribe to the idea that because a person is young he is bad. Quite the contrary. Young people have distinguished themselves in this country by their dedication. It would not be unreasonable to bring to their notice at school level the organisations in which they could participate and the service they could give their country not necessarily by way of military service. Certainly if school leavers go into the Army, the Army is all the better for it, but if they want to do something for nothing, if they want to give something to their fellow countrymen and women for nothing, they can become involved in those organisations. I am suggesting this programme be initiated as a matter of urgency. It could be conducted by sociologists, doctors and so on with a hard core task force from the office of the Minister for Health and the Parliamentary Secretary's office. There is absolutely no reason why this should not be done and should not be successful. Thank God there are plenty of organisations which would willingly take on young people for six months to a year. The young people could finance the year themselves or alternatively the voluntary organisations which finance their own services could help them. Young people generally do not want much money if they are the type of people who are prepared to give this sort of service. This would be a worthwhile programme.

The Dáil and the Government should initiate a programme which will quite clearly identify poverty and deal with poverty at its source. This is an absolute priority. The Parliamentary Secretary might prevail on the Government to devote time, even a day, to discussing the whole area of poverty in the community and to seeing what we have done, are doing and will do with a poverty programme. The Government have an obligation to initiate such a programme but it is only fair to say that the Opposition have their ideas, too, and the Government would not go unsupported in relation to any programme they produced. In the meantime, Fianna Fáil will not be found wanting in ideas in this respect. We are in the course of preparing a comprehensive policy document on the whole area of social welfare and a comprehensive section of that document will be devoted to a war on poverty and what we will do when we return to office. However, it is not an area for politics. It is an area which cuts across party boundaries and is one on which the Dáil might reflect for a short day in its life.

The Parliamentary Secretary said he intends to introduce a national scheme of income-related pensions in a Green Paper. I hope this will come before the House as soon as possible and bring some sanity into the whole area of pensions. To return briefly to social work being done by social science graduates, their placement and so on, one might define social work. Social work as I understand it covers quite a number of areas—children, old people, physically disabled people, mentally ill and mentally handicapped people and, of course, deviants.

We have to go behind the actual payments themselves. They are given by way of entitlement and not by way of charity. That is another message we should try to get across to our people. These entitlements are theirs as of right, without any qualification. Having given the individual the money per week, do we leave it at that? I do not think we do. I do not think we can. I do not think we should. We must consider loneliness and neglect. In our society there are people who are abandoned. I say that deliberately. Parents are in homes where they should not be, or one parent is abandoned and left alone. People in our society are guilty of that social crime. People are living in loneliness and neglect. We sometimes try to explain that by saying: "That mother or that father may not have been particularly pleasant to his or her offspring some 40 years ago and that is the reason for the neglect 40 years later."

It is very good of the Parliamentary Secretary not to have interrupted me up to now and I thank him for it.

Mr. White

Like the last speaker, I would like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on this Bill. I agree with a certain amount of what Deputy Andrews has said and with most of what is in the Bill. I do not intend to criticise but perhaps be a little idealistic in my views. A great deal of new thinking must go into social welfare as the years go on.

Deputy Andrews brought up the usual red herring that comes from the Opposition on these matters, that the increases we have given in social welfare have only kept pace with inflation. If you take last year's inflation at 20 per cent and that of the year before at 12½ per cent, that gives an inflation rate of 32½ per cent, but the Government have increased social services by practically 100 per cent from 1973 to 1975. In 1973 we were spending £92 million on social services, and in 1975 it is proposed to spend £210 million.

During the last couple of weeks of the by-election campaign in the west we heard it said that the National Coalition had not fulfilled the promises in their 14-point plan. One of those promises was to increase expenditure on social welfare services. Another promise was to look after the old, the sick and the disabled. Let me remind the Opposition that in all the years they were in Government they left the old age pension at 70 years. In the three years in which we have introduced budgets the age has been reduced systematically so that from April this year the old age pension will be payable at 67 years. I could not believe my ears when I heard the Fianna Fáil spokesman say he hoped the age would be brought down to 65. Surely a few years in Opposition has taught them something.

It is also well worth remembering that when we came into office the old age pension was £5.15 per week. Again from April of this year we intend to increase the old age pension to £8.85. Three years ago a non-contributory old age pensioner and his wife were expected to live on £5.15, and we are proud of the fact that two married people, one of them an old age pensioner, will now get £13.95 to live on. That is a big improvement.

I did not intend to make a political speech, nor shall I, but I squirmed in my seat when I heard some of the accusations made here by the Opposition spokesman for Social Welfare. I have the greatest respect for him and I know he is a very sincere man, but he should not try to fool the people—he certainly did not fool them in Galway and he did not fool them here—into thinking we have not increased social welfare benefits substantially. As regards the means test, three short years ago if an old age pensioner had any means whatever his pension was cut. Today an old age pensioner can have £6 per week and still be entitled to the old age pension. Surely anyone who has worked 50 years for the State deserves the maximum the State can afford to pay.

The next point I wish to make is one on which I have a lot of reservations, that is, increasing unemployment assistance particularly to the farming community and expecting the farming community to do nothing productive for that money. At present there are about 24,000 small farmers in the west getting the dole. I see them coming into the town once a week to sign on. I want to make it quite clear that they are quite entitled to get money from the State. However, they waste a good deal of time coming to town to sign and collect their money. The suggestion I would make to the Parliamentary Secretary is that, instead of these people coming into town to sign on, they should be doing something productive. At the moment a married man gets £12.80 unemployment. In return for that he should be required to do some productive work on his farm. The whole thing could be tied in with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and plans drawn up for periods of six months, 12 months of five years. This married man would get £12.80 per week, which he is getting at the moment, and if he reached a certain target over a three-month period he would get a bonus, with another bonus at the end of six months or 12 months and a final bonus when the plans had been completed. Even if the man did not benefit his posterity would certainly benefit. I am constantly saddened at the sight of so much land going to waste. All land should be worked. It is too precious a commodity to be ignored.

When the investigating officer calls on an unemployed man he usually asks if the land is producing anything. I do not think this is the right approach. I believe the amount should be based on the valuation. Take the case of a married man with a valuation of £12 who is working his farm and may have 20 cattle on that farm; his neighbour with the same valuation may have only six head of cattle. The man who works his land should not be discouraged from improving his holding by seeing his neighbour, who does not work his holding properly, getting more by way of allowance that he does. The philosophy and the thinking are wrong. Surely our aim should be to encourage people to work harder.

