Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Jul 1968

Vol. 65 No. 14

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1968: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

This Bill is necessary to implement the decisions of the Government announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement on 23rd April last to increase the rates of non-contributory old age, blind, widows' and orphans' pensions and unemployment assistance, to increase the rates of various social insurance benefits and pensions and to modify the means test for old age pensions in the case of veterans of the War of Independence. The Bill also includes a number of provisions designed to improve further the social insurance and assistance schemes, some of which are consequential on the decisions announced in the Budget Statement and others of which are the outcome of the continuing examination of existing provisions which is carried out as a normal part of the work of my Department.

Of necessity, the Bill consists mainly of amendments to existing Acts and there may be difficulty in some instances in following the amendments without the text of the Acts. The explanatory memorandum which was issued with the Bill has therefore been made as comprehensive and informative as possible so that it will be clear what each amendment really does where the text of the Bill itself is not self-explanatory. I trust that Senators will find it of assistance.

The Budget increases on the social assistance side, which it is proposed to bring into operation at the beginning of next month, will give an extra 7/6d a week to all existing non-contributory old age, blind, widow and orphan pensioners, making the maximum personal rate of old age and blind pension £3 5s a week and the maximum personal rate of widow's pension £3 3s 6d a week. An additional 2/6d a week will also be given in respect of each qualified child of a pensioner making the weekly rate 12/6d for each of the first two children and 7/6d for each subsequent child. These increases in the pension rates allow the scale of means and rates of pension to be extended in each case to bring in additional rates at the bottom of the scale and these will be payable to persons who cannot at present get pension because their means exceed the present limit. Also where a pensioner has qualified children, the means limit is raised in respect of each qualified child.

The rates of unemployment assistance are also being increased by 7/6d a week for the recipient himself, by a further 7/6d where there is an adult dependant and by an additional 2/6d for each qualified child. The maximum rate will then be £2 11s 6d for a single person and £4 17s 6d for a married couple resident in an urban area. It will be £2 5s 6d for a single person and £4 9s 6d for a married couple resident outside an urban area. These increases of unemployment assistance at the maximum will have the effect of automatically extending the means limit for qualification for assistance.

On the social insurance side the increased rates of benefit and pensions will come into operation at the beginning of January next. Recipients of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity allowance, widow's (contributory) pension, orphan's (contributory) allowance and old age (contributory) pension will get an extra 7/6d a week. There will also be an additional 7/6d a week for an adult dependant and an extra 2/6d a week for each qualified child. The rates of unemployment and disability benefit will then be £3 5s a week for a single person and £5 17s 6d for a married couple. A widow without children will get £3 5s a week. In the case of old age (contributory) pension, a pensioner who is single will get £3 12s 6d while the rate for a married couple will be £6 12s 6d. The rates for children will be 15/6d for each of the first two and 10/6d for each subsequent child. Certain rates of unemployment benefit, which are payable after the first 156 days of benefit and are the same as the maximum rates of unemployment assistance payable in urban areas, are, however, being increased from the beginning of next month when the equivalent assistance rates are being increased.

An increase in the social insurance contributions payable by employers and employees is necessary to meet the extra expenditure on the increased rates of benefits and pensions. In recent years, the Exchequer has borne considerably more than one-third of the cost of the social insurance scheme. Accordingly, as forecast by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement, the increased contributions provided for in the Bill have been calculated so as to adjust the Exchequer's burden nearer to the traditional one-third. Where all insurance benefits are covered, it is proposed to increase the rates of contributions by 3/4d a week. Where only some of the benefits are covered, there will be lesser increases. The increase of 3/4d in the ordinary rate of men's contribution will be shared equally by the employer and employee and the total contribution will then be 21/4d a week. The existing contribution of 2/1d in respect of occupational injuries insurance must, of course, be added to this while the contribution of 1/- under the redundancy scheme will be added from January, 1969, under a further provision of the Bill. Voluntary contributions will also be increased, those covering only widow's pension by 6d, and those which also cover old age (contributory) pension by 1/2d. The explanatory memorandum contains a table showing the present and proposed rates of contribution exclusive of the contributions in respect of occupational injuries benefit and redundancy. On the basis of this year's estimates of expenditure plus the additional costs incurred by the provisions of the Bill, and taking account of the expected yield in a full year of the increases in contribution rates proposed, it is estimated that the Exchequer contribution will be close to one-third of the expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund.

There is provision in the Bill for some improvements in the occupational injuries benefit. The rates of unemployability supplement and of payments in respect of adult dependants and qualified children under that scheme are being increased from January next. These payments came into operation on 1st May, 1967, and were then equal to corresponding payments under the disability and unemployment benefit schemes but they were not increased when the latter were increased in January, 1968. The increases now proposed will restore the parity that originally existed. The annual cost of these improvements in the occupational injuries scheme will be about £75,000 but it will not be necessary to increase the present contribution of 2/1d to meet them.

The Bill provides a new benefit for old age pensioners, both contributory and non-contributory, and for widows aged 70 and over who are receiving contributory pensions. The benefit takes the form of an increase of pension of 45s a week in respect of a prescribed female relative where the pensioner is so incapacitated as to require full-time care and attention and is living alone or has no other adult living with him who is capable of looking after him. It will be payable where a prescribed female relative with a reasonably good employment record specifically gives up employment to look after the pensioner. It is my intention to prescribe a daughter under the regulations to be made, as a daughter is most likely to be concerned in such cases. There will, however, be power to prescribe other female relatives as satisfying the conditions for the payment, if experience of the working of the scheme shows that this would be warranted.

In his Budget Statement the Minister for Finance announced that, as a token of recognition to those who served in the War of Independence, Old IRA pensions and allowances would be disregarded completely in future when assessing means for old age pension purposes. Hitherto only the first £80 of these pensions and allowances was disregarded. I have arranged that the total disregard will also be extended to applicants for widows' pensions and unemployment assistance and provision is made accordingly in the Bill.

During the period from August next, when non-contributory pensions are increased, until January next, when contributory pensions are increased, cases will occur where the non-contributory pension would temporarily be more favourable than the corresponding contributory pension. There is a provision in the Bill to prevent a person switching from contributory pension to non-contributory pension merely to gain them a temporary advantage. It was never intended that the statutory provision which enables such switching to be done should operate in these circumstances and the departmental machinery is not geared to deal with short-term transfers from one pension to the other and back again. The right of a pensioner to switch pensions where the advantage would be permanent will not, however, be affected.

At present, redundancy contributions are collected by the Department of Labour by means of a separate stamp. As I mentioned earlier, the Bill will enable these contributions to be collected with social insurance contributions from the beginning of January next, by means of a single stamp and the necessary adjustments to be made between the Social Insurance Fund and the Redundancy Fund. This arrangement will, I believe, be welcomed by employers.

A new superannuation scheme is being introduced by the Minister for Health to cover nurses and other persons employed in voluntary hospitals and by organisations providing district nursing services such as those providing Jubilee and Lady Dudley nurses. When admitted to the scheme, the position of these employees will be similar to that of their counterparts in the hospital and district nursing services of local health authorities who are insurable for widows' and orphans' pensions and occupational injuries purposes only. There is provision in the Bill, therefore, to enable the insurance position of those persons who are admitted to the new superannuation scheme to be modified so that they will be similarly insurable.

In conclusion it may be helpful to Senators if I summarise the cost of the various proposals in the Bill. On the social assistance side, the improvements will require an extra £2,284,000 for old age and blind pensions, £406,000 for widows' and orphans' pensions and £810,000 for unemployment assistance, making a total of £3½ million in a full year. All of this will be borne by the Exchequer. The gross cost of improvements on the social insurance side will be £5,719,000. Allowing for an increased annual income of £4,656,500 from the increase in rates of contributions, the cost to be met by the Exchequer will be £1,062,500 in a full year.

I have much pleasure in recommending the Bill to Seanad Éireann and I ask for speedy and favourable consideration of it.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The Minister asks for speedy and favourable consideration of this measure and I have no doubt that this will be forthcoming from the House because any proposal that is intended to ease the lot of the aged, of the disabled, of persons who are necessitous because of unemployment or otherwise calls for the most sympathetic and favourable consideration of any Government and of any public representative.

In this measure we are implementing certain increases that are overdue. We are only too well aware of the decreasing value of money. In circumstances in which some of our people appear to have advanced in affluence, there are many sections of our population who are lagging far behind. In this latter category must be included in particular the aged who live alone. We know that were it not for the generous and most commendable local activities on the part of many organisations, there would be extreme privation in many instances where the State assistance provided is insufficient to maintain an aged person. All credit is due to those organisations actively engaged in the provision of meals that are brought to the homes of aged persons who have no member of their family to look after them properly. In this way the terrible consequence of these aged persons having to end their days in drab institutions is avoided. If the enactment of this measure will help to ease the increasing charges represented by the formidable increases in the cost of living, in the cost of the simple necessaries for these people, then the Bill should be passed by agreement.

The Minister made a reference that puzzled me and I should be glad to have clarification. He referred to an increase of pension of 45/- a week in respect of a prescribed female relative where the pensioner is so incapacitated as to require full-time care and attention. The Minister said that this increase will be payable where a prescribed female relative with a reasonably good employment record specifically gives up employment to look after the pensioner. I know of instances where female relatives have never engaged in good employment or in any type of employment because of the fact that they were obliged to devote all of their lives to the care of a disabled relative or aged parent. I would ask the Minister to clarify as to whether such persons would qualify for the additional contribution. If it is confined to those who are compelled to give up employment for the purpose of caring for a relative, hardship may be caused in cases, which may not be numerous but which undoubtedly exist, where from the time that they would otherwise become eligible for employment persons are obliged because of domestic circumstances to remain at home in order to care for a disabled relative or aged parent. I ask the Minister to reply specifically to that point.

