Social Welfare Bill, 1977: Second Stage.

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

Before proceeding with this Bill I should like to know if it would be possible to get agreement to take all Stages today. I understand there will be fewer sittings next week due to the bank holiday and the provisions covered by the Bill have to be implemented towards the end of the month. I understand that the nature of the Bill is something that cannot be amended.

Mr. Andrews

I do not see why, in the circumstances, the Parliamentary Secretary's reasonable request, in the light of the urgency of the Bill and the fact that we are precluded from tabling amendments to it having regard to its nature, we should not accede to his request. I am prepared to oblige the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Cluskey

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

The purpose of the Bill is to make the necessary legislative provisions to implement the social welfare increases and improvements announced in the budget. It deals, therefore, with increases in the rates of payment under the schemes of social insurance and social assistance; with a number of important improvements in the conditions attaching to these schemes; and, with consequential changes in the occupational injuries scheme.

The Bill also contains the necessary provisions for increases in the contributions payable under the social insurance and occupational injuries schemes which are required to ensure the proper financing of the very extensive services now provided. A special provision is included in the Bill to enable effect to be given to the ratification of multilateral instruments such as the European Convention on Social Security of the Council of Europe.

As is always the case, this Social Welfare Bill contains a number of sections which relate to the amendment of existing legislation and which are necessarily technical. Such sections can be difficult to follow. The explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill has been drafted with the intention of clarifying the various provisions and I hope that Deputies will have been helped by it in their examination of the Bill.

This is the fifth Social Welfare "Budget" Bill to have been introduced since the National Coalition came into office in 1973. It is the 11th piece of social welfare legislation which I have brought into this House in four years. In all of these measures, the concern of the Government has been to advance the work of alleviating social problems; of making adequate provision for all our citizens against the universally recognised contingencies of life; and of laying the foundations for the eventual elimination of financial need from our society.

As I pointed out in an Estimate speech here three years ago:

I have absolutely no illusions about the size of the job which we are facing and I am making no facile promises about easy solutions or fast conclusions.

The struggle against inequality and financial disadvantage is, as I said then, a long and difficult one, but we have begun. In fact, the advances made in social welfare in the past four years must be seen as the clearest evidence possible of the commitment of the Government to social progress and reform. In a period of almost unparalleled world recession, total financial provision for social welfare has been more than trebled and it has been possible, not alone to maintain and improve the real value of all basic rates of payment, but to bring about many important changes and expansions in our social welfare system. These achievements should be put into their proper context.

There has been an increasing amount of comment on the difficulties experienced by national social security systems all over Europe as a result of the recession and, in particular, of the sustained high level of unemployment. The latest EEC Social Report pointed to the fact that: "increased demands were made on social security . . . to alleviate the harmful effects of unemployment and inflation which mark the present crisis, whilst the effect of the recession was to reduce the financial means available". The same report makes reference to restrictive measures being taken in respect of the social welfare system even of the most advanced member states such as Belgium, Denmark and Germany.

A more recent report, by the International Labour Organisation, indicated that the problems of social security systems are continuing and made the point that just about the only good news about these schemes is: "that they have not gone bankrupt as sceptics predicted they would in the aftermath of the oil crisis".

In these circumstances the progress which has been possible in our social welfare system must be seen as evidence of the Government's firm determination to ensure that the old, the sick, the widowed and the unemployed are not called upon, as in the past, to bear the full burden of the nation's economic difficulties. Those who are, in fact, the victims of the working of our economic system must not be asked to pay twice for its failures.

The increases in weekly rates of social welfare payments to be implemented in April will ensure that— taking into account the increases paid to many recipients last October—all those in receipt of benefit and assistance payments will have obtained increases of the order of 15 per cent over the rates in operation in April, 1976. This will involve a total expenditure in the current year of over £46 million and it will bring the overall outlay on social welfare benefits and allowances to more than £520 million. This figure compares with the total outlay of £151 million in 1972-73. It represents about 10 per cent of the projected gross national product compared with the corresponding figure of 6½ per cent in 1972-73. These increases, together with the other very substantial improvements contained in this Bill maintain and consolidate the progress made since 1973 in implementing the social programme of the Government.

In the period between July, 1973, and April, 1977, the increases in personal rates of payment under the social insurance scheme will have been between 120 and 142 per cent, while payments in respect of dependent children will have increased by between 163 per cent and 195 per cent.

Maximum personal rates of payment under the social assistance scheme will have been increased, over the same period, by between 124 per cent and 155 per cent. Child dependant allowances will have risen by between 174 per cent and 220 per cent. Over the period from the beginning of 1973 to the present, the increase in the consumer price index has been of the order of 90 per cent —so that the increases provided for in the Bill in all rates of social welfare payments represent substantial real gains to all recipients.

I want to be a little more specific about this question of real increases. In the period from early 1969 to early 1973—roughly the period in office of the last Fianna Fáil Administration the rate of contributory old age pension for a couple both over pension age, rose from £6.63 to £10.35—a rise, in real terms, of about 11½ per cent, taking inflation into account. The real increase in pension for a similar couple in the four years of this Government will, at April, 1977 rates, be more than 20 per cent.

In the same period of Fianna Fáil government—1969 to 1973—the flat rate of unemployment benefit for a couple with two children rose by just over 15½ per cent in real terms. The corresponding real increase in the term of office of this Government has been about 18 per cent. These superior real increases have been achieved in a period of unprecedented world recession and inflation. They have been achieved at a time when, as I have already indicated, the position of income maintenance services all over Europe has been under the most severe pressure. They represent a positive achievement and they prove the nature of this Government's commitment in the whole area of social welfare.

The increases which come into operation in April are designed to ensure that persons who are dependent on social welfare payments will have been compensated for rising prices up to that date. The Government have also decided that welfare recipients will not be allowed to absorb price rises over a full year period following on the April increases and provision is again being made for a further 5 per cent increase in rates from October next to provide against such price increases. This further increase will be effected by regulation at the appropriate time. Thus, an October increase is being provided for the third year in succession. Deputies will agree with me that this has been a most important innovation in our social welfare system and one which takes full account of the special needs of social welfare recipients at a time of high inflation.

Before turning to a detailed description of the changes proposed in the main rates of social assistance and social insurance payments I wish to point out that I intend to deal separately with each of the improvements and changes affecting the various schemes later in my speech. Significant increases in the rates of all social assistance payments are provided for in the Bill. The maximum weekly personal rate of non-contributory old age and blind pensions is being raised from £10.75 to £11.75 for persons under 80 years and from £11.60 to £12.65 for persons aged 80 years and over. The rates of pension payable where the weekly means exceed £6 are also being correspondingly increased up to the point where means exceed £15 and no pension is payable.

The maximum weekly payment for dependent spouses who are not themselves entitled to a pension will be raised from the October, 1976, level of £5.35 to £5.85, so that the overall weekly payment for an old age non-contributory pensioner with a dependent spouse will, at the maximum rate, be increased from £16.10 to £17.60 and where the pensioner is 80 years of age or over, from £16.95 to £18.50. The corresponding rates in April, 1976, were £15.35 and £16.15, respectively.

The allowance paid in respect of a prescribed relative giving full-time care and attention to an incapacitated pensioner is being increased by 55p a week to £6.55. In addition, the increases payable in respect of qualified children are being raised by 25p to £3.15 a week for the first two children and by 20p to £2.40 a week for each additional child.

The new table of weekly means and rates of pension in section 2 sets out particulars of these changes. I should explain that, for a pensioner with qualified children, the means limit is greater than the £15 shown in the table and there is provision for extending the table to cover such cases.

Section 4 provides for increases in the personal rates of unemployment assistance which are raised from £8.90 to £10.20 in the case of urban areas and from £8.55 to £9.80 in rural areas. Corresponding increases are made in the rates for adult dependants and for qualified child dependants. Thus the rate of unemployment assistance payable to a married couple with one child is increased from £18.10 to £20.75 in an urban area and from £17.65 to £20.20 in a rural area, representing an increase of £2.65 and £2.55 in these payments, respectively.

Sections 8 and 9 provide for the application of the budget increases in the weekly rates of non-contributory widow's and orphan's pensions. These increases apply automatically to the social assistance allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives. The maximum personal weekly rate of these allowances will be increased from £10.75 to £11.75 and the increase payable in respect of each qualified child is being raised from £3.55 to £3.90. The orphan's non-contributory pension rises from £7.00 to £7.65 a week. The single woman's allowance will also be increased and the maximum weekly payment will be £10.20—an increase of 85p a week. All of these rates, it will be remembered, were also increased last October.

I now come to the increases in the rates of the contributory pensions and short-term social insurance benefits which are set out in some detail in section 14. I will refer briefly to some of the main items. The personal rates of contributory old age and retirement pensions, in the case of persons under age 80, go up by £1.15 a week to £13.60 and, for those over age 80, the pension is being increased by £1.25 a week to £14.75. The maximum personal rates of widow's contributory pension and deserted wife's benefit will go up by £1.05 a week to £12.60, in the case of those under age 80 and by £1.15 a week to £13.60 for those over that age. The rate of invalidity pension is being increased from £11.45 to £12.45 a week. Again, it must be remembered that all the pensions I have mentioned were increased last October.

The additions to pensions and benefits in respect of adult dependants and children are also being increased. Thus, in the case of old age contributory and retirement pensions, a married couple both of whom are over pensionable age will get £24.40 a week pension from April or £25.25 a week if the pensioner is 80 years of age or over, as compared with £21.30 and £22.00 in April, 1976. A widow or deserted wife with four qualified children will get £29.60 a week by way of contributory pension or benefit compared with £25.80 in April last.