In my constituency we have a great many people returning from Scotland and Britain because of the unemployment situation. Sometimes they have to wait 12 to 16 weeks before they get their money. Some of the red tape should be cut so that these people come into benefit as early as possible.

I welcome the allowance for single women looking after elderly parents. Unfortunately, if these women are under 58 they are not entitled to anything except home assistance and home assistance is something they do not want. I agree with Deputy Andrews on that. The age should be reduced to 50 or 48. Again, if there is a third person living in the house no allowance will be paid to these women. Very often in the country one finds an unmarried brother living at home. In that case no allowance is paid. Some of these women have given up good jobs to look after elderly parents. The same difficulty arises in regard to free electricity. If there is a third person resident in the house there is no free electricity.

With regard to old people's homes, some years ago I saw an excellent home for old people in Vienna. Each individual had a flat with cooking facilities. There was a communal diningroom and communal television. Each inmate had complete privacy and this is something people value. Perhaps something on the same lines could be done here. I know the Parliamentary Secretary has many bright ideas and no doubt in time, as the economic situation improves, these will be implemented.

I have a high regard for Deputy Andrews and I trust that those speakers on the Opposition benches who follow him will deal with this matter in the way he dealt with it and refrain from all the parrot talk about the oil crisis, the January budget, the alleged March budget and so on. The majority of people can read and they are quite competent to make up their own minds. What we want from the Opposition are constructive ideas. There is the same attitude when increases in the contributions are mentioned. The Opposition seem to be under the impression that manna is continuing to fall from heaven. If social welfare benefits are increased it is logical to expect that the contributions will be increased also.

An interesting question is whether we are gradually taking social welfare contributions from the Central Exchequer and making them payments for the workers. I would be in total agreement with any such policy. It is a form of insurance scheme for an employee to know that because of paying his contribution he will not suffer any drop in his standard of living if he becomes unemployed or sick or in old age.

Regarding the increased contributions, I know that the employer's increase is to be 84p while, in the case of the employee it is only 40p. These increases will hit hard the small businesses. But, if we consider the payments to be a form of insurance policy, the workers should pay the major part of the insurance.

As a Deputy from a Border area I would draw attention to the situation in the North whereby the self-employed, whether they be farmers, business people or any others, have a self-employed stamp. If these people come to live here they expect to find the same situation in this regard, but that is not so. I know that those who wish to insure themselves are entitled to do so, but some self-employed people might not be in a position to do that. This is a matter to which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give his attention, having regard to the EEC proposals.

I am glad to note that in future social welfare benefits are to be related to the cost of living. Perhaps we shall not again experience inflation at a rate as bad as last year's and that, to rephrase the Chinese proverb, 1974 was the year of the tiger while 1975 will be the year of the rabbit. Nobody can underestimate the economic problems we are experiencing and the consequent unemployment situation. In each social welfare office there is an unemployment assistance register. In a register of, say, 200 people, how many would be employable if employment in the area were to become available? The figures should be broken down so as to give us an accurate picture of the situation, because there are many people on unemployment assistance who should be receiving instead some form of health benefit. That is why I say only those who are employable should be included in the figures on the assistance register.

Deputy Andrews referred to the war on poverty. Poverty is a matter that concerns each of us. I have witnessed real poverty on only one or two occasions during my lifetime and that was in London. It is an old saying that the bigger the city the greater the poverty. During the few years I spent in London I saw old people late at night eating from garbage bins. I have never seen poverty in this country to equal that. We have no real poverty and with a Parliamentary Secretary like Deputy Cluskey we can be assured that every effort will be made to ensure that there will be no poverty.

Mr. Wyse

The last speaker said that his speech would not be political. So far as I am concerned I assure him that we on this side will bring to the notice of the Government any areas in the field of social welfare in which there are anomalies or in which improvements can be made. That is one of the functions of an Opposition. When we talk of social welfare today as compared with the situation three years ago we are talking of very different times. Obviously, we have a certain amount of criticism in respect of the present social welfare structure.

I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary for having, as he told us, initiated work in his Department in respect of the simplification and codification of the whole field of social welfare. However, in reviewing the whole structure of social welfare, one must also consider certain aspects of the Department of Health. Deputy Andrews emphasised the importance of community care and community involvement. With this in mind any review of social welfare must be carried out in conjunction with the Department of Health so as to ascertain whether the latter can be relieved of certain aspects of their work. Such a review is long overdue. Perhaps the question is one of improving the system rather than overhauling it completely. The Parliamentary Secretary will have the co-operation of this party in any effort aimed at improving the social welfare structure.

I welcome the increases in social welfare benefits. However, these increases do not compensate for the huge increases in the cost of living. That may be easy for me to say from this side of the House. When we talk of social welfare we are speaking of the less fortunate in our community; and these people, as well as those with substantial incomes, must bear the brunt of any increase in the cost of living. I have witnessed poverty during the past 12 months and, therefore, I was amazed to hear Deputy White say that he only saw poverty once. Any Deputy who attends to his constituents can see real poverty. I recall the time of the Government's first budget when there was something in the region of £30 million available to the Exchequer that was never there before. If I was sitting on the benches where the Parliamentary Secretary now sits I would have demanded that that money be spent solely on social welfare benefits. The inter-party Government lost a golden opportunity at that time of ensuring that the least fortunate of our community benefited from that money available to the Government. The last speaker criticised the Fianna Fáil Government but I am afraid that he must not have briefed himself very fully on the cost of living and the social welfare benefits at that time and now. The Fianna Fáil Government were never satisfied with the amount of the social welfare benefits. It is the end of social welfare benefits when you have a Government who take credit for what they are doing. We must all the time try to improve the standard of living of those people. I deal with people such as old age pensioners, widows and orphans. I know the Parliamentary Secretary and his dedication to his work. I want to talk about some anomalies and some misinterpretations by officials of the Department in relation to certain aspects of social welfare. I want to try to remove some anomalies and at the same time ensure the removal of hardships on people in receipt of social welfare benefits.