In a recent statement, I was glad to see that the Minister adverted to the necessity for lowering the old age pension qualifying age. The time has come when the age should be in accordance with many of the neighbouring countries. I also feel that there are undue delays in the determination of appeals in the Department. They are dealing with people who are failing in health, many of them drawing close to the end of their days. To them the delays that occur are of considerable importance and people like myself making representations are often disagreeably surprised at the amount of time it takes to make a decision. I understand that inquiries have to be instituted and that certain delays may be encountered, but it has been my impression on many occasions that the delays are too long. If the Minister could expedite the decisions of the officials in granting these pensions it would be a step in the right direction.

I have no further comment to make except to welcome this measure of relief for social welfare classes which the people have been called on to pay since the enactment of the Budget. They have been paying for these reliefs in increased taxation to meet, in part, the demands of the social welfare recipients. The people have been paying, and we are merely asking that the moneys which have been collected and which will be collected in time to come will be devoted towards easing the lot of those of our people who should be the first charge on us.

What has been done is somewhat of a relief but it is scarcely sufficient to bring our social welfare code into line with that operating in the neighbouring island and in Europe. We have lagged behind in our consideration of those people who in their time have given so much to the country and to whom the country owes so much in their declining years. We hope that the work of those who are engaged in voluntary effort to improve the position of those people will continue. We know that with the prevalence of emigration, very many of our old people find they no longer have the comfort and assistance and home help that perhaps they expected to have in their advancing years. Many of our institutions are overcrowded with unfortunate people who have not families to care for them and the work of these voluntary organisations consists of helping these people. There is no work that is more charitable or more commendable than that being done by these societies in the capital and in the towns throughout the country. Quite often, sudden and unaccountable worsening of the position may occur in a family and some time may elapse before State assistance becomes available. It is gratifying to know there is a growing consciousness among our people of the necessity for doing, on a voluntary or personal basis, work of this kind and these people are to be highly commended for the work they are performing. It is hoped this measure will assist the categories it is intended to help to combat the increased demands on them in the ever-increasing cost of the necessaries of life. The claims which these classes make on our community are small, and I hope the increases will assist them in having an easier time at the end of their lives.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Like the previous speaker, I also welcome the increased benefits provided in this Bill. We can assure the Minister we will grant his request and give speedy and favourable consideration to the Bill in the Seanad. I particularly welcome the section that gives those who took part in the War of Independence the benefit that their allowances will, in future, be completely disregarded when assessing their means for old age pension purposes. This was one of the greatest injustices that occurred in the past— that those people who did so much for the country should, when they were forced to take these pensions, find that those pensions were also taken into consideration in the means tests when they applied for old age pensions. We know unfortunately that their numbers are dwindling. It is time these people were given the recognition they so rightly deserve.

While we welcome those increases in the Bill, there is one thing to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. It is that when the officials of the Department are investigating applications for pensions or increases in pensions under the social welfare code, it may be possible to speed up those investigations. In many cases great hardships are caused and when public representatives like myself make representations, we find there is undue delay. The hardship is very great on people who are dependent on social services for their well-being. This is particularly so in the case of unemployment assistance recipients. Grave injustice can occur as a result of delays and the over-zealous attention of the inspectors. Perhaps that is the way they are trained but one feels they could deal with the problems in a more humane manner than at present.

Having said that, I welcome the Bill. I feel we are at last coming to realise the importance of social welfare services in this country, and I hope the trend indicated in this Bill will continue and that old age pensioners and other recipients of social welfare benefits may continue to receive increases and to enjoy the standard of living this country can offer.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

We all naturally welcome the increases that the Government are giving in unemployment assistance, to the blind, the disabled, orphans and widows. In the second last paragraph of the Minister's statement, mention is made of the cost. We must, of course, consider the cost, which reaches something like £4½ million in all. I am not unaware of this when I say that, although the 7s 6d increase is welcome, I still feel that the total amount given to these people falls considerably short of basic human requirements. I recognise that in times past it was considered quite enough to give an extra 2s 6d and that the Government have in fact proposed in comparison with past occasions a reasonably substantial increase. But it is not substantial, I am afraid, in relation to the present cost of living.

I would like at this juncture to support and amplify what Senator Fitzgerald has just said about the general treatment received by unemployed, blind and old age pensioners. In my experience, the generality of officials dealing with them have shown exemplary behaviour. They are sympathetic and humane. But this only throws into contrast the behaviour of those who bully and verbally maltreat those who are simply trying to get what is their due.

I do not want to stress this overmuch because I think it is a problem which occurs only in a minority of cases. It is also a problem of which the Minister is aware. I think he and everybody would agree that when benefit of this kind is being given by the State, it should be given with the good manners on which Irish people can in general pride themselves. We tend in human relations to be good, but some of the people in official positions administering this kind of social welfare benefit do not come up to the standard generally applied.

There is another point in this connection on which I would like to have the Minister's view. It is sometimes said, particularly in the winter, by the elderly going to collect their old age pension that the process of long queuing and long waiting is distressing to them. I do not know whether it would be possible to devise some manner of payment which would not require quite such regular queuing up and waiting. I do not know whether it would be possible to lodge the amount to the credit of the old person in a post office savings account. I recognise that the difficulty there is that the total amount in relation to present costs is so small that little or nothing would be left each week in the account.

That brings me to the question of the amount. The amount being given for old age and blind pensions will now be £3 5s. The widows' non-contributory pension will be a shade less, £3 3s 6d. I do not know whether the Minister would like to give us his view as to what proportion of this £3 5s or £3 3s 6d ought to be spent on rent. In Dublin rents have been pretty steeply rising even for the most primitive houses. We are glad to see the more primitive houses being demolished, but very often they are replaced by houses where the rent is trebled or quadrupled. How much rent can one afford to pay out of £3 5s a week? The true answer would probably be a minus quantity, because the £3 5s is not sufficient in all conscience to provide for the cost of heating, lighting, clothing, food and minor consolations such as tobacco and the occasional visit to the cinema. In fact, in reality out of £3 5s one could afford to pay nothing for rent.

Some of these old people have the good fortune to be living with their children and living rent free. But even there, I would suggest, they are going to be hard put to it to have what we would call a reasonably human existence on a total expenditure of £3 5s without any expenditure on rent. I suppose all of us here have on occasion been sent on a shopping expedition to a supermarket. We trundle around the basket. We allow ourselves to be tempted by this and that. When we emerge at the end, having done the shopping, it is quite frequent to find we have very little change out of a £5 note, particularly if we have extensive family commitments.

This is merely food. What are the old age pensioners to do in the supermarket? How much do they spend. Do they go around and spend 7/- or 8/- a day? How much food can you get nowadays, even in the cheaper shops, for 7/- or 8/- a day? If you are spending 8/- a day, you have already spent 56/- out of your 65/-, or if you are a widow out of your 63/6d. I do not want to stress that further. I think everybody would be with me on that, the Minister first amongst them, to recognise that the amount made available by these extra allowances, at a cost to the State of not very much under £5 million, still remains a very small minimal amount.

I notice that this 7/6d represents an increase roughly of 13 per cent and slightly more for the unemployed because what they are getting now is slightly less. It should be recognised that there is, as it were, a concealed percentage increase by reason of the fact that the means test is to be raised for old age and blind pensioners to £195 a year and for widows to £182 a year. The increase in the amount of means that these people can have before their pension is stopped means a concealed percentage increase. It would not be quite fair to say we are only giving them a 13 per cent increase. Nevertheless, this House has fresh in its memory of voting of 30 per cent increases to some judges, 40 per cent to others, and 50 per cent to ourselves, 66? per cent to Members of the other House, 200 per cent to the Leader of the Opposition and so on. I have a feeling that even with these increases in social welfare benefits, if they are taken in conjunction with the increases we have voted to the better-off members of the community, including ourselves, the differentials in the class structure of our society have not been narrowed.

This is something that ought to make us uneasy. We live in a class society in which the gap between the well-to-do and the impoverished is very great. I feel that if we concede such large percentage increases to ourselves and to the others I have mentioned, we must feel a measure of shame at being able to permit increases of only 13 per cent or 15 per cent to the people affected by this Bill.

I notice that the unemployment assistance rate at the maximum will be £2 11s 6d for a single person, man or woman. How do they live on that? How do we expect them to live? What happens to them? Can we really be content with this rate? I am old enough to remember the days when the old age pension was actually reduced from 10s to 9s I hope those days are gone forever. Are we really so far from them when in 1968 we expect a single unemployed person to live on £2 11s 6d a week and remain fit and actively seeking employment. How much do they pay for rent, for food?

I think it is with a measure of shame that we look at these figures. The figures for unemployment benefit, of course, are better because the beneficiary gets £3 5s a week and that is not too much. There is also the means test. If an old age pensioner has £195, less than £4 a week, from some other source, he or she gets no old age pension. I suggest the means test is set at a very low level. It is even lower for the widow. The widow who is "passing rich" with £182 a year gets no pension. While recognising that the Minister has done something perceptible in raising the means test, something markedly more will have to be done before it can be regarded as a just test if, indeed, it should, and has to be continued.

