Vol. 285 No. 2
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £38,700,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.
This Supplementary Estimate provides for increases in expenditure on all three sections of the Social Welfare Vote for 1975— amounting to £38,700,000. These increases bring the total sum required for Exchequer spending on social welfare this year to almost £216 million.
The Supplementary Estimate is required to meet the cost of the improvements in the social welfare schemes announced in the 1975 budget and enacted by the Social Welfare Act, 1975, and by regulations made under the terms of that Act. The total increases under the three main headings are offset by some increase in appropriations-in-aid and other savings. Under the general Estimate heading of administration, an additional sum of £1,232,440 is required to cover pay increases, additional staff, increased overtime, higher charges for Post Office services and the increased cost of medical certification.
The sum of £11,428,000 required for social insurance is the additional amount payable by the Exchequer to the social insurance fund to make good the deficit on the working of the fund. The gross cost of the increases in the rates of benefits and pensions and of the other improvements granted under the 1975 Act and subsequent regulations is estimated at almost £27 million. Cost increases amounting to over £17 million arose from a high level of claims, in particular for unemployment benefit, disability benefit and retirement pensions. Against this total additional requirement of £44 million may be offset the increased income from the contributions payable by employers and employees, including the yield from the special increase in the stamp to meet the anticipated calls on the fund arising from the employment situation.
By far the bulk of the additional expenditure provided for in this Supplementary Estimate is devoted to social assistance services. A sum of £26,527,000 is required to meet the cost of the increases in the rates of assistance payments and of other improvements announced in the January budget, and to provide for additional claims for unemployment assistance.
A quite unique element in this Supplementary Estimate is that part of the additional funds sought is required to meet the payment of the increases in all weekly social welfare benefits and allowances which became operative at the beginning of the present month.
The October review of social welfare payments was the practical fulfilment of the undertaking given by the Government in the White Paper on "A National Partnership" published last November. In that document the Government stated their belief "that those who are dependent on social welfare payments should be cushioned against price rises and should also be assured of at least an adequate maintenance of their position vis-à-vis other sections of the community”. To that end, the Government then decided that social welfare payments should be increased in the budget and revised during the course of the year.
In the budget statement of last January, the Government's decision that rates of weekly payments should be increased again in October was announced. The substantial increases provided for in the budget—which, on average, ranged from 21 to 23 per cent—were, in the words of the Minister for Finance "to be preserved against erosion over the course of the year by the further October adjustment. Thereby, social welfare recipients will be assured of the maintenance of the purchasing power of their payments".
The increases made in October range, on average, from 5 per cent to 6½ per cent. The April and October increases taken together raise the weekly rates of all social welfare payments by between 27 and 30 per cent in the current year. Thus a real improvement in the position of social welfare recipients has been achieved and maintained in 1975, in line with declared Government policy. The reduction in the consumer price index in the August quarter, the first for 12 years, further enhanced the value of the increases.
The effect of the October increases is to raise the level of social welfare payments, by comparison with the rates applicable in the spring of 1973, by between 75 per cent and 87 per cent in the case of personal social insurance benefits; by between 78 per cent and 91 per cent in the case of personal social assistance allowances; and by more than 100 per cent in the case of all payments for child dependents. Children's allowances have been raised by between 93 per cent and 360 per cent since 1973.
The total rise in the consumer price index between the first quarter of 1973 and the third quarter of 1975 is of the order of 48 per cent. Thus, there has been a significant real increase in all social welfare payments and the level of these payments has been maintained in relation to earnings in general.
For the first time, therefore, social welfare payments have been increased twice in a single year. This involves a cost in the current year in the region of £4 million and is, in my view, a most significant element in the Estimate before the House.
I want to avail of the opportunity provided by the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate to review developments in the social welfare area and to put forward some views on future policy and directions. This is only the second occasion since the Government took office on which the House has had time available to it for such a review.
When I spoke here on the 1974 Estimate I indicated that it was my desire to initiate study and discussion of major issues of social policy at all levels, and to encourage open and controversial debate on these matters. The fundamental nature of the problems and situations dealt with by the schemes administered by my Department calls for such an intensity of debate.
I must say that I have been greatly encouraged by much of the response. In this House, and also in the Seanad, there have been a number of prolonged and positive debates on such issues as the causes and possible remedies of poverty, the appropriate balance between income maintenance and social services and the financing of social welfare. In the community at large, a great deal of practical work as well as informed debate has been initiated in key areas of concern. All of this is to be welcomed, and this national debate must go on.
There has been also an element of controversy and of criticism. I detect two main types of criticism and would like to comment briefly on them.