I agree there should be no such thing as home assistance. I am glad the two previous speakers mentioned this. Home assistance should come directly under the Department of Social Welfare rather than the Department of Health because it is only used in emergencies. Many of the people who apply for home assistance have contributed practically all their lives to social welfare. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware of a case I want to mention. People claim unemployment benefit and then there is a dispute in relation to their eligibility for it. This is sent to the Department and while the officials sit down and discuss whether or not this man is entitled to unemployment benefit a hardship is inflicted on a working man and his family. Recently in Cork there was a strike in a textile factory and 40 men had to be laid off work. When the men reported to the local labour exchange they were informed they were not entitled to unemployment benefit. Those men received notices from their employer that employment was not available at present but it did not state on them that this was owing to a strike.

Those men were prepared to continue working but they received notices that there was not sufficient work available so they were put on an unemployment basis. I know the hardship which those 40 men and their families had to endure. I make a special appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to investigate this case. As I interpret the Act those people were legally entitled to receive unemployment benefit because their employer did not dismiss them but informed them that sufficient work was not available and their services were not needed for a period.

I am trying to highlight some anomalies and if they are removed they will alleviate some hardship. I am a member of an old age pensions committee and I state, without fear of contradiction, that I am totally against such committees. They cause delay in the payment of old age pensions. I stated on the last occasion we discussed social welfare that when I made representations to the Department of Social Welfare about the delay in paying an old age pension I was informed that the committee had not sat for three months. An unfortunate man was left waiting for three months for payment of his pension because that committee failed to live up to their responsibilities. I understand payment had to be made even though no meeting of that committee was held.

Why should there be such committees? If the committee sits tonight and an unfortunate man reaches 67 years of age tomorrow he must wait at least one month before his case can be reviewed by the pensions committee. The only function of such committees should be to listen to appeals. If an old pensioner feels an injustice has been done such a matter could come before the old age pensions committee. I make a special appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach to look at this part of the structure of social welfare because it causes undue hardship to old people, especially those claiming non-contributory old age pensions.

Mr. Kelly

Will the Deputy state what should replace the committee?

Mr. Wyse

What is the position when an old age pensioner applies for a contributory pension? He makes an application direct to the Department. Why can the non-contributory old age pensioner not do this also? Why should he have to wait for a month? I have already mentioned a case where the person had to wait for three I have already mentioned a case where the person had to wait for three months before the committee met. Perhaps other public representatives will not agree with me, but I think we are inflicting a hardship on those unfortunate people who apply for a non-contributory old age pension. It is my opinion that the pension committees should hear appeals only.

With regard to unemployment benefit, there have been cases of hardship where there was a misunderstanding between officials of the Department and an employer regarding the dismissal of a worker. In such a case the worker concerned and his family must wait until the officials have examined his case. I know of an instance where an employer went out of his way to dismiss a worker and afterwards he made a statement at the local labour exchange that the man left of his own accord. The case had to be investigated but this took two months and, in the meantime, the man and his family practically starved.

Where a dispute arises in such a case the worker should be paid until such time as the Department's referee has made a decision. We know that six weeks' or two months' back money is usually awarded to the worker but in many cases the help comes too late. The Department will not suffer a loss because if the man is found to be in error he need not be paid for another six weeks but certainly until the time of investigation he should be paid. We should recognise that hardship is inflicted not only on the man but on his wife and young family. An anomaly exists here and the Department should rectify the matter.

The attitude is that it is the claimant who is guilty. He must wait until an official, an employer or a doctor makes a decision. If a man is out of work through illness and makes a claim for disability benefit he may receive it for perhaps one month. After that time he must report to the Department's medical referee and he may be told to return to work. He is entitled to see his own doctor if he wishes and he may be informed by him that he is not fit to return to work, irrespective of what the Department's medical referee has said. A dispute may arise between the officials of the Department, the Department's medical referee and the worker's private doctor and, as a result, the man is deprived of disability benefit. Usually in such a case the worker gets the benefit of the doubt and is paid back money for six weeks or two months but what good is that to a man who has to exist in the meantime? We can visualise the hardship and the strain imposed on him and on his family. This is an injustice and any Government who allow such a thing to happen are saying the unfortunate worker is guilty before he has had a chance of substantiating his claim for disability benefit. All of us agree that a hardship exists for such workers. In God's name, why does somebody not decide there is need for a change in the Act? I realise that Ministers are bound by legislation but an Act should never inflict hardship on a man and his family.

I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to think I am playing politics here because I am not. I am stating the facts and I know of the hardships that have been inflicted. Many workers who have found themselves in this position have been forced to beg for home assistance so that their families might live. Frequently they have contributed their social welfare contributions for 20, 30 or 40 years but they are reduced to begging for home assistance. I am appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach to bring this to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare so that this anomaly in the social welfare structure may be removed.

The Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned school meals. I agree that if there is a need it is the responsibility of the Government to cater for that need, but when we talk about catering for a large number of school children we should look at the facilities that exist in the schools. I know that all schools are not in a position to provide school meals and I believe that until such time as schools are geared with proper kitchens and other facilities such a scheme would be a waste of time. I do not want to be misinterpreted in this regard. School meals are essential, especially for children who have to travel a long distance and for those whose parents are not in a position to give them a proper meal when they are leaving for school.

In this regard there should be co-ordination of responsibility between the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Education. If the Ministers are of the opinion that it will not be possible to carry out such a scheme they should get together to ensure that the facilities are provided. I am aware that schools are anxious to give such meals but they cannot take on a large number of children and because of this many children will be deprived of these meals.

On the question of retirement pensions, I feel the Parliamentary Secretary should have another look at this entire area. A short time ago a Deputy boasted that the qualifying age for entitlement to an old age pension had been reduced, but in this regard we seem to forget that we are talking about human beings, that we are asking a person to fold up before his time. If a man is asked to retire it does not take him long to convince himself that he is near the end of his day. Surely a person aged 65 cannot be considered to be advanced in years. In my view it is appalling that a man or woman who worked all their lives should be asked at the age of 65 to retire. If they have to retire it is good that the limit is 65, but not otherwise. It should be possible for such people to take up part-time employment and at the same time collect their retirement pension. That would be an occupational exercise. Such a person could keep active rather than sitting down and wasting away.