The short-term social insurance benefit rates are being increased in the same way so that a married couple with four children will get £33.55 a week by way of flat-rate unemployment benefit or disability benefit compared with £29.40 at present. Maternity allowance is being raised from £10.90 to £12.45 a week, and the contributory orphan's allowances this year will involve an £9.20 a week.

In line with the improvements in the general social insurance system, the Bill also provides, in section 19, for increases in the rates of benefit payable under the occupational injuries scheme. The increases in weekly rates will be broadly in line with those provided for in the social insurance categories to which I have referred. It is of interest to indicate more clearly the impact of these substantial increases by giving some details of the number of recipients involved.

About 300,000 pensioners and 12,000 recipients of long-term benefits and allowances—together with their adult and child dependants— will receive increases under the various provisions of the Bill. In addition, approximately 190,000 claimants to short-term benefits and allowances will receive the proposed new rates of payments, together with appropriate increases for their adult dependants and qualified children. In all, some 930,000 persons will benefit from the provisions of this Bill.

It is also worth while to say something about the breakdown of total expenditure on social welfare between the main categories of benefit and allowance. The best estimates at present available to me indicate that of the projected total expenditure of about £520 million some 54 per cent will be spent on social insurance benefits, 45 per cent on social assistance allowances and just 1 per cent on occupational injuries benefits.

Of the overall total, the amount estimated for payments under the unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and pay-related benefit —unemployment—headings will be approximately £117 million—or 22½ per cent. This figure very clearly underlines the fact that the social welfare system is not—as its vocal critics constantly suggest—catering merely for this one social problem. In fact, by far the greatest proportion of projected expenditure relates to pensions of all kinds—which will account for almost £230 million, or 44 per cent of the total. Children's allowences this year will involve an outlay of £50 million.

For the fourth time since the Government took office, the qualifying age for old age pensions is being reduced by a further year—from 67 to 66 years with effect from 1st October next. Section 13 of the Bill provides accordingly. The significance of this advance can be appreciated by reference to the fact that, prior to 1973 and the advent of this Government, there had never been a reduction of pension age from the original age of 70 years. That pension age was originally set, in respect of non-contributory pensions, 70 years ago in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908—a United Kingdom statute—and, in the case of contributory pensions, 17 years ago in the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1960. Nothing at all was done in this direction in the whole period of Fianna Fáil rule from 1957 to 1973.

I regard the progress made in this respect as most important. The Government's original commitment was simply to reduce pension age, and four such steps have now been taken. It is estimated that these changes will have brought in more than 50,000 new pensioners by next October.

This provision affects not only the qualifying age for old age pension, both contributory and non-contributory, but also affects the maximum age up to which the short-term benefits such as disability benefit and unemployment benefit and assistance may be received. Liability for payment of social insurance contributions will cease also at age 66 and, in order to prevent any undesirable repercussions which this might have in relation to pension entitlement, the section includes a number of "saver" clauses to protect the position of existing pensioners and persons who may be approaching 67 years.

The reduction of pensionable age will also have the effect of enabling more persons to qualify for the benefits of the free travel, free electricity and free television licence schemes and it is expected that, as a result, a further 11,000 persons will be brought into those schemes this year.

I want to mention at this point that the facilities of free travel and, where appropriate, free electricity allowance and free television licence, are being further extended to include approximately 10,000 recipients of the invalidity pension under the Social Welfare Acts. These facilities will also be made available to persons in receipt of the disabled persons maintenance allowance, under the Health Acts, thus bringing a further 32,000 persons within the scheme from April next.

The Department of Social Welfare are finalising plans with the Department of Health which will involve my Department taking over the administrative arrangements for the extension of this scheme to those in receipt of the Health Act allowances to which I have just referred.

As in the case of pension age, this Government have given very special consideration to the development of the scheme of children's allowances. The view, widely held among professionals in the social services, that these allowances are of particular importance in meeting the financial needs of larger and poorer families has been fully accepted. The arrangement whereby the children's allowances are payable to the mother has added significantly to their effectiveness in social policy and thus it is now an indispensable element in our overall approach.

The rates of children's allowances are being increased with effect from July next. The increase of 50p a month will apply to the second and each subsequent qualified child and the monthly rates of allowance will then be £2.30, as at present, for the first child, £4.10 for the second child, and £4.85 for each other qualified child. For a four child family, therefore, the monthly allowance will be £16.10.

Thus, children's allowance rates have been raised four times in the five budgets of the National Coalition. This performance—reflecting as it does the very firm commitment of the Government to a crucial form of social provision—is in sharp contrast to what went before.

In the ten years from 1963 to 1973, children's allowances were increased only three times. Over that ten year period the amount payable monthly to a four child family rose from just £3 to £6.50—an increase of 118 per cent. In the four-year period 1973 to 1977, the increases will have been 148 per cent, bringing the amount payable in July this year to £16.10. The real increase in the past four years is also greater than that in the previous ten. Expenditure on children's allowances has risen from approximately £17 million in 1972-73 to just £50 million this year. 750,000 children will benefit from this year's increases.

As an expression of the special concern of the Government for the position of elderly pensioners living alone, this Bill also provides for the payment of a special increase of £1.00 a week to social welfare pensioners who have reached pensionable age and who are living alone. This special increase will apply, therefore, to old age pensions, both contributory and non-contributory, retirement pensions, widows contributory pensions, deserted wife's benefit, invalidity pensions and death benefit pensions under the Occupational Injuries Acts, where the age and living alone conditions are met. In all these cases, including qualified non-contributory pensioners who are in receipt of payments below the maximum, the special increase of £1 a week will apply in full.

This improvement in the pensions scheme reflects an acceptance of the case made by many of these working with old people about the particular problems of those who are alone and dependent on the personal rate of pension. It will raise the basic rate of contributory old age pension for qualified pensioners to £14.90 a week, with the rate for pensioners over 80 years of age rising to £15.75 a week. Similarly, the maximum basic rate of non-contributory old age pension for qualified pensioners will be raised to £12.75 a week with the rate for those over 80 reaching £13.65 a week. It is estimated that at least 30,000 pensioners will benefit from this provision.

Section 3 of the Bill increases substantially the amount of earnings which may be disregarded for pension purposes in the case of blind persons. The changes will be as follows: the disregard in the case of the claimant will be increased from £65 to £208; that for an adult dependant from £52 to £156; and that for each qualified child from £39 to £104. Thus, the earnings disregarded as means in the case of a couple with two qualified children will be increased—by 193 per cent—from £195 to £572 per annum.

The "housekeeper" allowance which is at present payable with unemployment assistance, disability benefit, unemployment benefit, injury benefit under the Occupational Injuries Acts and invalidity pension, to single men and widowers in respect of a woman who has the care of their children, will in future be payable in the case of single women, widows and deserted wives in similar circumstances. This goes some way further towards eliminating inequality of treatment of women in the social welfare system and towards meeting the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of Women. The sections of the Bill which provide for this change in relation to the various benefits concerned are 7, 16 and 21.

The Bill, in section 6, modifies the long-standing requirement that in order to receive unemployment assistance widows and spinsters without a child dependant must have had 52 social insurance contributions paid in respect of them in the four years preceding the date of claim. The number of contributions required to have been paid in such cases will henceforth be only 26.

Following a review of the special scheme of unemployment assistance for smallholders the Government decided, as announced in the budget that the increases in the rates of unemployment assistance provided for in this Bill will not apply to smallholders whose rateable land valuation exceeds £10 but does not exceed £20 and whose means for unemployment assistance purposes are assessed on a notional basis by reference to their valuations. Subsection (2) of section 4 of the Bill provides accordingly.

Section 5 of the Bill provides that the notional method of assessing means from land of smallholders in the specified areas whose rateable land valuation exceeds £20 will no longer apply. These smallholders may, however, continue to be eligible for unemployment assistance but only on the basis of factual assessment of means as in the case of applicants generally for such assistance. The Government's decision in this matter was largely influenced by the significant improvement in present levels of farm incomes and the highly concessionary multipliers used in the calculation of means having regard to these improved income levels.

In practice, these measures will mean that landholders whose rateable valuations do not exceed £10 will benefit from the increased rates of unemployment assistance provided in section 4; but landholders whose rateable valuation lies between £10 and £20 and whose means are notionally assessed will remain on their present rates of unemployment assistance. Such persons may, however, if they feel it would be to their advantage, apply to have their means assessed on a factual basis in which case they would receive the current rate of payment appropriate to their means as so assessed. In the case of smallholders whose rateable valuation exceeds £20, and whose means have been assessed on the notional basis, their title to unemployment assistance will cease as from 30th March, 1977, but such persons may establish title on the basis of their actual incomes.

An estimated 12,600 smallholders, or over 57 per cent of the 22,000 involved, will receive the rate increases provided for in the Bill. The 8,000 in the over £10 to £20 rateable valuation bracket will remain on their present rates of unemployment assistance and the remaining 1,400 whose rateable valuations are over £20 will cease, as from 30th March, 1977, to be entitled to unemployment assistance on the notional assessment basis. These may, as I have already stated, qualify for such assistance on a factual assessment of their means.

The purpose of the special provision contained in section 22 of the Bill is to extend the power which the Minister already has to make orders implementing reciprocal arrangements made with individual countries so as to enable him to make similar orders in the case of multilateral instruments affecting social security. This provision is necessary to enable consideration to be given to the question of ratifying the European Convention on Social Security of the Council of Europe.

