The Social Welfare Estimate for the year ending 31 December 1986 which the House is being asked to approve today is for a net sum of £1,530,695,000. This represents an increase of just over £168 million approximately or 12 per cent on last year's outturn. It includes provision for the improvements announced in this year's budget together with the carry over costs of last year's rates increases. However, this expenditure, vast though it is, does not represent the total expenditure on the social welfare services. This is simply the State commitment to the services in 1986. Deputies will know that in addition employers and employees also contribute through the PRSI contribution system to the social insurance and occupational injuries funds. The combined contribution from that source is estimated to be of the order of £953 million this year. When account is taken of this and various other minor sources of income, the total social welfare bill comes to £2,497 million. In percentage terms just over 62 per cent is provided by the State, 26 per cent by employers and 12 per cent by employees.
Before dealing with a number of issues that are of immediate concern to me I would like to touch on some of the more significant aspects of the expenditure figures. The gross expenditure on the social welfare services this year will, as I stated, reach about £2.5 billion. This takes account of the improvements provided in the budget which were provided for and debated in the Houses in the Social Welfare Act. These improvements ensured that the incomes of those dependent on the system are maintained in real terms. Despite the considerable increase in the level of Expenditure, the rate of contribution of employers and employees has been largely untouched—amounting to no more than a modest increase in the PRSI contribution ceiling from £13,800 to £14,700 and a very slight increase of 0.03 per cent in the rate of occupational injuries contribution payable by employers.
Of the total expenditure, the overall costs of administration on social insurance and assistance services in 1986 will be around £100 million, or 4 per cent of the total. The efficient delivery of the social welfare services is of primary importance and in this context I should mention to Deputies the reorganisation of the Department along the general lines of the proposals set out in the Government White Paper, Serving the Country Better.
This reorganisation involves the structuring of the Department into two separate areas. One area headed by the Secretary is responsible for advising the Minister on policy matters. The other, known as the Social Welfare Services Office, deals with purely executive work and is responsible for the day-to-day running of the schemes and services of the Department. By having the Social Welfare Services Office concerned solely with the operation of the various social welfare schemes, it will enable the officials responsible for the delivery of services to concentrate more fully on effective management and the provision of an efficient and speedy delivery of services.
This reorganisation is a further step in the programme of modernisation of the Department's services which has been under way for some time and which has been largely based on the introduction of the latest computer technology into practically all areas of the Department's business. I am confident that this development will contribute in a significant way towards guaranteeing over time a better quality of service to the public in relation to the wide range of social welfare services.
It is clear from the few figures that I have given that the expenditure on social welfare is enormous. However, there are a number of issues that I would like to focus on; in particular I would like to consider the social welfare system itself, what it means to us all, how it is perceived, our general attitude and what can be done about changing this. We are fortunate to have a caring community in this country and the level of the provision is ample manifestation of this. Through the social insurance fund and through general taxation members of the community countribute their share of resources to help the less fortunate people in society and to redress some of the inequities in the distribution of society's resources.
The Department of Social Welfare are the main instrument society has for meeting the various needs. The services extend widely across the population spectrum, reaching some 37 per cent either directly or indirectly. The expenditure can be divided into four main groupings. These are services for the elderly which account for 27 per cent of the expenditure, services for the sick which account for 14 per cent, services for families 23 per cent and the largest is in respect of services for the unemployed which account for about 28 per cent of the total. The balance of the expenditure, 4 per cent goes on administration. The pressures affecting the social welfare services are many. Increasing unemployment, changing demographic structures and social trends all contribute to an ever increasing pressure on the Department's capacity to fulfill their task. But above all, the sustained attempt to meet needs is constrained by the finite nature of the resources available to meet them, and the necessity for economies in public expenditure severely fetters the achievement of further major improvements in social provision.
The prospects for an all-round improvement in the economy in 1986 are better than they have been for many years. Recent forecasts published by national and international agencies have confirmed this. Economic growth is likely to accelerate, domestic demand will be boosted by the improvement in consumer confidence, the rise in real incomes and the fall in interest rates. Inflation will continue to fall—although today we discovered it is not falling as fast as we would like — but the annual rate of inflation should be down to about 2 per cent in the second half of the year. Government policies have helped to bring about this lower level of inflation and also to reduce the balance of payments deficit. These developments have created a climate conducive to regular lower interest rates and it is the Government's intention to continue to do all they can to further improve the interest rate climate.