On page 6 of the Bill, we have the weekly rates of orphans' contributory pensions. I see that the pension ceases altogether if the orphan has means exceeding £39 10s a year. That is supposed to be enough to enable an orphan to get food and clothing. I think I am right in saying that in an institution the upkeep of such people costs anything between 45s and £3 a week. Yet, the orphan is expected to exist on £39 10s a year with no pension. How he can do so is beyond my comprehension.

While we welcome the Bill and recognise that the Government have made a real effort and that benefits have increased to perceptibly more than ever before, nevertheless I feel that the class divisions in our society are being heightened by the scale of increases we allow to people at the top like ourselves and the scale of increases we allow at the present time to those at the bottom of the list, to the orphans, the blind, the disabled, the widows and the old age pensioners. We receive a weekly document showing us that we have 53,000 unemployed today in the Republic. The figure for emigration is not so clearly specified but it is hardly less than 20,000 a year and may be as much as 50,000. It is probable that the unemployed who have succeeded in remaining fit and who are of an age still to have spirit, leave the country and seek, even if it is only unemployment benefit, in Britain. I believe they get about £4 10s a week. It is by no means easy to live on that sum but it is appreciably greater than £2 11s 6d upon which our single unemployed man or woman is expected to live here.

In conclusion, I stress the point that it seems to me that even ameliorating legislation of this kind tends rather, by its failure to go further, to allow the gap between the wealthy and the poor to become larger in this country, a country in which there is a very real social democratic spirit in the sense that class division in many ways is an unnatural thing to the Irish mind. Consequently, perhaps many Senators here today will agree with me that this widening of the differentials between the well-off and the poor or, if you like, the failure to narrow more these differentials is something we regret while welcoming the small step forward represented by this Bill.

Mr. McDonald

I welcome the Bill in so far as it increases the rates of benefit of various beneficiaries under the social welfare code but I should prefer to see more comprehensive legislation brought in in order to eliminate the many injustices one finds in looking at the operation of these measures in detail. It is sometimes very difficult to explain to a widow who has just a house in a town where the rates are perhaps high and who has no income, that she does not qualify for a widow's pension.

The entire social welfare code should be made more flexible. We know the plight of farm workers who some years ago, after the war, undertook the practice of conacring land and became self-employed. When these people came to old age pension age, they found they were not entitled to a contributory pension even though they had been insured under the Social Welfare Acts for 20 or 30 years and they received no benefit from the payments they made. That type of thing is wrong.

Lately, I came across a case where a farm worker had three acres of land and became ill in 1953 and because he did not draw the dole in the meantime, he was not qualified to receive a contributory old age pension. Legislation that allows that sort of thing to happen should be amended and the entire thinking concerning our social welfare system should be brought up to date.

Regarding old age pensions, I think the practice of the State in taking one-fifth or 20 per cent of the savings of people into account as income when in fact the National Loan pays only 7½ per cent is wrong and should be amended. There are many things that should be changed but unfortunately we cannot do it in this Bill, and so I earnestly ask the Minister to introduce as soon as possible legislation to eliminate the many injustices that the un-privileged section of the community suffer at present. Perhaps we should take a completely new look at all the measures and bring them up to date.

The old age pension scheme is one that needs deep thought. When poor old people do not, for some reason best known to themselves, apply the very minute they reach the age of 70 but wait until they are 71 or 72, our social welfare inspectors are inclined to view them with the gravest of suspicion. They start digging into bank accounts and all the rest, assuming that these people delayed applying for an old age pension solely to dispose of the enormous wealth they must have put away somewhere or buried since they were 70. They very seldom take into account the low IQ of many of these people and it is disgraceful that simple, elderly persons who, perhaps, through senility are not able to look after their own affairs as well as most, should always get the wrong end of the stick.

The social welfare officers do not do sufficient for these people. The people employed by the Department of Social Welfare should look upon themselves as being there to help the public, whereas the vast majority of them believe they are appointed for no other reason than to save the State as much as possible by depriving these people of the pensions and assistance to which they would otherwise be entitled. This is a wrong outlook and a wrong attitude, and I often feel that the people working in the Minister's Department must get the benefit of some incentive bonus scheme based on the number of people they knock off qualifying for the various benefits and pensions there are.

Since our social welfare benefits and payments are not keeping pace with the cost of living, I would appeal to the Minister to ask, even unofficially, the officers to go softly on the poor and on the needy and meet the situation by not being as conscientious as some of them would appear to be. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

My description of this Bill would be the "Crumbs from the Table of the Rich" Bill. Nobody can suggest that the Bill should be rejected, because it is improving in a slight fashion the present terrible position, but at the same time, in the year 1968, it is a sad reflection on society that an increase of 2/6 a week is being given in certain instances in respect of children. I ask the Minister or any Member of this House what he considers 2/6 will purchase at the present time. It is beyond denial that the cost of the bare necessaries of life are higher in Ireland than in any other European country, and if we make an assessment of the increases which are being given here now, we find they do nothing more than keep people on a subsistence level.

If anybody doubts the cost of foodstuffs and the exploitation of our people by the processing industries and by the distribution groups in this country, he has only to walk into the supermarket in any town in Ireland and compare the prices there with those that are in operation here in the city. Within the last week I had a typical example shown to me in respect of what could not be described as a luxury, marmalade. A jar of marmalade costing 1/10 in a Dublin supermarket will cost 2/2 in Galway or in any of the rural provincial towns. The argument has been put forward many times that foodstuffs are dearer in Dublin. The Members who have that view should get rid of it very fast. Foodstuffs in any part of Ireland are far too dear at the present time. When we expect the weaker and poorer sections of the community to make do on the miserable allowances which are being given to them, it is—perhaps it is wrong to use the word in the circumstances, but it is one that is used very often in the country and it may be understood—unchristian, if that means anything at all at the present time.

The plight of the weaker sections of our community is discussed very much these days, and that is a hopeful sign. Especially when one sees a debate among our younger people on our responsibility towards the weaker sections, it gives hope that at least in their minds the intention is to alter the position in a radical fashion. Apart from the young people who have consciences in this regard, many of the older generation constantly deplore the fact that the old people, the sick, and so forth, are being so badly treated. The Minister is aware of that opinion expressed by members of his own Party in this House and by supporters all over the country. It is a mystery, therefore, with that feeling amongst the community, that the Minister does not take advantage of it and utilise his position in the Government to levy taxation specifically for the purpose of helping those who are less well off. I have not the slightest doubt that people who smoke, and smoke excessively, would gladly pay the extra money in taxation if they knew that it was going specifically towards social welfare.

The Minister remarked on the extra cost involved over a year in giving increases. I do not think the public are too worried about the taxation in a matter of this nature. If people see £1 million extra going specifically to old age pensioners or to people who are unemployed through no fault of their own, they are prepared to pay for that. If taxation is raised for the purpose of achieving that objective and, at the same time, a grant for Potez is included in the same taxation, people are entitled to grouse and react bitterly. When we are dealing with a subject of this nature it should be clearly understood what the money is being raised for. If that could sink into the heads of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare, I believe the position with regard to social welfare benefits and allowances could be changed overnight. I hope something like that is under consideration at the moment.

Another point which was brought to my attention was in connection with the facilities made available for old age pensioners who travel in buses. I gather that an old age pensioner has to produce his pension book in order to satisfy the conductor that he is entitled to travel at the expense of the State. I do not think that is proper procedure. Apart from anything else, these pension books are very awkward, and these people are being asked to carry them around in order to produce them on the buses. Surely there could be some kind of check, or a small badge could be issued, or a little certificate that could be produced by the old age pensioners? There is also the fact that if he has to carry around his pension book, it gets into a very ragged condition in a very short time. So, from the point of view of hygiene also, it would be better if he could produce a little certificate which would meet the requirements.

On the question of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit, I want to make my position clear on something with which I am quite familiar. In certain parts of the country, bad and all as it is to have to look for unemployment assistance, it is worse when you find that the officials of the Department go out of their way to strip away the dignity of these unfortunate people. I know for a fact that they have to wait in the rain, that they have to stand outside doors, and that they will not even be told when to come to collect this money to which they are fully entitled. This is due to the petty tyranny of the officials, and I want to make it clear to the Minister that it should not be tolerated.

Another point which is not dealt with here but to which it is no harm to refer because it comes under social welfare generally is the question of making allowances available from the State where there is a disability in a family. I realise from the White Paper provision is being made for the payment of allowances to near relatives of old age pensioners where the pensioner is incapacitated or needs attention. There are many people not in receipt of old age pensions who need attention. They may be 60 or 69 years of age and be incapacitated from arthritis or something like that. There is no provision for them except in the disability allowances through the local authorities, and perhaps, after a very close examination, some additional home assistance. I do not think that is the right way to look after people in this category, and the Minister should have that matter examined as well with a view to making the same provision for such people as is made available for old age pensioners. The scope of the scheme should be widened.

I hope that what we have heard recently about a new deal in the field of social welfare is not "around the corner" over the next 12 or 18 months, but that we will hear something about it during the Summer Recess.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The fact that this Bill contains benefits greater than those which have been given in previous Bills is a reflection of the growing social conscience which nowadays penetrates all classes and all Parties. Particularly over the past three years, there has been a growing recognition of our backwardness in many respects in social welfare and there is a willingness to accept an acceleration of the growth of the burden of taxation in order to provide for those members of the community who are most in need.