The convention is designed to ensure a broad measure of coordination of the social security schemes of the member States which become contracting parties to the instrument and it covers all the usual benefits in the field of social security. In general, nationals of contracting parties are covered, as well as refugees and stateless persons resident in the territory of a contracting party who are or have been subject to the legislation of one or more contracting parties, together with the members of their families and their survivors. The convention covers both the employed and the self-employed.

The extra cost of the rates increases and of the other improvements in the social insurance schemes which are provided for in the Bill must be met out of the social insurance fund which is financed by insurance contributions from employers and employees with an annual subvention from the Exchequer. This extra cost, including the cost of the further increases in pension and benefit rates in October next, will amount to almost £23.4 million in the current year.

To this must be added the sum of about £3.26 million to cover the full year cost of the October, 1976, increases and some additional administration costs, bringing the total additional expenditure to be borne by the fund to about £26.66 million in the current year. The Exchequer contribution towards this extra cost will amount to approximately £13.77 million leaving the balance, about £12.89 million to be met from increased contributions.

This will require an increase of 63p in the rates of contribution which account for all benefits, of which the employer will be required to pay 42p and the employee 21p. And here I should mention that the special increase of 31p in the social insurance contribution introduced in 1975 is being retained for a further twelve months to meet the cost of the high level of unemployment claims still being experienced.

The ordinary rates of social insurance contributions, including the occupational injuries contribution, will thus be increased to £6.41 for men, of which the employer will pay £4.06 and the employee £2.35. For women the new ordinary rate will be £6.30 of which the employer will pay £4.01 and the employee £2.29. These rates do not include the health contribution, where that is payable, nor do they include redundancy contributions.

The rates of voluntary contributions will be correspondingly increased to £1.20 a week at the low rate and £3.10 a week at the high rate—an increase of 10p and 27p respectively.

The special voluntary contribution in respect of a certain category of insured person affected by the abolition of the remuneration limit from April, 1974, will be increased by 17p to £1.90 a week.

All of the new contribution rates come into effect from Monday, 4th April, 1977.

In line with the improvements in the general social insurance schemes, the Bill also provides, as I have stated, for corresponding increases in the benefit rates payable under the occupational injuries scheme. However, it is not proposed on this occasion to increase the rates of contribution to the occupational injuries fund, which are payable by employers only.

All of the increases in the rates of social welfare payments provided for in the Bill come into effect at the beginning of April with the exception of the increases in the rates of children's allowances which come into effect from 1st July. The reduction in pensionable age will operate from 1st October and in that month also the further increase in rates which I have already mentioned will be implemented. The substantial nature of the overall improvements included in the Bill may be judged by the size of the financial commitment involved. On the assistance side, including children's allowances and the extra cost in relation to the extension of the free travel, etc., schemes the cost in the current year is estimated at £19.732 million. On the social insurance side the additional cost to be borne by the social insurance fund comes to £26.656 million.

The overall cost is, therefore, of the order of £46½ million towards which the Exchequer contribution will amount to some £33.5 million in the current year.

I have already indicated the overall level of social welfare expenditure this year—about £520 million. The Exchequer allocation for social welfare this year has reached £290 million, compared with the 1972-73 figure of about £92 million.

These increases should be viewed in the light of the overall rise in Government social spending since 1973. As a proportion of the total current budget, Exchequer spending on the social services in general has grown from 37 per cent to 42 per cent. This increase—representing a rise in cash terms of almost £600 million—reflects the determination of the Government to fulfil its social policy commitments.

Total social spending in 1977, including the gross expenditure figure for Social Welfare, has been estimated at about £1,070 million. This is approximately 21 per cent of the projected gross national product for the year—it may be compared with a figure of 13½ per cent in 1972-73.

I feel sure that the House will agree with me when I say that these wide-ranging improvements add up to a most important social welfare package and one which greatly strengthens our overall welfare provisions. Significant advantages will accrue, under the terms of this Bill, to very large numbers of persons many of whom are in categories which merit the highest priority in any consideration of social policy development.

I want, at this point, to refer briefly to the position of widows under the social welfare code. I have already indicated the details of increases payable to widows under the terms of the Bill and I have spoken about the introduction of a housekeeper allowance for widows and others. The personal rate of contributory widow's pension will have been increased by 125 per cent between 1973 and April, 1977—the corresponding rate of non-contributory widow's pension will have risen by 128 per cent. In the case of a widow with two children the equivalent percentage increases are: 145 per cent in the case of a contributory pensioner, and 149 per cent for a non-contributory pensioner.

There has been an amount of comment to the effect that the contributory widow's pension should be raised to the rate enjoyed by recipients of the contributory old age pension. This argument ignores the fact that the conditions for receipt of the contributory old age pension require the pensioner to have worked for a long time in insurable employment to build up entitlement, whereas a widow can qualify for the contributory widow's pension on the basis of insurance contributions paid over a much shorter period of time either on her own or on her husband's insurance.

It is often asserted also that the widows do not transfer to old age pension. The position in this respect is that a contributory widow pensioner, like any other potential beneficiary, can build up a personal entitlement to the contributory old age pension by working in insurable employment, without any diminution of her widow's pension. Indeed, employed widow pensioners have an advantage over other workers in that since July, 1973, they do not even have to pay the employee's share of the weekly contribution. On reaching old age pension age then, a widow is in the same position as other workers who must make application for a contributory old age pension.

In the case of a widow in receipt of a non-contributory widow's pension that pension is payable only up to pensionable age. At that stage the widow applies for the non-contributory old age pension which is payable at the same rate as the non-contributory widow's pension.

By now, Deputies will have realised the scope and, indeed, the complexity of this Bill. It will be noted also that while most of these changes will become operative in April, others will be implemented in July and October.

I consider it to be of the greatest importance, therefore, that beneficiaries and claimants should be assisted as far as possible in understanding all aspects of the changes which are being introduced. Accordingly, my Department are arranging for appropriate publicity at the time of the introduction of the new rates and improvements. The Department of Social Welfare booklet which has been welcomed for its clarity, despite the complex nature of its contents, will be published at the time of the April changes as usual and further appropriate publicity will be arranged prior to the changes due in July and October.

This Bill has the purpose of implementing a most important aspect of the budget strategy. Very clearly, the budget was designed to fulfil a number of vital policy objectives: stimulation of the economy, creation of new jobs, winding-down inflation and ensuring equity. The budget was to be seen as a package and, in that package, these social welfare proposals were accorded a highly significant place.

While of necessity, the central thrust of the budget was in the direction of economic growth and job opportunity the Government allocated a major share of scarce resources to the social services, and to social welfare in particular. Such balancing of the economic and social aspects of budget strategy is surely crucial if there is to be real success in facing up to our national problems.

Social policy and economic policy cannot be divorced. To suggest—as is suggested by some people who should know better, if one considers the positions they hold in society—that social advance must await some undefined future stage of economic achievement is dangerously wrong. Not alone is it wrong in terms of national strategy but it is potentially harmful to the interests of those groups in our community who are most vulnerable.

Unless we can plan our development so as to ensure harmonious social and economic development at all stages the problems of the poor, of the badly housed, of the victims of discrimination and of the unemployed will increase, even in periods of alleged progress. Those who claim they cannot see this point are either ignorant of the real facts of life or are deliberately pursuing vested sectional interests.

I see this year's budget as an exercise in achieving just the right balance—between incentive and investment on the one hand, and justice and equity on the other. The social welfare provisions of the budget are realistic and essential in this context. I reject the idea—put forward in some early comments on the budget—that there is a contradiction between incentive in the economic area and improvements in the social welfare system. Both are necessary if the overall goals of national policy are to be met.

In this connection, I want to repeat here an opinion that I have voiced on more than one occasion in the past. While it is most necessary and desirable that social welfare policy should be widely and critically debated, some of the criticism made in recent times has been both ill-informed and damaging.

It does not seem to have occurred to very many of the critics—not least those in business circles—that constant repetition of certain unsubstantiated allegations and assertions about the social welfare system could only have the effect of undermining progress which is absolutely necessary in the interests of the least well-off.

It is commonplace at times of economic difficulty to find convenient scapegoats and these, all too often, turn out to be the unemployed and the disadvantaged. If those who consider that they have a legitimate case in respect of particular aspects of the social welfare system or of its application would only pause to ensure that their remarks do not take on the flavour of almost universal questioning of social welfare as such we could avoid great potential damage. We must all remember that the fundamental purpose of the social welfare system is to provide for the needs of our fellow-citizens who cannot make that provision for themselves. Social welfare is a basic responsibility of society.

I welcome the recent study made by the director of the National Social Service Council in which he laid, once and for all, many of the more pernicious untruths about unemployment payments. In that study it was shown, conclusively I believe, that the payments made to unemployed persons cannot in general be described as over-generous. Indeed, when one considers the conclusion of the paper that, in the period in question, about 80 per cent of those on the live register received at most flat-rate unemployment benefit and that only 20 per cent were in receipt of pay-related benefit supplement—at an average of less than £7 a week—the conscientiousness or the good faith of many critics of social welfare must be called seriously into question.

This Bill represents a further considerable stage in the development of our social welfare system. It provides for very real advances in that system and it must, accordingly, recommend itself to the House.

However, it would be a grave mistake to be in any way complacent about the situation in the field of social welfare. Whatever may have been achieved a very great deal remains to be done.