In this regard the recently announced reductions in Associated Banks interest rates is significant. This is the third major interest rate reduction announced by these banks since the recent EMS realignment. It is hoped that other lending institutions, particularly building societies, will follow this lead at an early date.
All of these factors augur well for people dependent on social welfare payments. In particular, the falling rate of inflation makes the increases that have been given this year all the more worthwhile. Increase of 4 per cent and 5 per cent are being granted from July this year and it is now expected that the inflation over the 12 month period from mid-1986 to mid-1987 will be only about 1 per cent.
While I, naturally, accept that all areas of social welfare need special consideration and attention there is no doubt that one of the major pressures on social welfare support comes from the high number of people, and their dependants, who rely on unemployment payments. It is, indeed, a most serious problem for our community and its ramifications are, of course, not confined to the social welfare area alone. The Government's primary objective had always been, and will continue to be to halt and reverse the upward trend in unemployment. Industrial policy has been modified to accord better with the needs of the economy and, in particular, to give a more dynamic indigenous sector. The emphasis has been shifted from grant aiding of fixed asset investment and instead encouraging technology acquisition, promoting the development of international services and small businesses, and encouraging research and development.
The Industrial Development Act, 1986, which became law last month, provides for two significant new measures, namely, technology acquisition grants and employment grants for small firms. In October of last year the Government introduced a series of measures which were specifically designed to stimulate employment within the framework of budgetary strategy and these measures have been very successful. Eighty thousand completed application forms for home improvement grants have been received to date and the PRSI exemption scheme for employers has had the effect of reducing the unemployment total by nearly 3,000. This year's budget and the Finance Bill contain a wide range of measures designed to improve incentives for enterprise and investment and so promote wealth creation and employment growth in Ireland. The unemployment figures give cause for some optimism for the future. The average year-on-year increase in the live register in the first five months of this year was only about a third of that in the comparable period last year and represented only one seventh of the peak year-on-year increase in unemployment of over 40,000 recorded in late 1982 and early 1983.
Nonetheless the unemployment figures still give grave cause for concern particularly when one bears in mind the effects of unemployment on the individual. We need to recognise that each individual unemployed person has certain skills and talents that in many cases are not only being wasted but also are not being protected in the present circumstances. There are many social consequences of protracted unemployment and the transition from employment to unemployment can require many cognitive, emotional and behavioural adjustments. Unemployed persons can feel a sense of isolation and there is a need for us to consider ways in which they can be made feel more a part of society with a more active and participative role.
There is no doubt that unemployment, particularly when it is protracted, can have an adverse psychological effect on people. There is considerable research evidence which links unemployment with low levels of psychological well-being. Some studies have shown that the experience of unemployment itself had precipitated the deterioration in levels of psychological well-being. Also it is generally felt that psychological well-being declines with increasing length of time unemployed and that the onset of financial hardship and the experience of repeated refusals of job applications can result in increased anxiety and depression. This can have the effect of diluting any optimism that may have existed initially. What needs to be done is to give opportunities to people to participate again in the community. It is obvious to all that the Government cannot provide jobs for everybody. They can only create or help to create the environment where employment opportunities are available.
We need, I think, to examine our attitude to our services for the unemployed. Are we doing enough in this area? Is it sufficient for us to just continue paying benefits as we are at present? We have an elaborate mechanism for ensuring that the financial welfare of these people is catered for within the available resources. Should we not be looking at other aspects of the persons' welfare to see what measures can be adapted to relieve them of some of the problems and tensions that I mentioned earlier? Do we effectively stigmatise people on social welfare payments by segregating them and preventing them from being active?
Does our system provide sufficient flexibility to cope with the changes that are occurring in work patterns? What about the negative attitude that is held by many people about those who have to resort to claiming social welfare payments when unemployed? These are very fundamental questions that I think need to be asked. I am not suggesting for one minute that the answers are easy, but I think that these are the type of issues that need to be debated and examined so that we can get a better view of what our attitude should be. In my view we need to recognise the realities of the current situation. The increase in unemployment is abating according to the latest figures available. It is generally recognised that it will take quite a number of years before there is any dramatic decrease in the level of unemployment internationally as well as nationally.