Our social welfare system still has many serious defects. Quite apart from the inadequacies in absolute terms of the benefits given at every level, and under every heading, there is a multiplicity of means tests incorporated into the system. In recent years the Government have attempted to use the limited resources available and to concentrate the benefits of those resources to help the people most in need. Further complications in the means test system make it even more objectionable to the public generally than it has been hitherto.

We also have persistence in the practice of postponing the benefits announced until the following August or January in the case of social assistance or social insurance, the mechanism of announcing increased benefits in the Budget, which the Government are unable or unwilling to pay in the year in question. It is in no way convincing to suggest that this occurs because of administrative difficulties. That simply is not acceptable as an explanation of a postponement of up to nine months. It is a political device to enable the Government to announce that they are giving something which they are unwilling or unable to give in that year. It is also a bad practice because it preempts part of the finance of the coming Budget. It is a practice which we should endeavour to terminate as soon as possible.

Another defect is a lack of graded benefits related to the income of the recipients. This is something which I have raised here year after year, and it is something which is now supported by the Labour Party. The Minister accepts it in principle. It does not seem to me that there are enormous difficulties about the introduction of such a scheme. It exists everywhere in the world except in Ireland, Britain and Iceland, and in Britain it is being introduced in relation to retirement pensions.

So long as we have a system under which the amount paid out in benefits is tied to the amount which the Government feel they can properly exact from the lowest paid ordinary male worker outside agriculture, so long will our social welfare system be inadequate. It is completely wrong that the level of benefit, even for the higher-paid workers, should be tied in this way. It is not reasonable that a higher-paid worker, who would be willing and able to pay a higher contribution, should be deprived of the opportunity to insure himself in this way because of the inability or unwillingness of the Minister's Department to introduce a scheme of graded benefits and contributions such as exists in other countries. After pressure from the Opposition, the Minister said he was willing to introduce this change. When will he introduce this change? When will the £1,200 limit on non-manual workers be eliminated? It is an anachronism and a defect in our system.

There is no convincing reason for this limit. It is a carry-over from a period when a certain class system was accepted but such class system is not now accepted. Therefore, I ask the Minister the question: "When will we have a comprehensive insurance scheme?" More and more clerical workers, for example, have earnings past this limit, without entering into a reasonable condition of affluence, but, when they pass this salary limit, they are deprived of benefits which they hitherto enjoyed and, in this way, are discriminated against probably because, in fact, of an attitude of mind which originally meant to discriminate in their favour. When will this be done away with?

The inadequacy of the home assistance scheme, and its patchiness and unevenness because of the different attitudes of different local authorities, is another serious defect in the existing system which I think was also referred to in the Dáil on the debate on this Bill. Whether this could best be tackled by a uniform national assistance scheme or whether the present scheme could be improved to provide a better and more humane service, I do not know with certainty, but certainly we need to have the Minister's views as to what he will do about improving the home assistance system.

Throughout the whole social welfare schemes, there is, as other speakers have said, a lack of humanity in the approach to the whole problem. In most cases, the people concerned in the schemes are human in their attitude within the limits of the enforcement of the bureaucratic system which is enforced as rigidly here if not more so, as in other areas. The problem is the inhumanity of the system which is still the poor law system: it has not changed in any serious respect. There have been improvements in the amount paid but the attitude of mind which underlies the scheme and the bureaucratic control exercised to protect the State from the mis-spending of one shilling or one pound is still a poor law condition. Other countries have departed from that and we should do likewise. These, then, are all defects of our present social welfare arrangements, other than and beyond the inadequacy of the amounts paid.

We have been told that the Third Programme will contain a social programme—a serious gap in the Second Programme. Can the Minister give us any indication of what his Department have in mind, in relation to the matters I have dealt with, so far as the Third Programme is concerned? It has widely been rumoured that many new developments are under way or, perhaps, that there is new thinking in his Department. Some time ago, I had occasion to suggest the contrary; I said I saw no evidence of that yet. However, I was corrected by people in a position to know who said there was a change of thinking in that Department, although no signs had yet reached the public. I am prepared to believe it but I must say I should like to witness some overt signs.

The absence of a social programme in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion was a serious social and economic defect. In that Programme, a certain amount was set aside for social purposes but there was no indication as to how it would be spent. The share in the national output for that purpose was inadequate. What has happened is that the Government, prompted by the growing social conscience and public opinion, and prompted, I daresay, also, by the election campaign of 1965 and pressure from the Opposition Party since, have not adhered to the Programme. This unthinking attitude behind the Programme envisaged a reduction in the share of national output to be devoted to social welfare. However, over this period, the amount devoted to social welfare has expanded beyond what was envisaged in the Programme. One of the reasons the burden of taxation has arisen more rapidly than was expected is that this has happened. We welcome this change of heart. However, we deplore the lack of planning which has created this unplanned burden on taxation—because there was no planning of the social progress to be made in this period. We hope there will be such provision in the Third Programme.

Instead of throwing in a figure, taken out of a hat, for the amount to be devoted to social welfare—a figure obviously and clearly inadequate—we should seek a fully worked-out plan for development over this four-year period indicating, in broad terms, the amount to be devoted in this period. We should seek a realistic plan which could secure the enthusiastic support of all Parties. Can the Minister tell us what the shape of this social programme will be? Will it be in advance of anything we have had before? How soon shall we see it? Can he tell us anything about it?

On television, some time ago, the Minister was involved in a discussion on the subject of social welfare during which there was some dispute over figures, over the comparability of figures and the proportion of the amount of national output devoted to social purposes in some countries. To a person not interested in statistics, the debate may have become arid. Although it may have been an arid debate for non-statistical viewers, nevertheless, the point is important. I should like the Minister to move away from the negative position of criticising the figures put forward by other countries purporting to show the amount of national output which we and other countries devote to social welfare and, instead, to tell us the true comparative figures.

It is easy to pick holes in figures supplied by other countries but what we require is the true comparative figure. The holes the Minister picked in such comparisons did not look alarming. When he has made the appropriate adjustments in respect of coverage in this country, and in other countries, can he show us the percentage of our output, in terms comparable with those of other countries, that is devoted to social welfare? The figures he put forward, and which he rejected, were derived from the published data of OECD statistics which are supposed to be comparable. The statisticians of OECD have tried to render national data comparable both in terms of the national output figure and the social welfare figure related to it. He says they made mistakes and that the comparison is inadequate. What, therefore, is the true comparison?

When all the pedantic changes have been made, we stand well behind other countries. I do not think the Minister can stand pedantically on this issue. We stand well behind other countries at the same or closely-comparable standard of living. The Minister is trying to hide that fact. I hope the problem will be faced up to fully in this Third Programme. I hope the justification put to the Irish public for increases in taxation that will have to occur under the Third Programme in order to improve our social welfare will be the simple fact that we are lagging behind other countries. We must face and state this fact. If the Minister pretends we are not lagging behind, he will never mobilise public opinion behind him in seeking priority for the major task of his Department, which is the improvement of social welfare in this country.

One other point worth referring to is the institutional bias of our whole social welfare system in which, both in health services and social welfare generally, we tend to solve problems by putting people in institutions, where they are less happy than they would be at home and cost much more to look after. This is true as regards the treatment of children who are left without parents. It is true of old people and it is true of the whole system of health services, true of the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme, and of the whole social welfare system where there is this bias directed towards institutional treatment which is more expensive and less satisfactory.

Nothing has been done to get away from this. In the Fine Gael "Just Society" policy in 1965, one of the best thought-out and most useful parts of it was—and I can say this because I had nothing to do with this particular part—the part dealing with the proposal for domiciliary service, a home help service, designed to provide assistance to old people in their own homes rather than have them sent to institutions. If we are going to develop anything of this kind to help people in their own homes and reduce the burden on our institutions, it must have the real welfare of the people at heart. We are going to need more and more trained people and the Minister must direct his attention to this fact. We are turning out trained social workers in substantial numbers. I come here today from a conferring of degrees at UCD at which there were scores of trained social workers receiving their degrees. As they were receiving their degrees, a man beside me whispered to me: "Most of them will be off to Northern Ireland or Britain in the morning because there are no jobs for them here." This is true.

Many such workers go to the North of Ireland where they are welcomed and where there are many jobs for them. There are many times the number of jobs in that one-third of our country than there are down here. What is being done here? This need for trained workers exists but the Minister's Department does nothing to see that they are employed, and so far little or no progress has been made in this matter, beyond possibly some minor improvements, and the bulk of trained workers are still exported. Scores of them are required here but there exists this extraordinary bias against employing trained people. Whether it is in the Minister's Department, in local authorities, or in hospitals, I do not know, but there is this extraordinary bias against employing trained people. Perhaps they think it would be more expensive to employ trained people rather than untrained people but this is false economy.

The Minister must look into this matter because there is a possibility for a real improvement in the humanisation of our social welfare services and in providing the kind of service which should be provided for our people, such as an adequate number of probation officers for the young. The people are there and it is not the case that we are short of them but they are being forced out of the country.