I have asked on a number of occasions that such people be permitted to take up part-time employment and about two years ago the Minister for Social Welfare informed me that he was looking into this matter. I agree that such matters as occupational injury arise, but I see no reason why a man when he retires cannot take up a job as a petrol pump attendant in order to keep himself active while at the same time collecting his retirement pension. An income from a part-time job would supplement the old age pension. The Parliamentary Secretary, and the Minister for Social Welfare, should give this matter serious consideration. Otherwise, many of our geriatric hospitals will be overcrowded.

There is a great hardship in regard to single women. Such women may have never made social welfare contributions and, consequently, are considered uninsured persons. However, she would be liable for rates and ground rent if she owns her own home and she would also have to cope with the problem of loneliness. Those problems, coupled with the fact that she would have to exist on a very small income, would make her plight very difficult. In my view we should devote more of our attention to the hardships that exist in this category. I should like to mention also the widow with a young family, particularly the widow who has school-going children. Such a person should be entitled to the fringe benefits afforded to the old age pensioner. For instance, such a widow who has to meet staggering ESB bills should be entitled to free electricity. The introduction of such a scheme would not impose any great hardship on the Exchequer.

It is not beyond the capacity of the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Government, to introduce such a scheme. We are talking about alleviating hardships—that is what social welfare is all about—but such a scheme has never been introduced even though it would prove an enormous help to widows with young families.

Another aspect of social welfare that should be looked at is that there is very little help available to a person making a claim. There are many different sections of various Social Welfare Acts involved and there is complete confusion about disability benefit and occupational injuries benefit. I have seen cases of a person making a claim for disability benefit and being informed after about a month that he should have been claiming occupational injuries benefit. Surely there should be some assistance available to a person making a claim perhaps for the first time. There should be somebody in the local labour exchange to help a person instead of just handling out a form and telling him to fill it in and send it on. The person waits for three weeks or a month and is then told he should have been claiming for something else. This causes hardship. These are small things but they mean a lot to an unfortunate person who is ill or unemployed and in need of financial assistance.

We have been told that there is to be an increase in the social welfare contribution and that the employer is to carry the biggest part of it. We all know this will mean a further increase in the cost of living. The worker will get nothing out of this because we know the employer cannot take the money out of his own pocket and, therefore, it will be added to the price of something for which the worker will have to pay. The increased benefit will be of little or no use to the working man or his family in the years ahead. It will bring further hardship in the form of another increase in the cost of living.

I have tried to mention in as short a time as possible some of the anomalies that exist. I do not think it would be difficult for the Parliamentary Secretary to have them rectified. It would ease the hardship on people. I am making a very special plea, which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, who is present, to convey to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, to make the changes here and there that will mean an easing of hardship on many people who are mainly dependent on social welfare.

Mr. L. Burke

This Government have done more in the two short years since they assumed office than Fianna Fáil did in the 16 preceding years, especially in the field of social welfare. Since the Government took office social welfare payments have been raised by rates which range from 66 per cent in the case of some personal rates of benefits to 90 per cent for single parent families and to between 96 per cent and 140 per cent for child dependent allowances. Children's allowances which have been raised in this budget for the third successive year have gone up since 1973 by 360 per cent for the first child, by 140 per cent for the second child and by 93 per cent for the third and subsequent children. In the same period the cost of living has risen by between 35 and 40 per cent. Government spending on social welfare has been increased by £46 million in full year terms. This means that since the Government came into power the proportion of GNP devoted to social welfare has risen from 4.1 per cent to 5.6 per cent. It means that the Exchequer cost for social welfare has been increased in two years by 140 per cent because not alone have rates been raised but the scope of coverage and protection has been greatly extended by the introduction of new schemes, by the reduction of the pension age this year to 67 years and by the easing of the means test. The social welfare provisions in this year's budget will involve a gross cost of £49.4 million with the Exchequer providing £25.68 million. The full year cost of these improvements will be almost £78 million with a cost to the Exchequer of £46 million. Thus in full year terms the cost to the Exchequer of social welfare has risen to £223 million, an increase of £130 million or 142 per cent on the cost of the 1972-73 budget, the last year before this Government took office. The budget provides for very substantial increases in all weekly rates of social welfare payments.

When we took office an old age pensioner had to be 70 years of age with an adult dependant to get the paltry sum of £10.10. An old age contributory pensioner of 67 years of age with an adult dependant will get £18.40 from 1st April next, an increase of £8.30. Under the present Government the parents of physically and mentally handicapped children are now getting £25 per month and under the Fianna Fáil Government they got nothing. As and from 1st April next the deserted wife will get £8.85 plus £2.95 per child and under the Fianna Fáil Government that person got nothing. An unmarried mother is now getting £11.80 for herself and her child and under the Fianna Fáil Government she got nothing.

Rates of weekly payments will be reviewed in the light of developments in the cost of living in the period ahead. They will be increased again in October next. This review is in line with the commitment contained in the Government's White Paper on the economic situation and is designed to protect the standard of living of all those dependent on social welfare and related payments in a period of continuing inflation.

The Parliamentary Secretary's Department are busy with the preparation of a Green Paper on an income-related pension scheme which will also deal with certain aspects of social insurance for the self-employed sectors of the work force. Since this Government took office there has been a very great expansion of the social welfare services including such developments as the removal of the income limit for social insurance, pay-related benefits, allowances for unmarried mothers, allowances for single women to which I have already referred, allowances for prisoners' wives, the easing of the means test, the reduction of the pension age, and special provision for child dependants. These are some of the things this Government have introduced since we came into office.

The Government are fighting against poverty. This is a great challenge. There is real encouragement in the progress made to date by the advisory committee on pilot schemes to combat poverty. We have had the announcement of the first four projects which have been brought to the planning stage. I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on producing this Bill. I assure him that he will be in office for many a long day. Having spent the past two weeks in the west, I am glad to say that the west is awakening.

Mr. J. O'Leary

It is O.K. for Government speakers to talk about percentages in terms of increases granted in social welfare benefits in the recent budget and as proposed in this Bill, but the real fact of the matter is that there is still extreme poverty in the country. I was glad to hear the previous speaker say that the Government are fighting against poverty. I have seen poverty in my own constituency in South Kerry, where I meet people at every level each weekend.