Certain changes in the pattern of employment are also likely to occur. It is interesting to note that part time working has become a significant feature in many countries in the last ten years with the growth in numbers on part time work far exceeding the growth in those with fulltime jobs. This does not just affect those who will get jobs in years to come but it will also affect those who already hold jobs. According to a recent survey carried out in the UK by the Institute of Manpower Studies "the composition, skills level, mobility and hours worked by those who have jobs will be forced into new moulds". Should this occur it will have fundamental implications for education and training programmes, for social provision and for employment policy. Consequently, I believe that more than money is needed to break the strangle-hold of long term unemployment.
There have been various measures introduced in an attempt to provide some way out for these people. The social employment scheme, the employment incentive scheme and the enterprise allowance scheme are such measures and I would like to see this kind of programme being actively developed and extended. We must remember that the problems we are experiencing are not unique to us alone and there is no reason to believe that the solutions that are being tried in other countries could not work here also.
I recently visited the USA where I had the opportunity to study attitudes and ideas in the welfare area there. There were many similarities between our system and theirs. Of particular interest was the emphasis on work experience and retaining as an integral part of the support structure for the unemployed which is similar to ours.
One scheme which impressed me particularly and which is used in various forms in other countries was that of "job search". The purpose of a scheme of this type is to provide unemployed persons with a short but very intensive period of job seeking which is carried out in a centre convenient to the job seeker. Facilities, which are provided free of charge, include the use of telephones, typewriters, photocopying and stationery and expert assistance on job hunting techniques and self-presentation at interviews.
This is similar to the job clubs that were introduced on a pilot basis in the UK but which have now been extended nationwide. Results from these various experiments and from similar exercises in other countries have been encouraging and I will be studying the implications of these ideas for the Irish situation. It seems to me that we must be much more active in helping our long term unemployed to find their feet in society. We must use our social welfare, employment and placement agencies in a much more unified way in order to maximise their potential to help those out of work. Above all else, we must get away from rigdities in both attitudes and systems which penalise activity and encourage people to do nothing, or which drive them to defraud the system.
As I have already said, unemployment is without doubt our most serious problem and carries with it both economic and social implications. As unemployment grows society has to renew its commitment to support more and more people through the income maintenance schemes provided by my Department. I can see that a more constrained economic environment can lead to disenchantment with the welfare state, and this surfaces at times like these in the form of a cynicism or scepticism about welfare and the alleged abuse of welfare. However, it is at times like these — when the pressure is greatest — that welfare is most needed, and society's whole-hearted commitment is most required.
The considerable speculation about fraud in the social welfare system in recent times is a manifestation of the cynicism I referred to. From the beginning of my term of office as Minister for Social Welfare I have made it quite clear that I am determined to deploy all the resources at my disposal to eliminate abuse of the social welfare schemes. I have also made it clear that I am not impressed by unsubstantiated and sensationalist allegations about abuse. Many people in this country have an ambivalent attitude to it. They are prepared to perpetuate myths about its extent, but at the same time they are curiously reluctant to come forward with relevant information that would help the authorities. When the authorities take some specific action directed at controlling abuse, they are the first to complain when they are affected even indirectly by it.
My Department have many built in checks in administrative procedures and every effort is being made to control and contain the level of abuse. The various controls are reviewed regularly. All officers dealing with claims are trained and encouraged to be vigilant where fraud is concerned. Recently I met and had very useful discussions with representatives from employer and employee organisations about the issues involved and I am glad to say that there is general support for whatever measures can be taken in this complex area. Another initiative in this area relates to the engagement of outside expert assistance for my Department to undertake a major review of fraud and security with special emphasis on unemployment and related payments. There has been much speculation over recent months about the level of fraud and the main focus of the assignment will be to make an assessment of the public perception of fraud, identify weaknesses and propose solutions to these. A number of firms have been asked to submit proposals for the project and I am hopeful that preliminary findings will be available to me within a few months.
Another area where we will be taking action is in relation to the work of the special investigation unit of my Department. As Deputies will be aware, the special investigation unit is responsible for investigating and preventing abuses of the unemployment payments system. Over the coming months my Department will be concentrating the resources of this unit on interviewing claimants in employment exchanges, branch offices and other signing centres, in order to detect cases of unjustified claiming of unemployment payments.