Perhaps people think that it would cost more if they employed trained people but in fact it would save the country more because where people are appointed to help other people in their own homes, then there would be a saving through a saving in institutional costs. This is a matter to which the Minister must give attention and he must not allow scores of young people to be exported at the cost of a continuing low level of services in our social welfare system.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

To the Fine Gael Party, money means nothing and they can conjure it out of the moon or from the pages of that much bedevilled document, the "Just Society", which we hear so much about. However, I recall that when Fine Gael were for the only time in their history the Government of this part of Ireland, as a single Party, and they needed money, they were the only Party ever in Government to cut the old age pension in order to find——

Mr. McDonald

How many years ago was that?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Before the Fine Gael Party was founded.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It ill becomes Fine Gael speakers to talk about neglect or slackness or slowness on the part of this Government in regard to social welfare. Certainly it ill becomes Senator Garret FitzGerald to talk about the increases in social welfare now being a reflection of the growing social conscience of the Government.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I said "the country".

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Long before this growing social conscience of the country or of the Government of which Senator FitzGerald speaks, was referred to, the Government had instituted the scheme of social services which we have today. If the Senator will consult the records of legislation of the Oireachtas, going back to the time when Fine Gael were a Government by themselves, he will find that there was very little in the line of social services to talk about. It was not a case of waiting for a growing social conscience to institute the ameliorative services for the benefit of the people; it was a case that when the Government set out to do business in 1932, on the first occasion the Fianna Fáil Party took over Government, they began to legislate the charter of social services which has grown to such an extent that any Irishman can be proud of the progress made.

We need not take second place to any country in Europe because in some ways we are ahead of some of those countries. I heard references by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, Senator McDonald and Senator McQuillan to unemployment assistance. That is a case in point. Until the Fianna Fáil Government took action in the matter there was no concern whatever for an unemployed man who was not covered by some type of insurance. It was the Fianna Fáil Government who introduced the principle of assistance for people who were unemployed and who were trying to secure work and who were not covered by any insurance stamp.

The sneers directed at the amount of money available for unemployment assistance were not worthy of the people who made them and not worthy of any of the people who addressed similar sneers at what they described as the total inadequacy of the amount of money available for these benefits and the services generally. We all know that we have a good way to go yet before any of us can be satisfied that the whole code of social services is as good as we would like it to be or as good as we hope it will be by the time the Government are finished with the scheme for amplifying social assistance and social payments. It is capable of great improvements and the Minister has been devoting his attention to a review of the whole code. We are confident that when the time comes, he will come forward with proposals for the improvements we expect and which everybody who gives any thought to the matter desires. However, to think that this can be done overnight or that money can be manufactured by wishing it to be so is so silly as not to warrant any further comment. If it were that easy to do, it would have been done long ago.

One thing I would commend to all critics of the social welfare code and the alleged inadequacies of the payments is that if I remember rightly, and I am not much good at statistics— I leave that to Senator FitzGerald—it was once stated that some 30 per cent are keeping 70 per cent in this country. If that be correct, then the 30 per cent certainly deserve not to have their backs completely broken. They are doing pretty well by the community as it is. Those who are paying their taxes, who are smoking and paying more, having a drink and paying more, paying income tax and not grumbling, these are certainly doing their share and are willing to do it, but they must be given the opportunity to take it in slices and not all in one bulk or that will break their backs entirely.

When Senator McQuillan talked about the proposals for the increases in the old age pensions being mixed up in the same Budget with grants for hotels, he showed how little was his understanding of the true position. Without these hotels and without the people who work in them——

Mr. Murphy

He said "Potez".

Tomás Ó Maoláin

——without the people who are enterprising enough to start them and without business and prosperity this 30 per cent could not afford to pay the money for the services we are talking about.

Mr. Murphy

May I defend the Senator; he said Potez, not hotels.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That, again, shows how little understanding the Senator has of the actual position.

Mr. Murphy

What about the workers there?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That shows how little understanding the Senator has of the position. If he had any sense, he should know that there is a great potential in that factory and we hope that some day, despite the jeers and sneers of Senator McQuillan and others, and despite the men who wanted boiling water for their tea at a critical time, that factory will go into production.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Is that why there are no planes being made. I never heard that.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Remember, it is not all Irish money that is in it either. The people who started it put their money into it as a guarantee of good faith and there is no reason why that factory should not——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Take off.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

——deliver the goods. And if the Senator has a talk with them out there, they will tell him about the boiling water for their tea. Senator Sheehy Skeffington talked about the 50,000 unemployed, but he forgot the breakdown of that figure. If I remember rightly, there are only 7,000 or 8,000 genuinely unemployed people, people capable of and looking for work, in that figure. This was extended in recent years to small farmers and fishermen.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Will the Senator give the authority for the 7,000 or 8,000 unemployed?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Go and look at the figures.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

What figures?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

These figures Senator Sheehy Skeffington quoted from, the figures issued every week. Have a look at them and at the breakdown.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I have looked at the breakdown.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not need to talk statistics to Senator Garret FitzGerald; he can mesmerise me with them.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

But the Senator is not mesmerising me.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I can read good, plain print. If the Senator looks at the plain print, he will see the breakdown. Senator Sheehy Skeffington ought to give all the facts. He ought not to make the bland statement that there are 53,000 unemployed as if there were 53,000 men and women capable of working and of being absorbed tomorrow morning if jobs were available for them.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

What is wrong with them?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I refer the Senator also to the figures. With regard to the kind of mournful attitude adopted by Senator Sheehy Skeffington about there being only £2 10s a week unemployment assistance here and £4 10s a week unemployment assistance in Britain and Northern Ireland, the Senator knows very well the explanation for that. He knows very well that you cannot do everything overnight. He knows very well that you cannot accomplish miracles overnight. You have to go slowly. We have been going fairly rapidly. The pace is increasing but you cannot go so rapidly as to destroy the good work done in the past, thereby wrecking the economy. In due time we hope our social services will be as good as, if not better than, those in neighbouring countries. If the Government continue to pursue the enlightened social policy they have adopted since they were first elected in 1932, I have no doubt whatsoever that we will be in the forefront of other European countries. Might I say for the benefit of Senator Sheehy Skeffington—I am sure he will be very surprised to hear it—that, if he looks at the history of these social services and the dates on which they were introduced, he will find that the people's republic of Ireland was in advance of the people's republics in other parts of Europe in relation to at least two or three of them.

Mr. Murphy

We are providing in this Bill the increases announced in the Budget in April last. Some of those increases will operate in August and others in January next. It seems to be the general practice now year after year to stage these increases and the impression is being left on the minds of a great many people—the recipients, of course, are only too sadly aware of the facts—that the social welfare classes are getting a number of increases every year, an increase in April, an increase in August and a further increase in January.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Did the Senator ever ask any of them? They know damn well.

Mr. Murphy

The people who are getting the increases know damn well but the ordinary citizens, who do not read too carefully, are left with the impression that here is a beneficent Government giving increases every few months to the social welfare classes. People have actually said that to me.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They must have been from Cork.

Mr. Murphy

That is the impression that is being left on people's minds. I do not accept that this delay is due to administrative difficulties. We all know administrative difficulties can be overcome, where there is a will to overcome them. I regard this as so much political capital. Tomorrow, the Irish Press will blazen forth headlines:

"Increases for social welfare classes passed by the Seanad".

Tomás Ó Maoláin

So will the Irish Times.

Mr. Murphy

And, maybe, the Independent and, maybe, even the Cork Examiner. People will just glance at the headlines, and say: “Oh, they are getting more: good.” Then they will read again next January about, they will assume, a further increase. Next April, there will be another increase, rightly and deservedly, because the value of money is changing. There will be another announcement of a further increase and again people will say: “Thank God, we are doing more for the old age pensioners,” etc., etc. There will be, if Fianna Fáil are still in power, again this impression of three increases when, in fact, there will be only one. Those are the facts. That is the impression being left with the public.

Again the impression is being left that, because of all these increases, these people cannot be too badly off; we are not doing too badly by any of them. Those of us who visit these people in their homes know that the position is both shocking and humiliating. I am humiliated and ashamed when I have to visit these people because I am a member of a society in which this shocking position obtains. Various charitable bodies try to assist these people, and one goes along with a few bob, which means so much to these people, or a food ticket, and one sees the misery in which they live. It is a scandal and we ought all of us to be ashamed that this could happen in an allegedly Christain country.

I grant Senator Ó Maoláin that the Government has done a great deal, but let us appreciate that this is not Fianna Fáil money. This is redistribution of income, of your income and my income and the incomes of the rest of the community. This is not charity. This is redistribution of income and the sooner we face up to that fact, and accept it, the better it will be for us all. There is a great deal of merit in Senator McQuillan's suggestion that some effort should be made to identify a particular class in this redistribution of income to the community. It should be brought home to every one of us that when we pay a few pennies extra for tobacco, cigarettes, petrol, or whatever it is, this money will go to assist those most in need. It would be a measure of practical Christianity that we should know why we are paying the money and that it is this money which is doing good for our less well-off brethren.

Reference was made to the £1,200 limit. I want to return briefly to the pleas I made to the Minister on previous measures. We have had these Bills annually. I plead with him to take a fresh look at the whole social insurance system we have built up in this country. We have done some things— Senator Ó Maoláin says a lot—and we have made improvements and the time has come to take a fresh look at the situation. We have this limit, that people in non-manual employment in receipt of over £1,200 per annum go out of insurance. We have made a provision—and this is an amelioration of the situation—that they can, if they so wish, continue as voluntary contributors in order to maintain widows' and orphans' insurance. We all know—we have met tragic instances—where even though this opportunity was available, people neglected to take this cover and found that the time had gone and perhaps unfortunately they died and their widows then came and said: "What about this insurance?", and found that there was no insurance at all, that she was not insured for widows' and orphans' benefit.