Due to the ever-increasing cost of living, due to uncontrolled prices of all commodities—including the necessaries of life—which are increasing daily, never before did I hear so many people say they are so worried about where they will get the money to buy food for the following week. The week after Christmas I found it necessary to subscribe to individuals who came into my office in Killarney. They were unable to keep bread and butter on the table for their families because they were awaiting decisions from the Department of Social Welfare on their applications for social welfare benefits. That is true.

Each week I refer at least two or three people to the home assistance officers in their respective areas for relief in terms of cash or vouchers. They cannot procure the money to provide the necessaries of life for themselves. This is happening not only in Kerry but throughout the length and breadth of the country. I should like to pay a compliment to a man who has done a great deal to arouse interest and enthusiasm in combating poverty and to arouse community spirit to tackle the problem of poverty. I refer to the Bishop of Kerry the most Rev. Dr. Casey. During the past year or so he has held numerous seminars throughout the diocese of Kerry.

I have come across cases in which recipients of social welfare benefits who could not afford to pay their rates were summonsed and brought before the courts and decrees were got against them. I will explain the reasons for this later. We must remember that, were it not for the funds which the Government got from the EEC, we would not have the same level of social welfare benefits as we have today. I cannot understand why contributory pensioners are being discriminated against in certain respects, particularly in respect of the scheme for the relief of rates and the free fuel scheme. It is well known that a non-contributory pensioner living with his wife who is also in receipt of a non-contributory pension can get rates relief and qualify for free fuel, but this is not the case in respect of contributory pensioners.

An Ceann Comhairle

The rates relief scheme would be a matter for another Minister.

Mr. J. O'Leary

I am pointing out that the social welfare code should be changed immediately in that respect and I should like to see an amendment introduced to the Bill to that effect. I cannot understand why contributory pensioners are discriminated against in this respect.

I am particularly worried about long delays on the part of the Department in deciding applications for pensions and other benefits, particularly those for non-contributory old age pensions, disability pensions, unemployment assistance and unemployment benefits. I have come across cases where persons have waited ten to 12 weeks for decisions from the Department. The delays in relation to disability payments are not so great but there seems to be a change of attitude on the part of the Department in relation to applications for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. It appears to me that at least 90 per cent of such applications are referred to the local social welfare officers in rural areas and provincial towns. This means the officials cannot cope with the vast number of applications being referred to them. Such officers must visit each applicant, query the applicant, his wife and family on their means and household circumstances and must report back through normal channels.

I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary exactly why this change of mind has come to the Department, why it is necessary, particularly when there are so many people unemployed, to refer such a large proportion of the applications for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit to local officers. Not alone does it put a terrible burden on those people but the unfortunate applicants are in many cases kept waiting for months. They do not know whether they should go to the local home assistance officers for assistance or wait for another day or week for a decision from the Department. I have had occasion to contact the Department on behalf of an average of ten cases per week.

Personally, I am convinced the Department should be decentralised. It would be of tremendous benefit to applicants for various services if each county had its own administrative unit. At the same time, I subscribe to the view that payments should be made through head office in Dublin where overall control must be maintained and the maximum use made of the computer system.

Reference has been made from time to time to old age pension committees. There is a lot to be said for and against them but I believe that everything depends on the personnel of the committees and the efficiency of their clerks. There is no doubt that on many occasions local committees have provided the go-between as regards the local social welfare office, the Department and the applicants. Perhaps the only fault that could be found with committees is that some applicants feel members of them may know more about their personal affairs than they should.

More local offices should be opened in each county to enable persons make application, to get forms and advice regarding the completion of those forms in respect of their applications for the numerous benefits under the Social Welfare Acts. I have come across a large number of cases of persons entitled to occupational injuries benefit, or redundancy pay, who did not receive such benefit for months after application simply because they had been unable to comprehend the intricacies of completion of the application forms, because they failed to insert their PAYE number or failed to complete the application form in the proper manner. I believe that the opening of more of such local offices would streamline organisation within the Department of Social Welfare. There should be an office established and properly staffed in each town with a population of 1,500 or more.

I am concerned particularly about the substantial increases proposed in the social insurance contributions. We must remember that such increases will be paid by employees and employers. We must remember also that the vast majority of employees concerned are already paying income tax under the PAYE system. We must remember also that the vast majority of employers concerned are already paying income tax and, in some cases, corporation profits tax. Certainly, such proposed increases will constitute a hardship on many small firms and industries and will have the effect of reducing the pay packet of a large number of employees.

I am concerned also about the operation of the occupational injuries scheme. I cannot understand why there is a graded system of payment in respect of injury. In my opinion, the position should be hard and fast; either a person is unfit to work or he is capable of working. I have come across numerous cases of people having been certified by the Department's medical referee as being 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent incapable of working and of having had their benefit reduced accordingly. I have been convinced for some time that that system should be scrapped and that occupational injuries benefit should be paid to a person for the entire period of his disablement, until such time as a settlement is arrived at or until such time as the person is declared fit for work by the Department's medical referee. That is a point very worthy of investigation.

As I said at the outset, it appears to me that in our endeavour to eliminate the widespread poverty in our country, large numbers of social workers both male and female should be employed by the Department of Social Welfare. There are many cases of people not knowing how best to use the minimum amount of income to the maximum benefit of a household. This is where trained personnel could render advice and assistance. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to investigate the possibility of providing a number of social workers in each county and, of course, a large number in the thickly populated city areas.

I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that applications for unemployment benefit have been and are referred daily to local social welfare officers for investigation. I shall bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary over the next few weeks a few cases where this has happened.

There is another big fault in the social welfare code, and this is where a person believes he is entitled to unemployment benefit, proves unemployment, that he is capable of working and willing to take up work if it is offered to him. However, when his application is investigated it is discovered that he has not sufficient contributions on his card in respect of the relevant year. I have come across a number of such cases where applications were held up for a number of weeks. Their applications were ultimately refused and they were not paid anything whatever by the Department of Social Welfare while their applications were under consideration. They then applied for unemployment assistance, which was granted. Unemployment assistance should be automatically granted to the applicant from the date on which he makes the application for unemployment benefit.