There are those who state openly or imply that there is widespread abuse of the social welfare system. It is, for example, suggested that in a large proportion of cases payment of pay-related benefit to unemployed persons results in recipients having larger incomes than when they are working. Other aspects of the system are similarly called into question. Of such criticisms I want to say that the law in relation to abuse of the system—whether by employers who fail to stamp the cards of their employees or by claimants who seek fraudulently to obtain benefits or allowances—is clear. Such abuse is not tolerated and will not be tolerated. Offenders in either category are subject to penalties and the necessary steps will be taken in all cases where proof is available.
I believe, however, that there is a great deal of unfounded and often irresponsible criticism—some of it from persons who might be expected to have some sense of responsibility. This is most disturbing and should be a cause of concern to everyone who is seeking to build an effective social security system. Some of this criticism may result from the pressures of a difficult economic situation and I am aware, from the experience of other countries, that such reactions to improved policies of social protection are commonplace. I must state my opinion that it is more important to provide adequate protection for those who lose their jobs in a period of recession than to court the approval of those who are luckier than their neighbours.
The second line of criticism is of a more philosophical nature. It is said that an attitude of dependence on the welfare system is being created by Government policy. Again, such an attitude may be explained by the effects of current difficulties. But it has a deeper aspect which requires consideration and reply. It must be remembered that the social welfare system exists to provide for the needs of a very large number of citizens of this State who, for one reason or another, cannot provide adequately for themselves. The level of the aid currently provided leaves, in my opinion, no room for complacency on the part of any responsible member of the community. For it is a fact that seems often to be overlooked that social welfare provides for very many more categories of persons than those in receipt of unemployment benefit and assistance—serious though the problems of most of those recipients are.
More than 900,000 persons—adult recipients, adult dependants and child dependants—will benefit from the recently announced rises in rates of benefit and allowance. About 550,000 of these are in categories other than unemployment benefit and assistance. In fact, the largest single category of recipient is that of pensioner—the total benefiting from old age, retirement, invalidity and widows pensions is in the region of 400,000 persons.
Very many of the most important policy developments in the social welfare area have been in relation to pensioners—the easing of the means test and the reduction of the pension age—and to the many groups of persons who are dependent on social assistance because of serious social problems such as desertion, the imprisonment of the breadwinner, unmarried mothers and so on. Improvements in these areas are surely fundamental to any progressive or reasonably humane social policy.
The whole social welfare system, therefore, represents our response, as a nation, to the need and deprivation which exists in our midst. Can anyone seriously deny the responsibility which we have in this matter?
I have referred already to the current economic difficulties which face this country, in common with most of its neighbours and trading partners. These difficulties are obviously deep-seated and their full solution will require the most demanding effort for a considerable period.
The very nature of this Supplementary Estimate, which is providing substantial moneys for payments of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance, underlines the grave human impact of the economic situation. There are now 32,000 more persons on the live register than at the same time last year. In every one of these cases there is hardship, either in financial terms, or in terms of worry, disillusionment and the loss of self-respect which so often accompanies idleness. The realities of the present situation are very clear to all those engaged in the direction and implementation of policy in the social services area.
It is obvious that the implications of the economic circumstances of the moment for social policy are serious. In a period of worldwide recession, when the stagnation or decline of markets results in at best a standstill in production and national income there are inevitable pressures on public expenditure. When to the effects of recession must be added the impact of severe inflation even greater strains are certain. Quite clearly this is a time for prudence and for restraint and therefore a time for very careful planning of the social services. But it is not—nor will it be —a time for indiscriminate or shortsighted cutbacks.
Resources are limited and, therefore, our room for manoeuvre is restricted. But it is still possible to progress and to develop, especially in relation to the quality of the services we provide. I see the main objectives of policy at this time as
—prudent direction of available resources to ensure the maintenance of the general, progressive momentum of recent years;
—careful assessment of all elements of the services provided to ensure the most effective use of resources and
—systematic planning of the main lines, and of specific detailed areas, of overall policy development for the future.
We cannot act, or think, as if today's economic problems did not exist. Nor can we, whatever may be our analysis of the root causes of the crisis or our prescription for its long term cure, ignore the pressing responsibility to come to the help of those who are now in need because of its impact. The necessary work of catering for the needs of those afflicted by social problems of one kind or another must be carried on, within the framework of the system in which we live and which is the system willed by the majority of the people. The task of identifying the aspects of that system which underlie the present difficulties and which must be dealt with if we are to solve those widespread social problems must also be carried on. A sense of reality, and of balance, is essential.
I intend to return to the general theme of the development of social policy before I conclude these remarks but I now want to deal with the facts and figures which are necessary in order to provide Deputies with a full explanation of the Supplementary Estimate, and also to provide some information about the work of the Department of Social Welfare.