We are talking about the more needy in our society, and, certainly, people in receipt of unemployment assistance and old age pensions are far worse off than the worker in receipt of £1,200 per annum, but, equally, none of us would suggest that the person with over £1,200 per annum is in such a well-off position that he can afford to make his own arrangements in regard to insurance for his wife and children in the event of his death. We need the State to step in here. We need to give the group assistance—that is what it is— the whole community sharing. The limit of £1,200 should be abolished and, at least, people should be kept in insurance and those who have allowed themselves to go out of insurance and who have not opted to maintain the voluntary insurance should be allowed in. In other words, we should share the burden. The people should be allowed to make that provision for that risk by the State insurance system.

We exclude, as I said, people who are in non-manual employment who are over that limit of £1,200. How "non-manual" comes into it, I am not very clear. I think that a clerk in receipt of £1,205 is as much in need of this sort of cover as the mechanic or electrician or person engaged in what we regard as manual work, who is allowed to stay in the insurance scheme.

There is another anomaly at which we might take a fresh look. It affects persons in what we term permanent pensionable employment who are exempted from social insurance. This is something we inherited from the British but which the British have abandoned long since. Such persons are not covered by the ordinary insurance scheme. I think they should be. Maybe many of them may object to paying insurance stamps but it is better all round that they should be brought into insurance which would give them cover for widows and orphans and for the old age pension, and there is the consideration that by their contributions they would help to support the fund. There would be a steady income to the fund which would in turn help to provide, I hope, better benefits for those who are unfortunate enough to lose their employment and it would provide cover for widows and orphans in the event of the contributor's death. The system we have inherited and maintained, even though the British have abandoned it, has led to some strange anomalies.

I have a problem to which I cannot find an easy solution. People who were promoted into supervisory posts and who before promotion were fully insured workers contributing to social welfare find when they are promoted that they are exempted—the more correct term would be excluded—from social welfare. They have to join a superannuation fund for which they pay—the amount varies according to age—£1 or 35s a week and, despite their paying that amount, end up on retirement worse off financially than they would have been if they had never been promoted after paying fantastically high contributions to a superannuation fund in the meantime. This is the sort of anomaly created by this situation. The employer concerned says: "We will step in and we will provide that the person promoted will not be worse off at 65 years of age than if he had not been promoted. We will supplement his income." They supplement it to what it would have been if the person had never been promoted and in spite of the fact that he had to pay £1 to 35s per week in the intervening years. That is a ridiculous situation. It is, as I have said, one of the anomalies produced by this completely out-of-date income limit and, again, the question of exempting what we term people in full-time pensionable employment.

Another anomaly produced is that such people who live until 70 years of age find that other people are allowed free travel because they are old age pensioners, whereas they, who probably have as low an income or a lower income are not entitled to free travel. It happens, for example, in CIE. A person who while in employment had certain travel facilities finds on retirement that the facilities are severely limited or disappear. If he lives until 70 years of age, he has to pay his fare whereas a person who never worked at all on CIE has free travel because he is an old age pensioner, rightly—I do not complain about this—but the man who has devoted his whole working life to public transport finds that he has not got free transport on reaching 70 years of age. That is something that irritates the persons concerned very much. It is all right to think of people who can run cars and who do not need to travel on buses. I am talking about the person who is in retirement for five to ten years and finds his standard of living continually being reduced, who finds that at that level his income is as low as that of an old age pensioner—and that is low enough—and that the old age pensioner, simply because he has an old age pension book, has free travel while he has not.

There was a tragically touching instance the other day. A chap like that who had retired and is living now where there is no rail service—he is not an old age pensioner because he was not an insured worker—finds he cannot afford to pay the fare on the bus to come to Dublin for medical treatment, whereas if he had never worked for CIE and were an old age pensioner, he would be entitled to free travel. This is the type of anomaly thrown up by the system we have. We have built up improvements but I suggest that we have got to take a fresh look at the situation.

May I go back to my first point about the general inadequacy of the social welfare benefits and assistance we have got? Senator Ó Maoláin made the point that we have made improvements and I acknowledge that. He also expressed the hope that eventually we should reach the levels obtaining in other western European countries. I find this a bit difficult to accept because if I can read the signs at all, the gap is widening—the gap between the level of social welfare benefits being provided by us and by other countries. Despite the improvements, the gap is widening all the time and if we can continue as we are, I cannot see any prospect in this Government's lifetime of closing the gap.

If we continue as we are, the gap will continue to widen and this is a deplorable situation. Senator Ó Maoláin made the point that the money comes from the people who have the money—that it is redistribution. I agree, but in the same Budget providing for these increases we provide for reliefs to surtax payers at a cost of several hundred thousand pounds. This redistribution would be better utilised by helping the people most in need, those covered by social insurance, by our social welfare code.

Professor Quinlan

All in the House welcome the increases that are being given and naturally we all urge that more should be provided. We are aware of the great amount required to meet even a modest improvement. Indeed more could be done by channelling some luxury taxes to the aid of social welfare recipients. In this Budget as in former ones, the luxury taxes have been dealt with far too lightly. These taxes could have made a considerable increase in social welfare scheme improvements.

However, one of the real sources of increase here is to get people off the unemployment register and that can be provided by retraining and re-employment of such people. It is well therefore that we should look at the figures involved today. We can see that the level of unemployment assistance for a married man runs at about £5 a week. We all realise how low that is but if we capitalise that figure, it gives us £250 a year. This, during a lifetime, would be equivalent approximately to about 15 times its present value, or about £4,000. What this means is that it is financially profitable for the State to spend up to £4,000 to get an individual off the unemployment register. Indeed it would be worth more than that because if we spent more than £4,000 to create a new job, that means that a person taken off the register would be in gainful employment until he retired or died.

This is the type of hard cold look at the situation we do not seem to be taking sufficiently seriously. When we were dealing with the Shannon Free Airport Industrial Estate recently, we found that even at present industrial prices, the rate put into the giving of employment to each worker there was £2,000, of which the State contributed more than £1,000. Those figures, or even considerably higher in more intensive capital industries, still make it good sense to help those on the unemployment register to get employment. This is especially important today when the unskilled workers—you would hardly call them unskilled—the people displaced by machines, are really the most deserving cases in our community because they have given good service, dependable, reliable, honest, down through the years and now at the end of their days, find that one of those machines comes in and makes so many of them redundant. It may be one of those supermarkets, one of those self-service stores or amalgamations of old-established businesses in our cities, all of which result in the creation of a considerable amount of unemployment.

We should try to achieve much more co-ordination between the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Labour so that it would be far quicker to anticipate such redundancies and to see that we have a positive scheme for retraining. It might appear that the cost would be high but as I have shown, they would be low costs, by our standards, to help such people to be retrained.

Another great source of the increase in the unemployment register is those leaving the land. Many of those in close contact with the land hold that there are far too few trained workers available on the land today. I underline the word "trained". Many are leaving but they are not trained for modern agriculture; yet we do not see any real scheme aimed at training such people, making them into the skilled workers who can be absorbed by agriculture today. An effort is required in this direction in the years ahead. There is a great source in agriculture from which to get worthwhile employment at home.

The only scheme for training those young people to acquire the skills necessary on the land is the most paltry, mini-mouse ever produced, the farm apprenticeship scheme, in which the only incentive is the possibility that at the end of four years, the apprentices will qualify for an award of £500. If my figures are correct, that award should not be £500 but should be nearer to £5,000, especially if it succeeded in getting the people trained to give much useful work at home. This would help to reduce the numbers to be catered for in the unemployment register.

I wish to support Senator Garret FitzGerald strongly in his plea in respect of domiciliary services and the extension of the great amount of voluntary effort available in the country today. Indeed, good work is being done by them but a great deal more could be done if they were given more resources by the State with less of the penny pinching and a ridiculous overchecking attitude. These are responsible people who have come forward in voluntary organisations and are giving of their time and energy. Therefore, the State should be prepared to trust them almost to the extent of giving them much more of the grant type payment rather than the type of help we are giving them at present.

We all wish more could be done and we hope that next year there will be a further instalment. If a substantial boost can be given to social welfare by increased luxury taxes in the Budget ahead, I for one would feel very happy to see this done and to see the taxes labelled specifically for this purpose.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I am very pleased with the general trend of the debate. Most of the criticism was constructive and useful, the occasional political point being scored, as is to be expected. This is an emotional subject which arouses a good deal of bidding with somebody trying to outdo somebody else. I have always tried to refrain from being influenced in any way by that type of persuasion.

In the course of my reply, I shall try to answer most of the points made. I have dealt with them already in the Dáil. When talking about social welfare in a general way, there is some thing which must be very obvious to everyone. Recently, when studying the systems in the different European countries, I read a very good booklet produced by one of the Swedish experts —and Sweden is regarded as the paragon in this field of social welfare. This man starts off by saying that the two pillars on which any form of progress in social welfare in any country must be based are humanitarianism and economic progress. We are not short of humanitarianism here but to find the money and set our priorities right is not so easy.