There are many local voluntary organisations who have vast experience in looking after people who require financial assistance in order to provide the necessities of life. As a means of eliminating poverty, the Department of Social Welfare should pay grant to these voluntary organisations. The Department of Social Welfare should also provide a grant towards the cost of the free fuel scheme being operated by local authorities. Many country councils had tremendous difficulties during the past year in operating this scheme. In the case of Kerry County Council it was found necessary, for financial reasons, to restrict the scheme, and eventually the scheme applied only to persons who were living alone. People got free fuel vouchers in October, November and December but were disqualified from getting these vouchers during January, February and March. The Department of Social Welfare should pay at least 50 per cent of the cost of this scheme.

The school meals scheme should be extended to rural areas. Children in the majority of towns in rural areas can go home to their meals, but in the remote rural areas, where the school transport services are in operation, many children leave home very early in the morning and often do not return home until very late in the evening. The school meals scheme should be extended to such rural schools. There may be administrative difficulties not alone within the Department of Social Welfare but at local level as well, but it is well worth trying.

I am convinced that the increases granted to social welfare recipients in the recent budget and in this Bill are not keeping pace with the ever-increasing cost of living. Every day there is an increase in the price of one or more commodities. I am glad to see that the whole position will be reviewed before October.

Another aspect of the social welfare code with which I am particularly concerned is the operation of the prescribed relative's allowance scheme. As a result of numerous advertisements in provincial newspapers in the past couple of years a large number of people who do not come within the ambit of this scheme got the impression that they would qualify under it. It should be made clear to the public who exactly is entitled to benefit under the scheme. The officials of the Department of Social Welfare must be smothered with applications from persons who, as the law stands, do not qualify for the scheme. That scheme could be extended in a particular direction at very little cost and that extension would eliminate a great many unsuccessful applications. I believe that the care allowance should be paid to a married son, a married daughter or a daughter-in-law residing in the home with the incapacitated old age pensioner. Were it not for the care and attention these old age pensioners receive from married sons or daughters or perhaps daughters-in-law many of them would be under the care of local health boards and that could cost the State a great deal more. The scheme should be extended to provide for the payment of the prescribed relative's allowance to the particular categories I have mentioned.

It is about time that an improvement was made in the system relating to small farmers under £20 valuations who hand over their farms to sons or daughters. This scheme should also be extended to include nephews and nieces. I have known cases in which farmers who handed over their holdings to nephews and nieces were disqualified from receiving old age pensions. Indeed, the scheme could be extended to the person to whom the farmer would normally be expected to will his farm but, as a beginning, it should be extended to cover nieces and nephews; that would meet the majority of cases.

There seems to be widespread confusion about the free electricity and free television. An old age pensioner living alone qualifies for free electricity. If an old age pensioner transfers his holding by deed to a son who is getting married, or to some other member of the family, he makes certain provisions for himself and his wife. I have known cases where meters were installed in the living quarters of the old people. Other members of the household naturally had access to the house and, because they had, the old couple were refused free electricity and free television. The regulations should be more broadly interpreted particularly when the old people have their own meter. Applications for free electricity should be retrospective in effect. Sometimes applicants have to wait a month or six weeks before their applications are approved and benefit begins from the date on which the applications are approved. The effect should be retrospective to the date of application. I think, too, that the time has come when all electricity requirements should be free and not just a limited amount of electricity. Tax revenue is buoyant and the Exchequer is getting in an increasing volume of money.

I believe the primary cause for the need to increase social welfare contributions—it is the primary cause for concern certainly among the public— is the increasing unemployment. We will have tremendous social welfare problems in the near future unless the unemployment situation is tackled. The sooner that is done by the Government the better it will be.

Mr. Taylor

I think we all have a full appreciation of the Parliamentary Secretary's work in the elimination of poverty. In this particular area of social welfare there are no fewer than 60 Acts of Parliament under which social welfare is administered and there are 350 regulations under these different Acts. In the light of that one can appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's enormous task and involvement. We welcome his interest in consolidating social welfare legislation. When the investigation is completed we shall have a simplified social welfare code. This will not be before its time. I am certain that in the near future we will have this consolidation measure before the House.

I was very impressed by the Opposition spokesman on social welfare. He welcomed this Bill. His speech was reasoned and well-balanced and if the views he expressed reflect the views of the other members of his party there can be no reason for their voting against this Bill. It is refreshing to hear that the Bill is welcomed generally by the Opposition.

There are substantial increases in every sphere of social welfare assistance. These increases will help to offset the increased cost of living. We have been told that in October next the position will be reviewed so as to take into account inflationary trends in the intervening period. This is real progress and will ensure that social welfare recipients will not lag behind other sectors in respects of payments. Our social conscience compels us to think first of the less well-off sections of the community and this is what this Government are doing.

In 1973 social welfare benefits were increased by 66 per cent in the case of personal rates of benefits, by between 80 and 90 per cent in respect of single parent families while the children's allowance in respect of the first child has increased by 360 per cent since 1973. Social welfare recipients must realise the Government's desire to eliminate poverty. The Parliamentary Secretary's announcement in this regard received the publicity it deserved. There may be some who are prepared to suggest better ways of doing the job but the Parliamentary Secretary is the man who knows best how the problem can be tackled.

There are many areas in the social welfare structure in which improvements are desired. For example, embraced within the social welfare area I would like to see the administration of the home assistance allowances. I do not think any change in the administration of this area has been effected since 1833. This is an area which requires some consideration with a view to helping those who, perhaps because of shyness or otherwise, deny themselves even what is necessary to sustain life. I have in mind the placing of responsibility on social workers appointed by the State to visit people in this category so that they would be helped while there was still time rather than they would get the headlines when it was too late. These extreme cases do not occur very often but we must ensure that everything possible is done to seek out those people and help them. I know that public health nurses do a very good job in this area but their task is not easy if they are not accepted and this may happen in the case of old people who live alone.

The introduction of the pilot areas scheme regarding the elimination of poverty was a worthwhile and muchneeded innovation and I trust that when the data has been collected we can proceed to eliminate poverty totally. We appreciate the very good work carried out by social and community groups and by individual social workers in every sphere whether they be in the St. Vincent de Paul organisation or in Alcoholics Anonymous or any other group dealing with social problems.

There are many areas which require attention but which have still been untapped. However, I am confident that when the Parliamentary Secretary introduces a consolidated social welfare Bill, all those areas will be embraced which up to now have been excluded from the social welfare sphere.