The task of bringing about a better distribution of the resources of the country in favour of those in need— and to provide a broader range of supports capable of helping many of these people to provide for themselves and for their dependants—must go on. In particular this is true in the case of those who must resort to the Social Welfare system by reason of unemployment.

We must pause, even when considering the very significant progress made in the Budget, and reflected in this Bill, to remember that the proposed new level of the contributory old age pension is no more than £13.90 a week and that of the noncontributory old age pension, £11.75 a week. We still have a long way to go.

No matter which benefit or allowance one points to, the consideration of the real needs of individuals and families must bear heavily upon us. A budget such as this marks a significant further advance but it should also serve to point out for us all, the huge responsibility which rests on the community to provide for those in need and the tremendous challenge which this throws out to our whole economic and social structure.

In facing up to this challenge we must seek at all times to be fully informed and to make an objective and honest assessment of the whole situation. Good policy springs from good debate.

In conclusion, I can say that this Bill is a genuine attempt to make the most positive and relevant contribution which our resources permit to the development of the sort of social welfare system to which the Government have committed themselves. Not alone has the necessity of maintaining the value of all social welfare payments been recognised, and acted upon, but the opportunity has been taken to further improve and strengthen the system in many important respects.

The new elements introduced and the specific improvements brought about in the areas of pension age, children's allowances, invalidity, pensioners living alone, widows and so on will benefit many thousands of families and individuals around the country. They prove that the nation cares and that the resources necessary to make that care a practical reality will be allocated.

I now recommend the Bill to Dáil Éireann for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary at the beginning of his contribution departed from his script and urged that in the light of the need to implement this Bill speedily to provide for those who are in serious need, the Bill should receive a speedy passage through the House. I concurred with the Parliamentary Secretary and agreed to his request. It is as well to point out that by the nature of this Bill amendments are precluded. I understand that when a Bill gives financial benefits. such benefits cannot be interfered with by way of amendment. Naturally, if we intended to interfere, we would look for increases rather than decreases.

The Parliamentary Secretary has outlined the progress which has been made by the Government on the social security front since the passage of the last similar Social Welfare Bill. The Fianna Fáil philosophy on the social welfare front is a good one. We apologise to no one for our achievements in the area of social welfare. Giving credit where credit is due, the Coalition Government undoubtedly set up a number of new areas of entitlement, but after four-and-a-half years in office that might well be expected. Apart from setting up most of the existing social welfare structures, we have articulated continuously the real need and the real purpose of ensuring equity and justice to those entitled to the various benefits, assistance and support. The Government are forever proudly boasting about the numbers in receipt of one form of entitlement or another, 930,000 in all, men, women and children. I would remind the Government that of that 930,000 there are 118,000 people in receipt of benefit against their will. These are the officially unemployed. They would rather not be in receipt of the Government's goodwill by virtue of the entitlements they are receiving as unemployed persons. If the unofficial figures for the unemployed were included, it would probably amount to 930,000. Who is to say that it would not amount to one million people who would come directly under social welfare entitlements?

It is not good enough to suggest that the unemployment figures are unacceptable to those elected collectively, as responsible for their unemployment condition, and leave it at that. The Government appear to believe that if they continue to use the unacceptability formula, the problem will go away. This is one of the great catch phrases of the Government in the recent past, apart from the new clichés, called bunching together and oligopoly mentioned in the last two days. An expression of concern is one thing and performance is another. We in Fianna Fáil believe and have articulated by way of a policy document that we have the solution to the problem of the unemployed. We can prove this if given an opportunity to do so by the electorate in the next general election which cannot be too far distant.

In relation to unemployment assistance, it is common case that there is a minority of people who are strident in their condemnation of those in receipt of unemployment assistance. If thousands are in receipt of any benefit or assistance, we will have critics and we will have abuses. Whilst not attempting to justify those abuses, it is well to say that only a tiny minority of people engage in abuses. The vast majority of those in receipt of social aid are decent people who would rather have the dignity of having a job. The minority harm the system, as any minority abusing any system invariably does. The suggestion that the level of payments be reduced is unjust as that proposition if acted upon would penalise the honest majority who are willing and able to work but would not penalise the dishonest minority. The dishonest minority are the people who, whilst receiving unemployment assistance, invariably have another job on the side. Those people are damaging the good name of the people who genuinely seek employment and cannot get it. The critics who are most strident in their condemnation of the system of unemployment assistance might temper their comments with clarity, charity and Christianity.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to Mr. Murray of the National Social Services Council, and I, too, would like to pay tribute to the most helpful survey done by him. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the survey quite clearly puts into perspective the problem and the burden being suffered by people in receipt of unemployment assistance. Mr. Murray in his article pointed out, by way of a number of examples, offences relating to unemployment benefit and assistance. In 1973 there were 78 such offences, in 1974 there were 40, and in 1975, 12. Offences relating to payment of unemployment contributions, for example, failure to stamp cards and so on, amounted to 324 in 1973, 349 in 1974 and 192 in 1975. In addition in the financial years 1973, 1974, and 1975 the Department of Social Welfare recovered a total of £3.7 million in civil proceedings. At the end of October, 1976, 42,000 people received unemployment assistance at the maximum rate; for example, a husband, wife and two children received £20.85 per week; husband, wife and six children £29.25 per week. However, the most insidious aspect is that 62,000 children lived in families on unemployment assistance at the time of the production of those figures in October last year. Critics of those in receipt of unemployment assistance should remember that those individuals have to support a wife and children. The Government might also reflect on that figure.

It is as well to point out again and again that the large majority of those people who are unemployed want to work. The Government cannot give them work—they are suffering from some sort of immovability on the work front and they just do not seem to be able to produce the goods as far as the unemployment situation is concerned. We have the school leavers coming along again apart from all those people who have been at work for most of their lives and now find themselves unemployed. Will the Government articulate their attitude in relation to unemployment before the next election? The unacceptability formula does not work any more and the facts about what happened in the time of Fianna Fáil do not work any more. This Government have been in office for almost four years with the clear prospect of going for five years. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary himself, during the period of euphoria following the recent budget, said that in certain circumstances the Government could go on for seven years.

Mr. Cluskey

I do not recall that.

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary could go to RTE and see the programme on which he and Deputy O'Malley appeared.

Mr. Cluskey

I anticipate this Government staying in office a lot longer than seven years.

Mr. Andrews

I understand that would be the Parliamentary Secretary's expectation and nobody would deny that expectation to him. However, we are talking about unemployment, and the Government's lack of commitment. All the benefit to be produced by this Bill is no solution to any great degree to people who would rather be working on the shop floor than going along on a weekly basis to get what they are entitled to as citizens. The problem of unemployment is the uncertainty about the future. A man who has been employed from the age of 18 to the age of 42 or 43 may suddenly find himself in receipt of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. If that man knew that he would be reemployed within three or six months there would be no problem but the uncertainty about the future begins to work on his mind and on the minds of his wife and children.

The father is at home almost 24 hours of the day and the male of the species, whatever about the feminists amongst us, was never intended to be at home for that length of time; he was meant to be out working. The wife is entitled to work but meantime the husband, who should be the breadwinner in the family, finds himself at home all day under the feet of his wife and children. Frustration begins to grip and uncertainty is there all the time; the husband begins to fret and tensions begin to build up in the home.

On a number of occasions to my own certain knowledge there have been family breakdowns brought about by the spectre and the reality of continuous unemployment. All the social welfare benefit, all the cash in the world, is no substitute whatever for a stable home. Apart from the danger of the marriage breaking down the children are out in the street, finally ending up before the courts and becoming drop-outs. The cost to the country in the loss of one young person's working life is quite considerable spread over a period of 40 years. The unhappiness of joblessness has a major effect on marriage and on the family home.

So when the Government temporise or prate about their achievements on the social welfare front we will give them credit for just about keeping up with the times in the context of the increases in benefits up to about two years ago. I have here a set of statistics which will explode in the face of the Parliamentary Secretary and his senior colleagues in the Government. The fact is that many of the increases which he proposes to implement on 1st April will have been eroded within a number of weeks and months after their implementation. These are proven figures. I refer to the publication of social welfare entitlements in the media by way of advertisement. It is extraordinary that when the allegedly good news is to be produced it is published in advertisement form by the Department of Social Welfare but when the bad news appears, namely price increases, the reason for the non-publication is put down to the psychology of inflation and consequently they are not published. On the one hand, the increases are advertised on the media, the advertisements being paid for of course by the Government, and, on the other hand, price rises which take place weekly are not published because they tell a different story.

It is good to note the Parliamentary Secretary is making some progress in the area of non-discrimination against women. For the past four years we have been calling for an end to this discrimination and there has been some progress. There is amongst us a group which can be described as the new poor. These people are in the lower income group, adrift in the wilderness between social welfare and voluntary health insurance. In terms of income they are a few pounds above the social welfare limits and they are unable to pay for voluntary health insurance. I understand the latter will be going up again arising out of what happened here yesterday. That is not inconsistent. It is apparently Government policy to increase prices at every opportunity. I do not know what the Government plans for this particular group, an extremely harassed group in our society.

Deputy Haughey spoke yesterday about the middle income group. In addition to that group there is the middle middle income group and the upper middle income group. I am specifically relating my remarks to the lower middle income group, to those people on fixed incomes, living for the most part in urban areas, people who have sought to set themselves a decent standard of living and some degree of certainty in regard to the future from the point of view of their health. The only way they can do that is through the medium of reasonable insurance contributions. At the moment they are between the devil and the deep blue sea. They do not know where they are going. They are given no lead by the Government. I make a particular appeal on their behalf. Someone must come to their rescue as a matter of urgency. They need guidance and they need hope. They are apparently the concern of no one. We should concern ourselves with them. The group is growing and their conditions are becoming worse and worse.