This is a necessary control measure. It is no reflection on the many legitimate claimants who will be interviewed, but I believe that it will uncover a certain proportion of claimants who are not entitled to support from the social welfare system. The work will be carried out by highly trained and experienced staff. The purpose of the exercise is to ensure that only those who are genuinely available for and seeking work are, in fact, receiving payments. I have said before, but it is no harm to repeat it again, that those persons who have genuine claims to social welfare services need have no concern about loss of entitlements. Measures being taken now are designed to identify persons who are abusing the system.
There are many different forms of abuse. At the individual level there are people who work and sign but we also have employers who, perhaps in collusion with others, connive to defraud the system either by not paying their contributions or who allow persons time off to collect their social welfare entitlements. I am determined that these type of practices will be stamped out and that the full rigours of the law will be used on anyone found abusing the system.
Another important area which straddles both the positive and negative aspects of what I have been talking about is the question of liaison between the National Manpower Service and employment exchanges. Such liaison makes it possible to identify persons who are not interested in finding work or who may already have a job. On the positive side there are a range of schemes available to the unemployed through the NMS designed to encourage them back into the work environment. The maintenance of good liaison between the NMS and my Department is essential in order to ensure that the various services provided for the unemployed are brought together.
Liaison arrangements are continually being improved; the involvement of the NMS in the implementation of the various Government employment creation schemes in recent years has increased the amount of contacts between the employment exchanges of my Department and the NMS. My Department are at present in the processs of computerising the work of the exchanges and, although this will take a number of years to complete, it will provide further opportunities to enable a more extensive and detailed exchange of information between the two services. We need to ensure that these links are developed so that we can provide a more integrated service to the unemployed persons who are dependent on these various State agencies and services.
I would like to say a few words regarding the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. The report is at present with the printers and I hope to have copies available for general circulation in the next few weeks. Because of the size of the report it has been possible to make only a limited number of copies available at this stage. I have been able to make a copy available to Deputy Seán McCarthy and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The suggestion has been made that the fact that the report has been made available in this way amounts to offhand treatment of the report. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only reason for making available to Deputies and Senators the limited number of copies which were available was to ensure that they would have an opportunity of seeing the report as soon as possible, particularly in view of the fact that comments on the report's contents had already been featured in the media over recent weeks.
There is nothing offhand about making copies available to the House in advance of general publication and I would hope that the House would see it in that light. A limited number of copies have also been made available to the press and the report has been subject to a considerable amount of comment over the past week.
As far as the report itself is concerned obviously a full analysis of the report and its implications will now be necessary. The report is the first major comprehensive review of the social welfare services. Bearing in mind the complexity of the system as it has developed over the years the report represents a massive achievement. I have already conveyed my thanks to the chairman and members of the commission and I am glad of the opportunity now to publicly express my appreciation of the tremendous work which has been done over the past two years.
The Government's statement on the report referred to the expenditure implications which the implementation of the report would have. This has been taken up by some people as an indication that the Government have dismissed the report even before its publication. This is simply not so. We must, however, be realistic and the Government could not ignore the reality that the full implementation of the commission's report would be impossible in our present economic and financial circumstances.
That being said, there is no question of the report being dismissed or ignored. There is absolutely no doubt that radical changes will be necessary over the next few years in the social welfare system. The system has developed in a piecemeal fashion with the result that we now have a multitude of schemes and payments with complex rules of entitlement and a system which, overall, is very difficult to understand. One of the guiding principles in the commission's report is that the system should be simple for claimants and for those administering it and many of the commission's recommendations are directed at achieving this. While we must be selective in bringing forward proposals for additional expenditure, there is considerable scope for reform of the system in line with the general approach which the commission have adopted.
It may well be that what will be required is a reallocation of the resources available for social welfare from areas of lesser need to areas where the need is greater in such a way as to ensure that those resources are directed in the most effective way to meet the needs of the most vulnerable groups in society. It is, of course, extremely difficult to introduce changes which would have the effect of reducing the entitlements of any particular group, but if we are to have a system which is effective for those who are in the greatest need, difficult choices may have to be made. We will also have to look much more closely at the link between social welfare provision and private provision particularly in the area of pensions and sick pay and to decide how best we can share the responsibility in these areas. This is a theme which I will be referring to again later in my speech.