If we have been able to reach the stage here where we are disbursing upwards of £80 million in social welfare, it is because our economy has come up in recent years. It has received the attention that enabled us to devote so much to social welfare. We must have regard to channelling money into things which tend further to increase production and expand the economy in the knowledge that it will give greater opportunity to improve social welfare further. It is not only the rates of benefit we want to increase. We can point to some expansion already and, as some Senators indicated, some anomalies. The rates themselves could absorb a lot more money. If I could get another £1,000 million from the Minister for Finance, I could use it in improving the rates alone, not to talk about expansion, that is, if we are to base our payments on the amount necessary to keep a person with no other means in decent comfort.

We have criteria to guide us in regard to what rates we should pay. We used to boast years ago when we met the increase in the cost of living index, but that is not sufficient guide for us now. On every occasion we have exceeded what would be justified by the increase in the cost of living over the previous year. The better standard of living our people are enjoying today must also be a criterion if we are to bring the weaker sections up to a better standard of living than that they were prepared to accept 30 or 40 years ago, when there was virtually no social welfare. There was a time when old people were expected to become the responsibility of their families and relatives, whom they reared and brought up. I should like to think that family affection is not completely destroyed in this country yet and that most of our old people have good relatives who cherish what the old people have done for them and who want to see that they enjoy many of the luxuries of life which the few pounds we pay them could not give them.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington asked what element of the social welfare payments should be devoted to rent. In that respect he has put his finger on a point emphasised by my predecessor, now the Minister for Local Government, some years ago when he gave an increase to what is regarded as the nil means section. He recognised that there is a section of old age pensioners who are in a much worse position than the others. These are the people who have to live alone without any relatives to look after them and to try to exist on what they get from us and from the voluntary social organisations which do so much good. In order to help that section we have done a number of things, in addition to the much-criticised 5/- we gave them over and above the other section. We have also come to their assistance by providing free electricity, free travel and free radio and television licences. These are things giving them a comfort they might not provide for themselves even if they got extra money. I regard them all as a step in the right direction.

Senator Garret FitzGerald questioned the figures I gave on television recently. I did not merely stick a pin into a paper and produce figures substantially correct. I hope I pointed out clearly the fundamental differences in the different countries with which comparisons are sought to be drawn but which are not comparable by any means. First, in each country there are three sets of basic statistics which in themselves can be contradictory. We have a comparison of the percentage of the gross national product devoted to social welfare, the percentage of taxable revenue used for this purpose and we have the percentage of the national income devoted to it. All three throw up different percentages, some of which are very favourable to us and others of which are not. But in all three the comparisons can be wrong because each country regards social welfare in a different way. Many of the European countries have included the salaries, pensions and retirement allowances of the Civil Service, the police and even the army in their social welfare figures. Others have included their entire expenditure on health as part of social welfare.

Social Welfare is a very wide field if you cast your net wide enough. I might be justified in giving the amount we spend on free education, on our health services and on our Garda and Civil Service pensions. By that way we could bring our figure up to a tremendous percentage of the gross national product. Even as it is at present, these figures compare quite favourably with those of any other country. Those familiar with the Convention recently signed at the ILO Conference will readily admit that the European countries found that we easily measured up to the minimum standard required before we could subscribe to the Convention. I think we considerably exceeded the requirements which, one might say, were not so wonderful but certainly, as regards basic requirements, they are available here more than in many other countries.

I have been questioned on what I am doing regarding examining the problem generally and, as I have said so often, the one thing that surprised me most is that when people compare the present six countries of the EEC and our own as regards social security, we compare so favourably. Our position is such that the general scheme of social welfare here will not need to be changed; we merely need to build it up and expand it where required. Basically, it is as good as any other country's and better than most. I know the things to which I should like to pay immediate attention and those to which I hope to give attention in the not far distant future, provided the economic situation continues to move rapidly enough to enable me to get the money to do it.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Before the Minister gets away from the figures, as he seems to be doing, could he give us any comparison with figures related either to national income, tax revenue or gross national product?

Mr. J. Brennan

The figures have been quoted in television and in other places. I have the figures from the publication known as "The Cost of Social Security" published by the International Labour Office. This booklet is in the Library and available to everybody. I think it is also procurable from the Stationery Office. It gives the different sets of figures related to gross national product, tax revenue and national income. Taking the one most commonly used, gross national product, you find that Ireland jointly shares tenth place with Luxembourg among the 16 countries quoted. However we argue about the way in which we may not be comparable as regards the different elements included by different countries to get these percentages, we rate tenth in the comparison made of 16 nations. It has been said that we are at the bottom of the scale but that is not correct.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Would the Minister quote the table to which he is referring?

Mr. J. Brennan

There is another comparison which is even more interesting than the actual present day figures in that table. It is the one showing the rapid rise——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

What table is this?

Mr. J. Brennan

There are three tables quoted by the ILO publication. The one to which I am referring is the one dealing with the percentage of gross national product which gives Austria as 33.5 per cent in 6th place. I hope the Senator does not wish me to give all of them: Germany's figure is 8.8 per cent (15th); France, 33.9 per cent (joint 7th); Belgium, 31 per cent (12th); Luxembourg 33.3 per cent (joint 10th). That is exactly the same percentage as our own. Italy's figure is 65.5 (3rd) and Sweden 42.3 per cent (5th place)——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I am sorry to interrupt but it is important to get this correctly. What is this a percentage of? Is it related to national income or gross national product?

Mr. Eoin Ryan

The Senator should listen to the answers to the questions he puts.

Mr. J. Brennan

Social welfare as a percentage of the gross national product.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Thirty three and one-third per cent?

Mr. J. Brennan

Yes. I am quoting the increases from 1950 to 1963. I said quite explicitly that the rate of increase was much more spectacular than the actual percentage. The actual percentage for different years is also given.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

That is what we asked for.

Mr. J. Brennan

I shall quote you the other three also if you wish, the percentage of tax revenue——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

No. What I am asking for is a comparison of social welfare or transfer payments with either gross national product or national income.

Mr. J. Brennan

The booklet I referred to gives the figures from 1950 to 1963 and it gives the rate of increase.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I am not asking for the rate of increase. The Minister keeps on dodging the question.

Mr. J. Brennan

I can give the entire table if you wish but I do not think the Seanad would wish that. The 1963 figure is 9.3 per cent for Ireland——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Of what?

Mr. J. Brennan

Expenditure on social security expressed as a percentage of gross national product. The figure for Italy is 13.9 per cent——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

A country with the same standard of living as ourselves which is the only valid comparison and it is spending 50 per cent more than we are.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator has a habit of doing this sort of thing, putting questions and trying to get answers during the Minister's speech. I think that is most unfair. If the Minister wishes to reply, he should be allowed to do so without interruption.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I shall now desist; I have got the answer.

Acting Chairman (Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan)

The Minister, without interruption from either side.

Mr. J. Brennan

I want to go back to what I regard as the most important thing, the rate of increase in the past ten years. This is something to which we should pay more attention. As I said before, if we make the same rate of progress with social welfare, we shall compare very favourably with any country in the world——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We might eventually catch up.

Mr. J. Brennan

Provided Fianna Fáil remain in power. Everybody knows statistics can create a very unreal picture. I am not defending our percentages on that basis but one has only to glance at the figures for Sweden and Italy and some other countries that we know to appreciate the position. Sweden is the outstanding country for social welfare in Europe but their percentage of gross national product does not show them to be any better than Italy or many other countries which, in fact, are considerably better. Again, it is a matter of the elements used in computing what is social welfare. These are not true comparisons. The very booklet in which they are published states this. It says:

Furthermore, differences between the social, economic and political developments and structures of the different countries make for differences in the nature and degree of social protection required; consequently, the relative importance attached to individual branches of social security often differs from country to country. For example, in one country the emphasis may be on sickness insurance and in another on pensions. As the development of the social security system has not reached its final stage and the cost elements for the various social security branches differ, the financial data presented in the present volume are not on their own sufficient for an evaluation of the efforts made in the different countries in the field of social security. In addition the cost of protection against a given contingency varies with the incidence of the contingency, for instance, a country with a high level of unemployment and in which large sums are spent on unemployment protection, or a country which has been hit by severe epidemics and has thus incurred heavy expenditure on health services, cannot be considered more advanced in social security than— other things being equal—another country in which the total cost of social security forms a smaller percentage of the national income, but solely because the level of unemployment has been lower or the health situation has been more favourable.

International comparisons are relatively easy to make when they relate to countries with similar systems of social security and similar economic, social and political structures. The inquiries of the ILO, however, are universal in their coverage, so that comparability between countries is rendered more difficult.

In relation to Table 2 the introduction includes the following warning:

Furthermore, it should be stressed that, even if the figures in principle are calculated according to the United Nations System of National Accounts, there are great variations between the countries regarding the quality of the basic data, methods of estimating the various elements entering into the calculations, etc. The figures are also often subject to adjustments which sometimes prove extensive. The figures in this table should, therefore, be interpreted with caution. In addition, as mentioned above, it is difficult, on the basis of these figures, to draw conclusions regarding, for example, the relative standard of protection in the various countries, since such conclusions cannot be drawn from financial data alone.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The relative importance attaching to——

Mr. J. Brennan

I am not here to argue with the Senator but to state the facts, outstanding facts, that may not be obvious from statistics. It is incontrovertible that reaching in the past few years the magnificent figure of almost £80 million in disbursements on social welfare is an accomplishment for a small country which at the same time is struggling to develop, a country that has a relatively small percentage of its entire population insured, that has to pay £45 million out of the Exchequer on the social assistance side. When we compare ourselves with countries which have compulsory insurance for every individual under a contributory scheme, that makes our position all the more favourable. If there is one thing more than anything else on which we have made great progress, it is social welfare. Nobody can contradict that for one moment.