There are a number of anomalies which concern us and, no doubt, concern the Parliamentary Secretary. One such anomaly is the position of a widow whose old age pensioner husband dies. She may be 59 or 60 with no prospect of remarriage. All the entitlements she enjoyed while her husband was alive, such as free travel, free electricity, free television and so on, cease. This appears to me to be very callous. I do not say this in criticism of the Government or the civil servants. It is a criticism of all of us. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will change the system and put an end to this insidious practice. It would not cost anything to continue these entitlements because the administration is already there.

With regard to the stamp, there is a hidden form of taxation involved here. This is grossly unfair, particularly in view of the Government's announcement anent employment premiums. The employer should not be asked to pay £4.06 and the employee £2.35 as their share of the stamp, bringing the total cost to £6.41. This increase occurs at a time when we are in what is probably the gravest unemployment situation this country has ever experienced, at a time when employers should be encouraged to provide more employment, at a time when the Government and we, in Opposition, are asking employers to take on employees as a matter of patriotic duty.

However, the social insurance contributions have been increased, savagely in my opinion. Whatever about last year, surely the Government must have given the matter some reasonable thought. In an unemployment crisis situation the last thing that should be done is to increase the social insurance contributions. The Government produced all sorts of premium gimmicks which we hope will work although we have the gravest doubt about their viability. However, we will encourage them. On the other hand, the Government knock that reasonably good idea of employment premiums by increasing the employers' amount of the contribution on the social insurance stamp to £4.06 and that of the employee to £2.35 in the case of the male worker. In the case of the female worker the ordinary rate will be £6.30, the employer will pay £4.01 and the employee £2.29.

The difference between the two is minimal, 11p, and I do not think anybody could be too proud of that. Our main burden of criticism in relation to the increase in social insurance contributions is the fact that the Government increase them in these difficult times. I am certain the Parliamentary Secretary will have some pat answer but it cannot be good enough because on the one hand they are encouraging employers to take on workers but on the other they are discouraging them by increasing this taxation. It is a form of taxation which is unfair at present. Because of the economic condition of the country the contributions should have been allowed remain static. We suggested in our economic emergency policy that the employers' contribution should be reduced to that of the level of the employees. That would have resulted in a huge saving, but that suggestion has not been answered.

On the question of the employees' contribution I understood there was to be a quid pro quo arising from the budget and the national wage agreement. I understood the employees would receive a certain tax concession, but a hidden tax is being imposed upon them in the form of an increase in the social insurance contributions. That is the reality of the situation. Were the employees aware of that when the negotiations for the national wage agreement were in progress? They were, obviously, because the budget was introduced some time before the agreement was concluded. There was not much fuss made about it and we know what the Government did following the acceptance of that agreement.

We stated our views in relation to that on the motion dealing with prices on Tuesday and Wednesday. We know the Government held back the report of the National Prices Commission, in spite of the explanation given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce about the delay. We do not believe that Minister. He is unbelievable. He is incredible. Nobody believes him any more. This morning on radio he told us about the rate of inflaton, in relation to Great Britain, going down. But would he explain that to some of the old age pensioners, widows and others about whom we are concerned this morning? Those people are not concerned about what goes on in other countries. They are concerned with what is happening to them here and all the lies produced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce will not satisfy them, and lies they are. They are deliberate misleading lies.

The Parliamentary Secretary should tell us when the tax cuts promised will become effective. Will they become effective when the insurance contributions go up or will the employees have to pay the social insurance contributions for a period before they become effective? While the employer can get an employment premium he must also pay out £4.06 per week per employee. This in insane.

We have been criticised by a number of media mandarins in recent years for not raising the question of the flat rate as against that of percentage increases in the social welfare code. As I understand it, people at the bottom of the scale do better with flat rate increases while those at the upper end of the scale do better with percentage increases. I take it that is the reason the Parliamentary Secretary has opted for the flat rate in order to assist those people at the bottom of the scale. I am subject to correction on this because it is only a theory of mine. The Parliamentary Secretary may be able to kill the suggestion that the percentage increase is better than the flat rate increase and he may tell us if my reading of the situation is correct. I think it is the correct and proper one. If the flat rate increase helps those who are in receipt of the least amount of money then it is proper that that system be operated.

Last Tuesday I had the privilege of speaking here in connection with price rises generally. I placed on the record a number of figures which I said could not be refuted, and I repeat my statement now. I pointed out that they were answerable in the sense that those who wished to answer them could do so but I said that their answers were incorrect. The figures I gave were correct and cannot be refuted.

In his speech the Minister referred to the budget and he gave himself and his colleagues a pat on the back towards the end of his statement. His references to the budget covered more than two pages but I am satisfied that if the recent price increases had not occurred we would have had about ten pages devoted to the budget. It would have been mentioned at the beginning of his speech rather than deposited somewhere near the end of the script.

The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government know that the budget was introduced with one objective in mind, namely, to win the next election for the Coalition. The psephologists, the political watchers, all those associated with politics and the politicians themselves saw that budget as an election budget but suddenly a few weeks later it ceased to be that. The gimmickry had to stop. It ceased to be an election budget when the price rises were announced and now it is necessary for them to produce something out of the hat. The political magicians have to go to work again. The Parliamentary Secretary has a deserved reputation of concern and up to recently he was recognised as one of the more progressive people within the Government party. Suddenly he finds that the rug has been pulled from under his feet. He has also built his reputation on a situation which I think any Parliamentary Secretary would have to do, namely, to readjust upwards as often as possible the various entitlements of those in receipt of social welfare benefits. We do not give him too much credit on that front but we accept that he is a person who is concerned. Now he is in the unfortunate situation that the rug is pulled from under him because of the savage price increases that have occurred in the recent past.

With regard to the increases announced, the widow's noncontributory pension in 1973 was £6.50; in October, 1976, it was £10.75 and in April, 1977, it will be £11.75. We estimate that the effect of those increases will be wiped out on 15th April, 1977. The widow's contributory pension was £6.60 in 1973; in October, 1976, it was £11.55 and in April, 1977, it will be £12.60. Again, we estimate that the benefit will be eroded by 15th April, 1977. With regard to urban unemployment assistance: in 1973, it was £5.35; in October, 1976, it was £8.90 and in April, 1977, it will be £10.20. We estimate the benefit will be eroded by 31st March, 1977.

Many other allowances will be similarly affected. In this instance I would mention unemployment benefit, contributory old age pensions, noncontributory old age pensions, children's allowances, the allowance in respect of a deserted wife and maternity benefit. The best we can do for the Parliamentary Secretary is to instance the children's allowances. The allowance was £2 in 1973, in October, 1976, it was £3.60 and it will be £4.10 in April, 1977. We estimate that by 15th October, 1977, the benefit will be eroded.

Mr. Cluskey

Will the Deputy please give the date in 1973?

Mr. Andrews

15th October, 1977.

Mr. Cluskey

I want the date in 1973.

That would be a change.

Mr. Andrews

Despite all the Parliamentary Secretary's loud shouting about the increases the realities can be instanced by those who are concerned with them. We are concerned with realities. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that if he is looking for dates he will get them. He will get as many dates as he wants and as regularly as he wants. We should be under no illusion about the Parliamentary Secretary's effort this morning to put me off my stride by quibbling about the very important figures I have produced.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that a single person living on his or her own will be given £1. Is this really the answer to the problem? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the value of the £? Are he and his colleagues in Government aware of what £1 can or cannot buy? Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling the House that £1 is a substitute for social concern? Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling the House that £1 is the answer to the problem of a single person living alone? I do not believe he is. If he does not believe it why does he come along and insult them by offering this £1?

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that but for the fact that we have social service people, social scientists and voluntary organisations the whole system would collapse around his ankles and that of others? Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that the answer to the problem is to continue increasing the entitlement of the single person living on his or her own? Surely there is a different answer. The Parliamentary Secretary should know that the answer is, first of all, to identify the conditions under which those single people are living and to bring them in touch with the various communities. I do not believe that you can physically lift people, apart from the unconstitutionality of it, from the single rooms they are living in against their will and place them in institutions or wherever the State wishes to place them. I do not think the State can engage in anything like that.

I believe if we are concerned about the social conditions of people living alone a comprehensive policy should be produced by the Government. It is no substitute for concern to give those people £1. They want help and they want all the assistance they can get. If we did not have voluntary organisations visiting those people a lot of them would die without the community knowing about it until some weeks afterwards. This has happened on several occasions and will continue to happen if the philosophy enshrined in the giving of £1 to a single person continues to prevail. I do not suggest that that person should not get £1 but it is ludicrous to be boastful about giving a single person living alone £1.

In regard to the widow and the old age pensioner living alone, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is a condition known as hypothermia and that in one instance in Dublin not so long ago a single person living in appalling conditions was found actually washing his hands in boiling water because he could not feel it. He could not afford the price of coal because it was too dear. He could not afford anything else because it was outside his price range. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of that? I am sure that particular case was brought to his attention. If it was not I would be glad to do so.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the centre of this city there are organisations doing a wonderful job for people living alone. Despite all their good deeds and the tributes we pay them, they are working under the most difficult financial conditions. The social services of the various community organisations in the city and in the urban areas are working under the most difficult financial restrictions. This is an appalling commentary on our society and the Government charged with running it for the time being. The realities are there.