The commission's approach was first of all to establish what they considered to be the guiding principles which should underlie the social welfare system. These are: adequacy of payments in relation to prevailing living standards; a degree of redistribution of income through the social welfare system in conjunction with the tax system; comprehensive coverage of all categories of need; consistency with policies in other areas and within the system itself; and simplicity for claimant and administrators.
In the commission's view the present system is deficient in a number of respects under each of the headings and the commision go on to consider what should be the appropriate strategy to reforming the system.
Essentially the commission's approach is to reject the notion of any major strategic change in the way the social welfare system operates. The commission have opted instead for a strategy for the development of social welfare in Ireland which involves retaining the present basic framework of social insurance and social assistance but expanding and significantly improving that system.
The commission adopted a pragmatic approach to the issue, an approach which they obviously considered should stand a better chance of being generally acceptable and, therefore, implemented. The commission have identified 65 main recommendations. There are also throughout the report many other recommendations and comments by the commission on particular aspects of the social welfare system. In many cases these comments and recommendations would, I feel, be capable of being implemented without great difficulty and in my examination of the report I will be paying particular attention to those aspects of the report which can be implemented quickly.
The commission identified four broad areas which they consider deserving of priority attention. These are: the basic level of payment; payments for families; broadening of the social insurance base; and the delivery of service.
In relation to the basic level of payment, a central recommendation of the commission is that all payments should be equalised with the insurance payments being equalised at a rate 10 per cent higher than the assistance payments. The levels proposed are based on an attempt to measure the minimum income needs of families based on a number of previous exercises. The ultimate levels proposed are for a single person £55 for social insurance and £50 for social assistance, in 1985 terms. As a priority, however, they recommend that immediate steps be taken to increase social welfare payments and have suggested interim levels — in 1985 terms — of £45 personal rate, £27 for adult dependent and £10 for each child. This would involve increases in present levels of all social assistance payments and also in the short term insurance payments, with reductions in certain of the long term social insurance payments.
The notion of standard rates of payment for recipients would simplify the present rates structure but it runs counter to what has, traditionally, been the approach of all Governments, namely, to recognise the special needs of particluar categories by providing higher basic rate of payment to them. This approach has enabled special recognition to be given, on a selective basis, to particular groups through additional payments e.g. for living alone etc. The commission's approach would involve ultimately the abolition of these additional payments.
It would also mean that, in the interim period, before payments were fully equalised, certain categories, widows and deserted wives, etc., would receive no budget increases — or perhaps smaller increases than others — in the levels of their payments. That said there is no doubt that the policy of across the board percentage budget increases which widens existing cash differentials between rates cannot be justified indefinitely. The recommendations also involve the abolition of pay-related benefit in the context of bringing basic rates of payment up to an adequate level.
The report envisages, in relation to social assistance, a single unified payment in place of the existing schemes and a single means test. This is, in principle, something which would have many advantages but would undoubtedly give rise to considerable objections and would have practical difficulties.
The commission went on to discuss child support and electricity and fuel allowance extensions. They have not recommended a totally unified system of child support. The Government have taken that approach also. The commission recommended that child dependent increases with social welfare payments should be retained and rationalised. This is in contrast with the Government's approach which is an attempt to channel all State child support resources into a unified simple system.
The commission did not accept the argument that child dependent allowances were inconsistent with labour market policies to prevent disincentives to employment among workers with families. On the other hand, the commission have said that in the long term there should be a modest relative shift towards children's allowances and away from child dependent increases. All in all, the commission's approach in this area — involving, for example, differentiation of child benefit rates by age and family size and the retention of child dependent allowances and family income supplement — is relatively complex and will need careful consideration.
The commission propose the inclusion of some groups at present excluded from the social insurance base. There are practical difficulties associated with the proposals and we will have to tease them out. For example, the self-employed raise particular problems — for instance in connection with the farming sector.
They refer specifically to some groups. In regard to the self-employed, they suggest a contribution rate of 5.5 per cent. Public servants are included at present only at a modified rate for a reduced range of benefits. The commission have recommended that they may be liable for full rate. Members of the Oireachtas have never been covered for social insurance and it is recommended that they now be included.
The commission go on to lay very heavy emphasis on the need for an effective delivery. The key recommendations here concern computerisation and standards of accommodation for staff and clients and adequate information services.