Some people expressed worry about the increase in the cost of the social insurance stamp which has to be met by the employer and the employee. It is quite clear that this is only a temporary increase and was introduced specifically to meet the abnormal unemployment position. Who would grudge that necessary contribution by all those who are reasonably well off to help those who are unemployed? People are fortunate to be able to make some contribution towards those less well-off. We have the assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary and also from the Minister for Finance that this temporary contribution will not continue any longer than necessary. While there is any recession there must be a real understanding for those less well off. That is democracy as we know it and that is democracy in practice.

One could go into all the details of this Social Welfare Bill, but it might be better to leave this over for a later stage. The benefits which the people will receive on 1st April and also on 1st October are a tangible proof of the Government's interest in people who have not got the same standard of living which others enjoy. Everything in the Bill, even the increased contribution, is acceptable. I feel very pleased, as I come from an area where we have many recipients of social welfare benefits, with the increased benefits given this year. Anybody who lives in a western county can never claim he has too much of the world's goods. The soil in this area is not very fertile and we have not highly industrialised areas such as we have in other parts of the country. Many people in the western area need social welfare benefits because industry was not diversified. The Government have stated that they hope to diversify industry. Therefore it is good to know that until this takes place the people in this area will obtain help so that they have as good a standard of living as it is possible for the Government to give them.

Mr. Gallagher

The Parliamentary Secretary stated that this Bill is concerned with the extension and improvement of the social insurance and social assistance schemes provided for in the budget. While this side of the House accept that to a large extent this is true, we should also take note of a sentence later on in the Parliamentary Secretary's brief, which states:

The erosion of the purchasing power of welfare payments in a period of rapid inflation is a cause of concern...

Even though a great number of increases are given in this Bill they do not relate to the present cost of living. While pensioners and others will benefit, I do not accept that the increases given are adequate. I would like to have seen a great deal more done for the people in receipt of social welfare benefits.

I recently asked a question about many aspects of social welfare, home assistance, disability benefits and other matters connected with health and social welfare. We have a great deal to do in respect of all these matters. There are many things in this Bill which we can complain about. While the increases may be very welcome they do not live up to what we expected, especially in view of the fact that the subsidies which were formerly paid to agriculture are now available to the Government to help the poorer sections of the community. In the western counties county councils have to face huge bills for home assistance. In my county this year we had to make available £147,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that home assistance is not under the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibility.

Mr. Gallagher

We are covering the social welfare field in this Bill and I submit this is something which comes under the social welfare code and is relevant to this discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a very thin line.

Mr. Cluskey

It is not involved in this Bill. The Deputy will get an opportunity to speak on home assistance when we introduce the reform bill in the near future.

Mr. Gallagher

I am glad to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary intends to do something about this and for that reason I will refrain from making any further reference to the matter. Last year I complained about old age pensions, especially in relation to people in receipt of contributory pensions. During the last few weeks I have had complaints from a number of old age pensioners who are in receipt of British contributory pensions. Their pension books were collected and their pensions reduced because of an increase in the British payments. At a time when we are in the EEC and when there is greater co-operation with other Governments in regard to social welfare matters, it should not be necessary to impose this hardship on old people. They have to hand in their pension books several times during the year and then they find their pensions are reduced by £2 or £3 simply because there has been an increase in the British pensions.

There have been many instances where people have had to wait a considerable time before they received their pensions. I know of a case where a person applied for a contributory pension more than 12 months ago but because some of the contributions were made in Ireland and some in England the case has been going to and fro between the Department of Social Welfare here and the appropripriate Ministry in Britain. There is need for considerable streamlining in the Department of Social Welfare. Were it not for the fact that the man concerned in the case. I have mentioned has some relatives to look after him, he would be in an impossible situation. I cannot see why there should be this dreadful delay in attending to the needs of people who are only seeking their rights. I hope this will be the last time I shall have to make such a complaint here.

I am disappointed that little thought has been given in this Bill to the self-employed, although the Parliamentary Secretary made a passing reference to this group of people. In any small town at the present time business is in a depressed state and shopkeepers are closing their doors practically daily. These people have no option but to look for home assistance. Immediate action should be taken to protect the self-employed. Because many of them have valuations of a certain figure they will not qualify for unemployment assistance and they are forced to go to the home assistance officer for help. I hope that the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the Green Paper will be acted upon as quickly as possible so that some help may be given to the self-employed.

Another category affected are the fishermen. Although the skipper of a boat gets his share of the catch like the other fishermen he is not allowed to put up stamps for himself. This regulation is rather harsh, particularly on the west coast where there are periods when the weather is very bad and fishermen are unable to put to sea. At such times crew members can draw unemployment benefit but the skipper has no income whatever during such periods.

Part-time fishermen are adversely affected also because they are not allowed to pay contributions as are other workers. It is strange that these people should be singled out for this treatment and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try to remedy the anomaly that exists in this area. Part-time fishermen frequently work during the summer season but when they go to the unemployment exchange later in the year to draw unemployment assistance they are asked for an account of their earnings. Most fishermen will give this as far as they can, but their word is not accepted by the official who investigates their case. Usually what happens is that after a fishing season the amount of unemployment assistance is reduced considerably.

Let us compare their position with that of an industrial worker who emigrates. The latter may work as a subcontractor on building work in England and may earn £100 a week but when he returns to Ireland and goes to the local employment exchange he is asked only for the date of his last employment and the name of the firm. Part-time fishermen are treated very harshly in this matter and this does not encourage people to work. In fact, it encourages dishonesty because many of the fishermen will continue drawing the dole and also continue fishing in the hope that questions will not be asked later.

The present Act militates against rural workers in relation to unemployment benefit. Two sections of this Act have been applied more rigidly recently than in the past. Small farmers try to obtain employment with county councils or with farmers with large holdings during the summer months for the purpose of gaining a number of stamps but unless such farmers have 78 stamps over a period of three years they do not qualify to draw unemployment assistance. Previously if they had 26 stamps and put on 13 for the following year they could continue to draw unemployment benefit. The application of these two sections in such a rigid fashion makes it almost impossible for people living in rural areas to draw unemployment benefit because they find it difficult to get the required number of stamps.