No, he took off to Britain, I am told, under the first Coalition Government and did not return. There are many people in this country who are suffering from poverty and it would be as well when talking about poverty to talk about policies. Fianna Fáil have produced a number of policies which have contributed something to a general on-going discussion on social affairs. There was one document on retirement and another on income-related pensions. There was an extraordinary response to the document on income-related pensions. Both employers and trade unions sought it and were complimentary about it. The document on retirement was also much sought after and there was equally favourable comment on it.

It is our intention now to produce in the coming weeks a document on the care of the aged. The mark of any civilisation is its attitude towards its old people. Its standards can be measured by that. The present society are doing a reasonably good job in this respect, but much more remains to be done. Apart altogether from shouting loud and long about social welfare increases, which are not real increases by any means, the Government have an obligation, as a matter of urgency, to produce a comprehensive policy on home care for the aged. There is no use telling the Opposition what they should or should not be doing. The Opposition are powerless; the policies they produce are policies for the future, but they cannot implement these policies until they are in power. In the meantime, the people who are in power have an obligation to produce such policies and put them into effect. One thing the Parliamentary Secretary could make his name on would be a comprehensive policy on home care for the aged. The poverty programmes are proceeding and far be it from me to enter into a discussion on the whole future of these programmes, which I understand is rather delicately balanced at the moment, but when those engaged on the poverty programmes settle down finally, as we all trust they will, let us hope they will examine the care of the aged and produce a comprehensive policy about which something will be done by the next Government.

To return to people living on their own and to give some of the facts of life to the Parliamentary Secretary, who talks in percentages and percentage increases. The people in receipt of social welfare benefit are not concerned about percentage increases. They are concerned about the purchasing power of the money available to them, how they can budget. I have a long list of items the comparative prices of which I think it is worth while to put on the record of the House. The list draws a comparison between the cost of items at February, 1973, and March, 1977.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the reference?

Mr. Andrews

This is a list produced by myself from the consumer price index:

	February 1973	March 1977
½ lb tea	21p	34p
2 lbs sugar	11½p	24½p
1 lb butter	29p	53½p
1 pt milk	5p	8p
7 pts milk	35p	56p
2 lb loaf of bread	13p	22½p
2½ loaves of bread	32½p	56p
½ doz eggs	17½p	30p
7 lbs patotoes	26p	65p
1 head cabbage	5½p	16p
1 lb onions	12p	22p

The following items come under the heading of meat: streaky rashers, sausages, stewing mutton and shoulder bacon. These may not be meat to the Minister for Industry and Commerce but they are meat to the old age pensioner. Generally it would be a low grade, non-pork sausage, full of crumbs. What else can you offer them? As Marie Antoinnette said when she was asked what she would give the starving French because there was no meat: "Let them eat cake". The people are entitled to the best of meat, but the items I have mentioned are all they can afford. Let me continue with the list:

	February 1973	March 1977
½ lb streaky rashers	18½p	37½p
½ lb sausages	14p	22½p
½ lb stewing mutton	21p	48½p
1½ lb shoulder bacon	32p	90p

Despite these increases the Parliamentary Secretary boasts of giving an extra £1 per week. On the 24th February last, as reported at column 370 of the Official Report, I asked the Minister for Agriculture:

if there is any policy in relation to the distribution of EEC food surpluses to persons in receipt of old age pension and other categories where the need is identified within this country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the officials in his Department for the efforts they make in the production of information. They have been very good in that respect. These officials always treat inquiries in a most co-operative and helpful manner, with courtesy, speed and efficiency, and that makes life easier for all. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke at length about the budget in glowing terms. One would wonder if the script was prepared before the recent price increases. I will not labour that point. There is one droplet of wisdom in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech to which I fully subscribe. It could have been built into a rather nice essay on social concern. It is the only reference, apart from the mechanical readjustment upwards of social welfare increases. The Parliamentary Secretary, nearing the conclusion of his 30-page script, made the point that:

This is a very important sentence. In addition to financial aid people want other types of support. I genuinely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some consideration to my call for the production of a comprehensive policy on home care for the aged in our society. Voluntary organisations have done a wonderful job in this respect but they operate under financial constraints. If they do not get financial support from the various Government agencies, they cannot work. All the ingredients needed to make up a voluntary organisation are there, but without Government aid and with continuing hopeless price increases taking place, the condition of those most in need is becoming worse.

That is why I emphasise this sentence in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. It is a ray of hope. I interpret the broader range of support as being in addition to the adjustment upwards to meet the cost of living. I hope they will introduce broader ranges of support to the social services, the social sciences, to the religious organisations, to the non-denominational organisations and so on. They are all doing a wonderful job in the interests of their community regardless of the religion of the individual they are dealing with. These people deserve support from the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary is not out of touch. He is as aware as I am of all these things. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that certain organisations are doing a brilliant job in this country but they are not receiving the support they deserve.

There is one small town—the people of Kilkenny will forgive me— where there is a shining example to other countries. There is a wonderful community service in Kilkenny in which the young and the old involve themselves. The Kilkenny Social Services Council have a lot to be proud of. They have a bishop there who has done much to articulate the concern of those of us who believe in what he is saying. We would be associated with his statements from time to time as we are associated with the statements of other religious leaders on other occasions.

Those who are critical of the young might consider the part young people play in the running of social service organisations and community organisations. I am talking about people between the ages of 16 and 25 and organisations like the Simon Community. This is the kind of organisation we want to help and, I believe, the large majority of the citizenry wish to help. Some weeks ago RTE showed a wonderful programme, "The Dark City". It must have made people sit up and think and wonder if this sort of thing really goes on in the city of Dublin. The reality of this programme is that it does. This programme and other programmes such as the one on homosexuality are really worth while. Despite all the criticism they get from time to time, I have to support RTE on this type of programme. Some of us have an unfortunate habit of pretending that a certain situation does not exist whereas, in fact, it does exist. We pretend that, if we do not think about it, it will go away. The problems dealt with in those RTE programmes will not go away. We will have to do the best we can to assist those people and accommodate them. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating RTE on the production of these programmes. As a politician I would go into the next election standing over what I have said just now in relation to such programmes.

Mr. L. Belton

Deputy Andrews has spoken for quite a while without saying much about the Bill under consideration. However it was consoling to see towards the end of his speech that at least he was in total agreement with this booklet issued by the Department of Social Welfare, with the running of the Department and, in particular, with the courteous manner in which he has been received by the officials of that Department. I should like to add my voice to his in praising the courteous and efficient manner in which I have always been received by this Department. However, Deputy Andrews could find only one paragraph in this 30-page document with which he was in total agreement. I find myself in complete agreement with the entire document. We can agree to differ on this.

This Bill emphasises the concern and the genuine desire of the present Government, and particularly of the Parliamentary Secretary, to look after and care for the needs of the less well-off sections of our community. If praise were needed for the Parliamentary Secretary and his work in this field, it is evident from the fact that this is the fifth social welfare budget that has been introduced since the National Coalition came into office and the eleventh piece of legislation on social welfare which has been introduced. He has brought this Department from being a mere talking shop to one of real concern where action is foremost and where the needs of the people are looked after in the best possible manner. The Parliamentary Secretary is under no illusion about the task facing him in the Department of Social Welfare. However, it is consoling to think of the progress that has been made in a time of financial recession almost unparalleled in the history of the State.

I do not wish to speak for very long because I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to have this Bill completed at the earliest possible time, but I wish to remind the Opposition of some of the provisions in this Bill. The increases involved are noteworthy, particularly when one bears in mind that those people also received a 15 per cent increase last October. In the period between July, 1973, and April, 1977, the personal rates of payment under the social insurance scheme will have increased by between 120 per cent and 142 per cent; payment in respect of dependants will have increased by between 163 per cent and 195 per cent; payments under social assistance will have increased by between 124 per cent and 155 per cent; child dependant allowances will have risen by between 174 per cent and 220 per cent. Even if we were to accept, which we do not, the figure given by Fianna Fáil of the percentage increases in the cost of living over this period which is generally regarded, according to their figures, as being up to 90 per cent, the increases in social welfare have more than kept in line. Even the Opposition will have to admit this.

I suppose that is what they will be. I do not think there is much hope of their returning to office. The people are not so foolish as to believe that a Government which had two uninterrupted periods of 16 years on each occasion in office and could make no headway and no progress will achieve anything more than they failed to achieve in those two uninterrupted periods. Surely they do not think the people will be deceived by their promises.

This Bill is yet more evidence of the Government's genuine desire to look after the less well off sections in our community. The Government have made great strides and I have no doubt that when they are returned to power after the next general election they will continue their good work. Fianna Fáil will be left in the wilderness to formulate programmes and policies and issue statements in the hope that some day they will be returned to power. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that much has been achieved and I accept that the Government are conscious that much still remains to be done. I am confident that the Government will continue this good work.

Mr. Callanan

In County Galway we have a habit of making large sheep cocks and when the sheep have eaten almost all the cock we prop the remainder. In this case the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to prop up the unfortunate poor man against inflation. I congratulate him on making a fairly decent effort to do that in this Bill. It is not my intention to criticise the Bill because it was not introduced by the Opposition although most of us realise that the benefits referred to in it will be eroded when the people receive them.