There is no doubt that the system we now have is extremely complex and this makes it very difficult to administer and difficult for claimants to understand. Furthermore, there is a great need to extend the benefits of computerisation, particularly to the employment exchanges. We must have the services delivered accurately, promptly, courteously, efficiently and securely. The establishment of the Social Welfare Services Offices has been a major step forward in terms of concentrating resources on the management of the system and improving service delivery.
I look forward to a wide-ranging public debate on the report when published and I will be examining the recommendations in detail to see what improvements to the system are possible within the overall financial constraints which exist.
I referred earlier to the need to look at the possibility of closer links between social welfare provisions and private provision in the area of pensions and sick pay. Another major development that I am glad to have been associated with recently is the establishment of the National Pensions Board. That should be a real milestone in improving financial security and quality of life in retirement of hundreds of thousands of employees. The growth of occupational pension schemes over the past decade has been mainly due to State encouragement through tax concessions and the growing appreciation by employers of the value of these schemes in fostering good industrial relations.
Occupational pension schemes play a vital role in providing for the welfare of workers in retirement. Because many such schemes are funded, they hold large amounts of capital which provide an important source of investment capital for the benefit of the economy generally.
The Pensions Board has many important tasks to undertake and it will be advising me immediately on standards of administration of schemes; funding and financial security of schemes; disclosure of information to scheme members; transferability of workers' pension rights on change of job; and the general monitoring of scheme's performance including the need for statutory regulation.
I have also asked the board to prepare further proposals on quality standards in other specific areas such as equal treatment for men and women in occupational pension schemes. I was pleased to be associated with the adoption of a further directive in this area which is to remove all forms of direct and indirect sex discrimination in occupational schemes. This directive will require the enactment of legislation and the board's recommendation on equality will be a valuable input in this regard.
Finally, the board will have the task of advising me on the question of providing earnings related pensions for all employees and in particular to assess the capacity and potential of occupational schemes to meet this challenge. The overall findings of the board on this matter and those of the Commission on Social Welfare will be fully taken into account by the Government in their proposed framework for a national pension plan.
Deputies will be aware that the Government have been considering proposals for the transfer of responsibility for disability benefit to employers for the initial weeks of sickness. The matter was considered by the NESC who identified a number of areas where difficulties might arise. The survey, carried out by the ESRI on behalf of my Department revealed that there was a substantial element of sick-pay cover provided by employers. It also found that almost three-quarters of small firms have no such scheme and are effectively dependent on the disability benefit scheme as it stands. Any transfer of responsibility to employers could, therefore, bear heavily on small employers and the proposal as it stands could lead to additional costs for such firms.
I am aware that small firms in this country play a significant role in the creation of employment and I am anxious to avoid creating a situation for these employers whereby their financial burdens would be increased unnecessarily. Nonetheless, I consider that there is merit in the notion of transferring responsibility for sick pay in the initial period to employers. It would place the factors relating to sickness control fully within the ambit of employers; it would mean that initial sickness payments would be subject to tax in the normal way. It is my intention to consult further with employers and trade unions in order to reach a satisfactory formula for the implementation of this idea.
In conclusion, the social welfare services affect the lives of many of our citizens on a regular basis; and, indeed, throughout any person's life it is inevitable that he will come into contact with the services in one way or another at some stage. Possibly because of this, most people have views on how the services should be administered; or they will feel that greater emphasis should be given to one scheme rather than another. More often than not there will be a great divergence of views as to how the system should operate. Through their clinics and their regular contacts with constituents Deputies will, I am sure, have experienced this. Where such diversity of opinion exists it will usually lead to vigorous and healthy debate and the annual Social Welfare Estimate is no exception to this. As a Minister who has only recently taken on this portfolio and who is taking this Social Welfare Estimate for the first time, I look forward to hearing the views of Deputies of all sides of the House on the various issues embraced by the Estimate. Many Members will no doubt want to contribute and, even if time does not permit me to comment in detail on all of the points raised at the end of the debate, Deputies can be assured that all of their views will be considered by me.
On this latter point I would add that I feel that we are entering a new and challenging phase in the history of social welfare in Ireland and one that will make the contributions of Deputies all the more valuable at this time. I have set out briefly my views on the recent report of the Commission on Social Welfare. The grassroots view, for want of a better word, which Deputies have from meeting constituents will be of immense help in considering the recommendations of the commission, as will the undoubted expertise and interest which many Deputies on both sides of the House have in the whole field of social welfare.