I was going on to discuss the possibility and the likelihood of our social welfare scheme being extended and approved in the near future. I did emphasise that it depends largely on the rate of progress we can make in the years to come. It is a very simple matter to have the desire, which I hope everybody in this country has, to do more and better for the weaker sections, particularly the aged.

Senator Garret FitzGerald spoke about graded payments, what we refer to as pay-related benefits. This is something which I have included in the memorandum that is before the Government at the present time. There are pay-related benefits, invalid pensions, and there is the problem of home assistance which is administered on the basis of the rather ancient formula of the Poor Law Acts. There is also the question of the age at which pensions may be payable. There is the old question, which has again been raised, of changing the insurance limit of £1,200. This is something which is adjusted periodically. Anybody who looks back will see it has been adjusted in our own time three or four times.

Mr. Murphy

Always very belatedly.

Mr. J. Brennan

There is then the question of the extension of the insurance scheme to self-employed people and to others, whether on a voluntary or on a compulsory basis. By having insurance paid by a greater number of our population, we are more likely to be able to afford schemes which will look of greater benefit anyhow.

Another question is that of children's allowances about which nobody spoke and which I think is one of the most important of all the payments we make. It was one that was not increased in the Budget, and one that really helps the people who are rearing families. I attended a conference recently on the question of family payments in the social welfare code. One of the things that emerged was that practically every country pays family allowances on a selective basis. While we are all readily prepared to condemn means tests, children's allowances is one case where payments should not be made ad lib without a means test or without there being some selectivity that will ensure that the poorest people get the largest share. We are paying children's allowances to many families who, while I would not say they do not appreciate it, can get along without it, to put it mildly; and there are other families, and large families, who could do with substantially more than we are paying them. I would hope that one of the first improvements we would make in the social welfare code would be to adjust the family allowances upwards in favour of the poorer sections.

That brings me to this question of the means test. The Labour Party in the Dáil were quite prepared to accept a means test, if that were necessary. It may not be necessary to have a means test. There are other ways in which we might be able to provide the necessary money. However that may be, everybody will welcome an improvement in our social welfare code. Every person who quoted figures quoted the individual amounts payable to a single person and a married person. But if you take any of our payments and look at the allowances for adult and child dependants for a married man, you will find these payments are not too bad at all; they are certainly very much in favour of the person with dependants. Our latest legislation, the Occupational Injuries Act, is a generous measure and a decent addition to our social welfare code. We hope to do better as time goes on, and, as I said, not many years ago, very few countries had any worthwhile social welfare. The United States was one of the latest to get going with social welfare of any account. We had to start social welfare and try to create some industrial expansion at the same time. The two things are not very easy to achieve, and the extent to which we have succeeded gives us a great deal of encouragement and determination to proceed on the same lines in future.

I should like to deal with some of the points raised. The question of queues at post offices is only a small point, but complaints in this regard would make it seem as if we had no humanity at all and that we are prepared to let old persons be jostled in crowds. We had that problem examined in the city—it does not apply in rural Ireland—but it is not at all of the magnitude people pretend it is. The accommodation is reasonably good all round. Pensioners have a whole day and need not all rush in the morning. Pensioners are permitted to have agents to collect their pensions, and some of them collect them on Saturday instead of Friday. Therefore, it is possible for any person to collect his pension without suffering any physical or mental stress as a result of having to queue up at a post office. I should not like it to go out that this is a really serious problem, because it is not. A large number of people turn up at the same time, but the collection of pensions can be staggered over the whole day or even on to the next day.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It can be hard in the winter.

Mr. J. Brennan

It may be difficult when there are big queues, but this can easily be remedied. I was asked to explain about the female relative provision. Provision is being made in the Bill to make allowance for a daughter. This is the beginning of something which I think is long overdue. Like every other scheme, for instance, the free travel, every section of the community pushes to have it extended to them. This is always the case when anything new is brought in. This is a scheme which, to begin with, provides for a female relative, namely, a daughter, who has to look after an aged person, thus preventing that person from being maintained in an institution at greater cost to the State. If our experience shows that it works smoothly we would hope to extend it to other female relatives.

I would point out that the reason the insured person was selected is that we hope to remedy two anomalies in the one effort. Take the case of the insured daughter who has to give up work, who has a good record in insurance—we aim at 156 stamps spread over five years immediately before the cessation of work—and who finds herself in the position that she cannot draw unemployment benefit or even unemployment assistance because she is not available for work. It is to meet that type of case we make this provision in the Bill where the extra £2 5s will be paid to the parent she is taking care of. That gives her some compensation for the fact that she cannot benefit from her insurance because she is not available for work.

Senator O'Sullivan and others said that we should do more for the old people who have done so much for the country. Unfortunately this applies even more to the people to whom we do not pay pensions. A thrifty hardworking man who provides for the future will be told that he does not qualify for a pension because he has certain means, while a man who was not thrifty, and did not do so much for the country, and has no means, will get the full pension. That is an anomaly of the scheme. I cannot hold out any promise here that we can abolish the means test now or in the near future. It would be lovely if we could get rid of it, but I gave the figures in the Dáil recently of what the cost would be. I still say that if I had all that money, instead of abolishing the means test, I would give it to those who qualify rather than spread it over everyone, without a means test. The time has not come by any means when we can abolish the means test, but every year the limit which deprives a person of a pension is increased, as it is increased in this Bill, so the means test is being relaxed automatically each year when this provision is made. In that way we are considerably alleviating the position of those who have some means.

The question of ignoring the first £25 and charging five per cent on the balance has been mentioned here and in other places. I want to point out again that the £25 we disregard in the savings of an old age pensioner was not originally intended to represent funeral expenses but, perhaps, it has come to be looked on in that way. People frequently point out that if £25 was adequate for funeral expenses ten years ago, it would not be sufficient now to give a decent funeral to anyone. I always point out that the £25 is disregarded and the remaining £75 is assessed at five per cent, which would not deprive anyone of an old age pension. It is wrong to suggest that someone is being victimised because he has savings of £100. The £25 is not taken into the reckoning and the balance is assessed at five per cent, which would not deprive him of a pension. So, he can have savings of £100 for funeral expenses, if he wants to call them funeral expenses.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington said that the general approach of the officers was good but that it was thrown into contrast by the attitude of the few who did not do the investigation properly. That has been said time and again. I do not deny that there are cases where the applicants become annoyed at the person investigating the case. It is hardly necessary to say that it is not the policy of the Department to send a man out to harass applicants for the benefits which we disburse. I might also say that it is sometimes difficult to get the true picture of a person's means, and he may become impatient. The applicants are not all angels either. The positive proof that the officers are not all too strict—and I am not taking their part in any way— is that they are, to use a simple term, codded so often. They do not always come away with the true picture. We have provided a means test in our legislation. We ask people to operate it, so let us not blame them for operating it. We laid it down that this would entitle a person to that, and then we send out a civil servant to ascertain whether people qualify. Sometimes their approach is wrong, but I would hope that they would make it clear that they are there to help people to get what they are justifiably entitled to. There is no need to offend.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Very often when a local pensions committee have awarded a pension, it is turned down by the investigating officer but, on appeal to the Minister, in nine out of ten cases, the appeal is won.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman (Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan)

The Minister, to conclude.

Mr. J. Brennan

The sub-committees do good work but there are some ghost committees that should not be there at all. Proposals that they should be abolished have been submitted to me. I was a member of an old age pensions sub-committee for many years. In fact, I think my name is still on the rolls, but I have not turned up in my capacity as Minister. These committees do a good job as buffers between the Civil Service and the applicants. They have some local knowledge. The investigating officer is entitled to be present at the meeting if requested, and he can be asked to explain his assessment of a person's means. The applicant is entitled to be present and is invited to the meeting. He can argue his case before that jury. One of the weaknesses of these committees is a tendency to grant benefits to everyone. I have frequently heard it said: "Give him the full amount and let him fight it out on appeal" rather than having a good solid examination of the case to see if the person conforms to the laws laid down. Some of these committees are better than others, but some are inclined to say: "Give him the lot and he can fight it out on appeal." When a recommendation is brought before a committee and where the committee differs from the recommendation, an appeal is submitted.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

If an inspector is never codded he is not human.

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not think I need go into any more detail. As I said, I have compiled and submitted by way of memorandum to the Government a complete set of suggestions as to the form in which the future social welfare code should be expanded and improved. I do not think I will make up my mind to publish it as a White Paper or make it known as the blueprint for future development, because I know that immediately I did that, I would be asked to implement it the next day. I should prefer to have it as a guideline on which we will proceed in the future. It is only correct to say that the children's allowances part of the scheme is already being prepared on the lines I have stated, on a selective basis which would enable more substantial payments to be made to those people.

I do not think it necessary to go into any further details. I would again thank the Senators who had a very constructive approach even making allowance for the occasional political plug here and there—and perhaps I should like to get an odd plug in myself. However, I am serious when I say I would not allow myself to be hauled into an auction with regard to betting for the future of social welfare. There is a very simple and emotional means of currying favour with the weak section of the people. I would say—I think all Members of this House would agree with me—that we should all like to see not merely the payments improved as time goes on but the whole code expanded, covering the entire field in so far as there may yet be people left out who do not share in a proper redistribution of the national wealth.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.