In connection with school meals I should like to refer to the way the scheme operates in Gaeltacht areas. I doubt if that which is given to the children could be described as a meal. The scheme has been in existence for a long time but judging by the way it is administered at present it is a waste of public money. The scheme should be either improved or scrapped. The usual pattern is that bread is delivered to the schools twice weekly and cocoa or milk is delivered almost daily. However, there are no facilities in the majority of schools to provide a satisfactory meal. Many school children leave home at 7 o'clock in the morning, get the school bus to school and do not return home until 5 o'clock that evening. Such children should be given a substantial meal during the day. It would not cost very much to instal cooking facilities in schools so that the children could be given even a hot drink. If it is the intention to restructure the social welfare code and services, this area should be looked at.

The free electricity scheme causes a great many headaches to public representatives who have to explain who is eligible. Where an old person has a son who is unemployed living with him or her the free electricity scheme should be extended to those people. If the head of a household is unemployed and there is an old person in residence in that house, the free electricity scheme should also apply. The same applies to the prescribed relative allowance. It is very difficult to explain who is eligible for this scheme. If a prescribed relative is married to a man who is in receipt of unemployment assistance the allowance should be continued.

I do not agree that we are going far enough to assist those in the social welfare bracket. Poverty is worse than ever when one considers the cost of food, clothing and fuel. People living alone are finding it very hard to exist and in my view the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Government, have nothing to shout about in relation to this Bill. It is all very well to give figures and quote percentages in relation to increases down the years but the best way to equate things is to consider what £5 can buy now. I am not satisfied that sufficient efforts are being made to eradicate poverty and I believe that many people are worse off now than they were two years ago.

Mr. Hegarty

I should like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on this Bill. It is indicative of the courage of the present Government in very difficult times. The reduction in the qualifying age for the old age pension and the improved situation in relation to the means test have been welcomed. It is obvious from the figures that the increases given are far in excess of the rate of inflation. Social welfare is necessary in cases of illness, poverty and old age and we must provide such assistance.

In the case of small farmers or owners of small businesses on the disposal of that farm or business it is accepted that the old person qualifies for the pension. Where the money is disposed of for the benefit of a son or daughter it very often does not satisfy the pension officer who is investigating the disposal of means. I would like to see that rectified. Money should be treated in the same way as land or any other form of property.

The free electricity and free television licence are matters about which I feel strongly. Old people are very reluctant to approach anybody about this, form-filling is very often not their strong point and so they do without this very desirable little benefit. I would like to see the free electricity scheme extended to all old people, even if they are living with sons who are employed or in receipt of social welfare benefit. The administrative costs at the moment must be such that by simplifying the scheme in this way it would probably not cost any more. It must cost a lot of money to do all the probing that is done at present. A person in receipt of old age pension should automatically qualify for free electricity. This would give the old person a certain standing in his own home. He would feel he was contributing towards the household. It is very important that an old person maintain a certain amount of independence and pride. In this way he would feel he was helping to pay back the son or daughter for looking after him in his old age. This would probably help towards keeping old people at home. Only God knows what it costs nowadays to keep old people in hospitals.

Although it is slightly outside the scope of this debate, I would like to see an improvement in the capitation payments in geriatric hospitals. This seems to be an area in which we are skimping.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be more appropriate to another Estimate.

Mr. Hegarty

I accept that. I should like to make a point in regard to people in the public sector. A few cases have come to my notice of people employed in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and in other Departments. They have their own pension scheme but unfortunately there are snags and they are snags I would like to see removed forthwith. If a man applies to, say, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for a post and is fully qualified in every way, because of some inherent health problem he may not be allowed to become a full-time employee and so may not participate in the pension scheme. I know of an employee who was with a county committee of agriculture for 12 to 14 years. He received increments over the years in line with the permanent employees. In fact he missed less days at work than most of the permanent employees. He gave good service but he could not come under the pension scheme. He died and his widow is now left to the mercy of the waves. I would be quite satisfied with my contribution if this was rectified because I would not like to see it happen again. People with health problems are the people most in need of a pension scheme. If a man is likely to live to a ripe old age the pension is not nearly as important as it is to a man who might be taken away prematurely.

I was sceptical about the payment of unemployment assistance to the 24,000 smallholders but my short sojourn in the west showed me that this is a very useful and beneficial contribution indeed and I would like to see it tied in with EEC schemes such as the hill and handicapped areas scheme. All those contributions are being ploughed in to improve holdings. The people who are receiving those contributions are using them very wisely. It is a credit to them. The contributions are helping to keep people in the rural areas of the west and this is something that should be expanded and fostered rather than diminished.

I would agree with the speaker who said that the prescribed relative allowance should be paid to the son, daughter or daughter-in-law, even though that person is being supported by a husband or wife. It would help to keep old people at home. One very rarely sees somebody qualifying for this allowance. There is a lot of paper work done investigating cases. If a person is genuinely in need of full-time care and attention, if he is very ill or bedridden, and if that care and attention is being given by a daughter or daughter-in-law that small contribution should be made.

Having said all that, I must say I am proud to be associated with a Government who saw fit to do so much in such a short time in office for the old and the needy. It is very easy to talk about socialism but this is true socialism—to look after the needy and care for the less well-off people. It is a matter of chance and of inheritance that people are wealthy and if people are not very bright or are not physically able to work that is not their fault. I am very proud that we, in a difficult period, have succeeded in doing so much for them and I am particularly proud that we will not even wait until the Recess to have another look at the situation. I am sure the people who are in full employment at the moment will not begrudge the extra temporary relief they are being asked to give in a very good cause. The swing back has come with regard to unemployment and the need for this extra payment will not be there in a very short time.

Mention was made of retirement pensions for people living in the UK and qualifying for some pension here and some pension in the UK. I find the social welfare people at home and the social welfare people in Newcastle-on-Tyne equally efficient. I have no difficulties good, bad or indifferent. I have had a good many dealings with them. I should like to compliment publicly the people in Newcastle-on-Tyne on the promptness of their replies and their efficiency.

I will conclude by complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary on a good job. I should also like to compliment him on his general behaviour as a junior Minister. All his pronouncements have shown that he has a very deep concern for the people under his care. I am glad to be able to stand up here and compliment a very great man indeed.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 11 Mar 1975

Returns to Writs: North-East Galway and West Galway. - Social Welfare Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 1975