I do not know where the Parliamentary Secretary is going to finish with his job because the most important thing for us at present is to take people off social welfare. Nobody wants to be on social welfare and we are all aware that irrespective of what Government are in office social welfare will have to be given to a cetain section of the community. There are too many people in receipt of social welfare and for this reason the Government should do everything possible to provide employment for them. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us of his intention to give £1 per week to old age pensioners and those living alone but that will not be of much use. I do not like to hear of people living alone and during the recent bad weather many such people died because they had no one to care for them. I cannot understand why any Government would not give a decent allowance to relatives to keep their people out of hospitals and institutions. I accept that an increase is being granted to those who care for bed-ridden pensioners but if I take a relative out of an institution who is not bed-ridden I am not paid any allowance. A person taken out of an institution by a person other than a relative is paid an allowance. I am sure Members are tired listening to me complaining about this but I will keep at it until I get results. That is one of the most unjust things in the country. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this matter. If a generous allowance was given to those who keep aged people we would have fewer living alone and more accommodation available in hospitals and institutions. It costs a lot of money to keep people in hospitals and institutions. This is a matter of great concern to people living in rural areas.

At Question Time yesterday I asked about farmers on holdings from £10 to £20 valuation on the notional system getting no increase under this Bill. Last year the Parliamentary Secretary changed the multiplier and gave everybody entitled to social welfare whatever was coming to him but this year he did not change the multiplier from £10 to £20 or give him any increase. I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned but he does not understand farming and I do not blame him for that. He told us that because farm incomes have improved he did not do this but is he aware that small farmers are in a bad state? Farmers with 15 acres could have a valuation of £11 but they get no increase. The Parliamentary Secretary may state that such farmers could go on the factual assessment of their means but how is this assessed? Is it done on the same basis as the old age pension? I asked questions yesterday about the assessment by the Departments of Health and Social Welfare and pointed out that they contradicted each other. For that reason I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me how a factual income is assessed. That is an estimated income while the other is a cash income.

A farmer with ten acres may have seven sheep, two cows and a few calves and I should like to know if all possibilities are taken into account when assessing his income. If such a farmer loses a cow as a result of brucellosis or TB he will not be given anything near the replacement value of the animal. That farmer cannot expand his holding because he has not the money and the result is that he is totally dependent on social welfare. If such farmers were given incentives to improve their holdings I would approve because they are not anxious to draw social welfare forever. In my view the small farm community are being phased out because all the directives from the EEC are geared towards helping farmers with big holdings.

At my request a directive was changed so that potential development farmers could get lands but when I inquired as to who qualified as a potential development farmer I was told that a farmer with a 40-acre holding did not qualify. Farmers with a valuation of £25 or less might be called the middle income group but they are excluded from all benefits. Unless there is some change in the land policy of the EEC they will not get grants for development. I am putting this point to the Parliamentary Secretary because I know he is concerned about those in the lower income group. I want to see everyone having a decent standard of living.

There is much talk about an increase in farmers' incomes but it is no use to them if they have not got stock. I was surprised that people with a valuation of between £10 and £20 will not get the increases being given to others. Let the Government alter the multiplier as they did last year but let them not penalise people who are poor.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to study carefully how to assess the factual income of farmers. Theoretical farming is fine but there are far too many people with books telling farmers what to do. Let them try to put what they preach into practice and see what happens. For instance, they make no allowance for the fact that a herd may be affected by disease. If a farmer has only two cows and one dies, where will he get £300 or £400 to buy another cow? At one time the cost of a cow was £20. I did not expect that the small farmers would be penalised, as has happened.

People in cities and in the country would prefer to have employment. I do not think anyone wants to receive social welfare benefit. Many young people have told me they hate the situation they are in where they have to go to the labour exchange. What they want are jobs. If a small farmer got a grant to develop his farm he would much prefer that. However, at the moment he needs all the assistance he can get to survive. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with me when I praise our young people. There is an old saying "We may have good men but we'll never have better". The young people today have a social conscience; they look after old peop'e and they help the community generally. Outwardly they may not appear as good as us when we were young, but I am convinced they have proved themselves 100 per cent Christian. Even though I am a person of another generation I mix with young people quite a lot and I have nothing but praise for them. Irrespective of whatever Government are in power, their greatest task is to give employment to the people rather than social welfare benefits. The situation may not be quite so bad in the country because unemployed people can often help their neighbours on their farms. However, it is very bad in towns where young people with the leaving certificate have no prospect of work. Boys can get social welfare assistance but this is not available to girls. This is completely wrong. Those young people have nothing to do all day and this is the breeding ground of violence.

I ask speakers on both sides of the House to stop talking about what happened in 1973 and what is happening now. As the last speaker pointed out, we have never had such inflation. Prices have gone completely out of control and the Parliamentary Secretary has a very difficult job to try to keep benefits in line with them. The only solution is to provide employment and thereby reduce the cost of social welfare. I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary that the vast majority of people do not want to draw social welfare. All they want is work.

I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the decision made with regard to small farmers with a valuation of £10 to £20. Will he give us some indication of how he intends to assess their income? When a small farmer applies for the old age pension, an officer from the Department of Social Welfare assesses the income from the farm. Will the same system apply in assessing the factual income?

With regard to the prescribed relative allowance, the State would gain considerably if it paid a reasonable allowance. The cost of maintaining old people in a home would be much higher than any allowance paid to the relatives. With regard to those old age pensioners who have to go to a county home, I cannot understand why the major part of their old age pension is taken from them. This does not apply where a person has a medical card. If I were the Parliamentary Secretary I would increase the allowance payable to relatives to look after elderly people in their own homes. The Exchequer would benefit enormously. The Parliamentary Secretary should take the gamble, at least for one year. We all know of cases at present where married women who have a few children have to send their parents or parents-in-law into county homes. This might not happen if a reasonable allowance were paid.

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the question of a flat rate. I cannot understand how a trade unionist or a member of the Labour Party would opt for anything else. I do not see how anybody with a social conscience could do otherwise. All the increases in social welfare benefits were necessary because of inflation. We are also getting an increase. We are very high up in the scale. We will get £8 and the man much further down in the scale gets £4. How can anybody justify that? The same applies to social welfare increases. I am totally against percentage increases. When I say that I do not say that everybody should be on the same salary. That cannot be because people are doing different jobs and must be paid for their particular jobs. If an increase in social welfare is given to meet the cost of living why should one man who is earning £100 get £4 a week, twice as much as the man who is earning less even though they are both doing the same job? Is the better paid man given the larger increase to buy a better car? Is it to buy brandy instead of a bottle of stout?

I do not stand up in the House to complain unnecessarily about things. When two politicians are expected to be on television very few people listen to them. Before I ever entered polities I heard people saying "What can one expect when they are on? One of them will attack the other. When one of them says something good they are left on but when one says something derogatory about the other man they are turned off. Most people expect politicians to attack each other. We hear talk about promises at election time. I do not know if many people will listen to them. You cannot give the so-called soap-box promises any longer. You must deliver the goods.

I welcome the sections of the Bill which give small sums of money here and there. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that a lot of it has been eroded since the increases were announced. He has a job to try to keep up with inflation. I do not like people standing up and talking about what happened in 1973 or some other year. We are in a different ball game now. We are in Europe and prices are going up every day. I do not know why no attempt is made within the European Community to devise a scheme to distribute surplus butter and beef in the European Community. There are many poor in the Community as well as outside it. When prices go up we have more poor because there are many people who cannot afford to buy food. When I visited Paris a long time before we entered the EEC I found that their prices were much higher than ours. Many people in the poor areas of Paris could not buy the goods on offer.

I would like to congratulate the Department of Social Welfare on the booklet—it was referred to by some Deputies—which they have issued. I want to express my appreciation of the courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials. I believe he gets as many letters from me as he does from any other Deputy. The Department may be a bit slow in replying. I am sure they must receive a very large number of letters every day and this causes delay in replying.

The Bill is selective as far as small farmers are concerned. I believe the people in the city do not understand the small farmers. I do not understand how people can live in Dublin. I have been travelling up and down to Dublin for a long time. I was brought up with small farmers and I understand them. The people in Dublin are ignorant of the way of life of people in the country. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and other Dublin Deputies to try to understand that when the price of livestock is increased if a small farmer wants to get an extra animal he cannot get it. The price of land is too high for many of those small farmers. If something revolutionary is not done in regard to land settlement the small man will be lost. I am afraid he will be on social welfare for a long time unless we have a dynamic land policy. I have criticised what I consider should be criticised in this Bill.

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

I would like to thank Deputy Andrews for his agreement to give all Stages of this Bill today and his ready recognition of the desirability of having it passed as quickly as possible. It is a little difficult to reply to this debate, not on the aspects relating to the Bill but because so much was said, particularly by Deputy Andrews, that had no relationship to the Bill. Deputy Andrews has a great tendency to do this on every Social Welfare Bill. If a stranger came into the House during Deputy Andrews's contribution he would be forgiven for thinking that I was the Taoiseach and that this was an Adjournment Debate. He covered the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labour, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Health, the Department of Foreign Affairs and so forth. It would be extremely difficult to reply to many of the issues that were raised by Deputy Andrews which were outside the scope of the Bill. It is also only fair to say that, with one or two exceptions, when Deputy Andrews stuck to the Bill he was very constructive and made what I considered a reasonable contribution.

There are one or two things which need reply. Before going on to reply to them in some detail I would like to thank Deputy Andrews and the other Deputies who contributed, Deputy Belton and Deputy Callanan, for the tribute they paid to the officials of the Department of Social Welfare. I wholeheartedly agree with their expression of appreciation to the officials for the very difficult and heavy task they perform day in, day out. I am grateful to Deputies who have spoken on the Second Stage for the recognition of the service performed for the citizens of this country by people in the civil service and particularly in this case by those in the Department of Social Welfare.

I shall deal as briefly as possible with some of the points raised. One of the most important matters that I think must be clarified is the consistent, blatant attempt by Deputy Andrews and other Fianna Fáil spokesmen to distort the true situation as regards the increases in social welfare by this Administration. I think Deputy Andrews clearly indicated this morning that he was aware of this distortion, that it was a deliberate distortion, that it was a thought-out disortion of the facts, when he refused point blank to identify the date in 1973 in respect of which he was making a comparison. It is extremely important that the public should know what this distortion is when they are trying to compare what has been done and what is being done, and surely the people are entitled to do that.

Deputy Andrews was using a base figure for 1973 but he could not identify the date in 1973, but I will identify it. It was a date in 1973 that was after the first budget that was brought in by this Administration, and he was trying to ignore the increases that were provided in that and to have people believe what is factually incorrect.

The legitimate comparison is between the figures that were there as a direct result of a budget and an action taken by Fianna Fáil, and the present day, not ignoring the first budget containing the increased benefits brought in by this Administration. This distortion of fact is unworthy of Deputy Andrews. Possibly some of the think-tank or the backroom boys think this is a very clever device. I do not think it is clever to try to deceive the Irish people. I do not think Deputy Andrews or any other elected representative should lend himself to such distortion. We all present our case as favourably as possible. I am not objecting to that, but I do not think we have the right to mislead the people by distorting the facts, and it is time it came to an end.

Unemployment was spoken about at great length by Deputy Andrews. I thought Deputy Andrews's contribution on unemployment was truthful and courageous in that it stated what he knows to be the facts about unemployed people; that they are not out to abuse the social welfare system. By that he has not sought—and I think this should be publicly recognised and appreciated by me—to jump on the bandwagon which has been mounted by certain sections of our community who have no personal experience and never will have any personal experience of being unemployed. He has stated consistently what he knows the position of the unemployed to be. These people are not spongers or layabouts. They are victims of the economic system and the form of society that exists in this country. I duly acknowledge the fact that Deputy Andrews has not succumbed to the temptation to which other politicians have yielded, to jump on the bandwagon of interested employer groups who have sought to malign these people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed.

However, if a stranger came into the House and heard Deputy Andrews talk about unemployment he would think that unemployment was a new thing in Ireland, that Ireland never knew what unemployment was until this Coalition came into being. Deputy Andrews referred to a figure of approximately 118,000. It is somewhat less than that, but his figure is a reasonable approximation. It is about 118,000 now in this country; it is 1,400,000 in Great Britain.

I would like to bring the Deputy back to a period not too long ago, January, 1973, after 16 consecutive years of Fianna Fáil rule. Let us see where is the concern about unemployment. He talked about unacceptability. In January, 1973, the registered published figure for unemployment was 76.000 persons, approximately 7 per cent. What was it in Great Britain at the time? What was it in the rest of Europe? It was practically nil because it was during a boom period. All through those years from the sixties up to late 1973 full employment was enjoyed by all the citizens of the rest of Europe with the possible exception of Spain and some parts of southern Italy. As I say, in this country it was 7 per cent after 16 consecutive years of Fianna Fáil rule right through a boom period.

What was Fianna Fáil's attitude towards the unemployed? Seven per cent was so acceptable that it was not even a major issue in the general election that was held in 1973. Therefore, this new-found concern by Fianna Fáil spokesmen about the rate of unemployment is a little hard to take. Deputy Andrews brought us to task on this side of the House for talking about unacceptability. 118.000 is unacceptable to me, but 76,000. 7 per cent of our people, is equally unacceptable to me and other Deputies on this side of the House.

Another question raised by Deputy Andrews was that the increased price of the stamp put a tremendous burden on employers and workers. At one stage Deputy Andrews implied that had workers known they were going to be charged on extra 21p for their stamp it might have coloured their attitude towards the national wage agreement. The fact is that the total increase in the cost of the stamp was made known this year in the budget. So far as I am aware there is no precedent for that but it was revealed deliberately this year so that people would not make the type of charge that Deputy Andrews sought to make this morning and in order that both employers and workers would know to the last penny what was to be the increase.

Deputy Andrews spoke of a tremendous burden and disincentive to employers in regard to engaging extra workers or even in keeping the numbers they had already because of this increase of 42p. In fairness to the employers, they seem to be more enlightened and concerned in this respect than are Fianna Fáil. I say this because some months ago and before the budget the employers indicated during the national wage talks that they recognised the necessity for some increase in the price of the stamp and they asked that this increase be kept within reason. So far as I know they mentioned an increase in the region of 39p in relation to the employer. The figure that emerged finally was 42p—a very small difference —and I have not heard of complaints from the employers in that respect.

While I make that point, I regard it as only fair to say that I do not consider our system of financing social welfare to be the best possible. There are other systems and, as I indicated here before, a departmental committee are examining this question. I would hope for a departure from the flat rate contribution payment because this militates against the lower paid workers. Consequently, it is not a fair system. However, the argument in this respect is different from the kind of argument put forward today by Deputy Andrews when he referred to the desirability of flat-rate increases in social welfare. I am confining my remarks strictly to the sphere of social welfare in this regard. Percentage increases or flat-rate increases in other spheres are a different matter. On the one hand Fianna Fáil people are calling for the indexation of social welfare payments while on the other hand we have had this morning from Deputies Andrews and Callanan a call for flat-rate increases across the board. If one is on the maximum rate —and this refers only to non-contributory benefits—he gets the full increase. Any reduction would be related strictly to another source of income so where is the equity in calling for flat-rate increases in those circumstances?

Deputy Andrews indicated that he was very impressed by one sentence in my 30-page speech. He was referring to the question of the desirability of a policy of redistribution in order that the most needy sections might be helped. I am pleased that the Deputy highlighted this aspect of the speech but I am amazed that he should adopt this attitude since I have not noticed anything in either the policies or the actions of Fianna Fáil that would lead me to believe that party to be in agreement with Deputy Andrews on this question.

Let us consider the question of redistribution so that we might ascertain the degree of commitment of either Deputy Andrews or of Fianna Fáil as a whole on this issue. The Exchequer can only redistribute something that has accrued to it. In other words, to make possible redistribution, wealth must be taken from those who have a lot and given to those who have little. During the first 18 months of this Administration the Minister for Finance, in his efforts to effect certain changes in our tax structure, had to contend with filibuster after filibuster on the part of Fianna Fáil. For example, they opposed him bitterly regarding the introduction of the wealth tax. They fought that legislation line by line. Despite this attitude, Deputy Andrews tells me that the only part of my entire speech which impressed him was the one paragraph relating to the necessity and the desirability of redistribution.

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this attitude with the actions, the votes and the contributions of Fianna Fáil Deputies in regard to the wealth tax, the capital acquisitions tax and so on. We can only conclude that so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned policy making, not only in this area, but in any other, is a matter of waiting to see which way the political wind is blowing, not only generally but from day to day. It would be a help to us and to the Irish people as a whole if Fianna Fáil were to spell out clearly their policy in respect of social welfare. I have asked for this repeatedly. They might tell us, too, what are their proposals for raising the money that would be necessary to implement their proposed policy. We have spelled out clearly what our policy is. Not only have we stated where the money will come from but we have provided that money. Surely it is a reasonable request, not from me personally but from the electorate, that Fianna Fáil should tell them what their policy is in relation to social welfare and how they are going to finance it. I cannot understand it. I cannot get any glimmer as to what their policy is. I cannot understand how they can claim to be committed to redistribution to any extent, when one judges the performance of their party in relation to the very desirable, necessary and just changes in the taxation laws that they so bitterly opposed.

I spoke at considerable length when I introduced this Bill. Deputy Andrews was good enough to co-operate and agree to all Stages. The progress that has been made in the last four years in social welfare, whether it is moneywise, percentagewise or in real terms, is there for anyone to see. It is not a question of speculation. It need not be a matter of argument between Deputy Andrews and me. It is there for all to see, and it speaks for itself. As I said, we have no reason to be complacent about the area of social welfare. We have come a considerable way over the last four years, but we have a very long way to go. We can only go that long way if there is a true realisation by the Irish people, and by the various strong influential sections of our people, that it cannot be done by lip service or on the cheap. There must be a true commitment to alleviating the very many social ills that exist in our country. It can only be done if people are prepared to pay for it.

Deputy Callanan asked a question about farmer's dole. No one, including smallholders, is being denied unemployment assistance. If a man, by changes that are included in this Bill, feels that he would qualify under a factual assessment, he has the right to opt for that assessment. There is no departure from the present method of assessing the means of a farmer. This method has been employed for farmers over a considerable number of years. There are 6,000 or 7,000 farmers who at all times have asked to be factually assessed. The same method of assessment will be applied to any farmer who feels he has been unjustly treated under the change in the notional system. Any objective observer would agree that the administration of the smallholders' scheme needed substantial rationalisation. A start was made in last year's budget. There was no outcry because the justice of the changes that were made were clearly recognised and accepted. I do not believe there will be an outcry because of the changes that are proposed under this. If any person feels he is being unfairly treated he has the right to opt for the factual assessment.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 10 Mar 1977

Social Welfare Bill, 1977: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Mar 1977