As I have indicated already, the Supplementary Estimate provides for increased expenditure on all three sections of the Social Welfare Vote for 1975. The main details of the increases involved are as follows: the additional £1,232,440 required under the head of administration includes £1,009,000 to meet the cost of pay increases under the 15th- and 16th-round wage agreements, pay revisions to certain grades, additional staff and overtime, due to the heavy workload on my Department, and other items which could not be included in the original estimate. A further sum of £238,000 is required to meet the increased cost of agency services provided by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and increased telephone charges. There is also an increase of £46,440 in the amount payable to medical certifiers for the issue of free medical certificates to insured persons claiming sickness benefits. These increased costs are offset by a net saving on travelling and incidental expenses.
The sum of £11,428,000 is required for social insurance, of which all but £13,000 represents the additional sum necessary to meet the requirements of the social insurance fund under the terms of section 39 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. This figure is made up of two main components, namely, variations in expenditure and income of the fund as compared with the original Estimate figures and an adjustment in respect of the State grant as at the end of the last financial year.
The total cost of the increased rates and other improvements which became operative in April and October this year was £26,926,000 while the cost of the increases, due mainly to the high level of claims, amounted to £17,234,000 making the total increased cost £44,160,000. The principal services giving rise to additional expenditure because of increased rates and other improvements are disability benefit, £6,203,000; old age contributory pension, £6,660,000; unemployment benefit, £5,400,000; and widow's and orphan's contributory pensions, £4,842,000.
The main increase in expenditure from the social insurance fund due to the increase in claims was on unemployment benefit. In this respect Deputies will recollect that a special provision of £10,000,000 was made this year to meet the anticipated increase in the cost of this benefit. In the event an additional £1,723,000 has to be provided to meet the continued higher level of claims. Additional amounts are also being provided for disability benefit, £2,516,000; invalidity pension, £858,000; maternity allowance, £521,000; treatment benefit, £672,000; old age contributory pension, £177,000; retirement pension, £1,570,000; deserted wife's benefit, £220,000; and administration costs, £1,036,000.
As to the income side of the fund, increased contributions payable by employers and employees amounted to £29,940,000 while increased income from investments and from receipts from other countries under reciprocal agreements were greater by £96,000, making a total of £30,036,000. After making allowance for a credit of £2,696,000 carried over from the 31st December, 1974, the end of the previous financial year, the net additional payment to be provided by the Exchequer this year is £11,428,000.
As regards the credit carried over as at the 31st December, 1974, Deputies will appreciate that final payments from the Exchequer must be effected at the end of each financial year on an estimated basis because actual figures of expenditure and income are not available until after the close of the year. The actual outturn on the fund for the financial year ended 31st December, 1974, indicated that the sum withdrawn from the Exchequer as at that date proved to be £2,696,000 greater than required. Accordingly the revised Exchequer contribution for the current year as now estimated under subhead E, is being reduced by that amount.
The extra cost of social assistance arises mainly from the increases in the rates of assistance and other improvements announced in the January budget which cost £23,437,000. In addition extra amounts are required for unemployment assistance, £6,214,000; children's allowances, £680,000; and miscellaneous grants, £81,000. These amounts are however offset by savings of £3,209,000 on old age pensions, £340,000 on widow's and orphan's non-contributory pensions, and £336,000 on social assistance allowances, making a net total increase of £3,090,000 due to causes other than the increased rates and general improvements in the services. Thus the total requirement is £26,527,000.
The special provision of £5,000,000 made in the January budget was not sufficient to meet the cost of the high level of applications for unemployment assistance experienced during the year and as Deputies will have noted that this provision was exceeded by £1,214,000.
The increased appropriations-in-aid of £487,440 under subhead M relate to increased administration costs incurred by my Department on the social insurance and occupational injuries schemes and recovered from the social insurance and occupational injuries funds.
As I stated at the outset, the total net Estimate for this year, after taking into account the provisions of this Supplementary Estimate, amounts to £215,964,000. The net Estimate is, as Deputies will appreciate, only the amount which the Exchequer must provide for the social welfare services. A very considerable sum is provided also by employers and employees through their weekly social insurance contributions—both flat-rate and pay-related.
Perhaps the most useful indication that can be given of the cost of our services is the estimate of the total expenditure on these services in a full 12-month period based on current rates of payment. On this basis it is estimated that total expenditure is now running at an annual rate of almost £400 million. This annual rate of expenditure compares with the figure of £167 million in 1972-73, in which year the Exchequer contribution was £92 million. Thus the current level of total spending is almost 140 per cent above that which obtained three years ago.
By comparison with 1972-73, total expenditure on the social insurance services has risen by about 139 per cent; spending on social assistance by over 150 per cent and the cost of children's allowances by about 166 per cent.
I think that these figures very clearly indicate the priority which is being given, rightly I believe, to those aspects of the Department's services which are directed to the needs of the most deprived groups in our society, and particularly to the needs of families. All the evidence points to the positive impact of these policies on the financial position of poorer families.
Total expenditure on the services administered by the Department of Social Welfare has risen, as a percentage of gross national product, from just over 6½ per cent in 1972-73 to approximately 9½ per cent in the current year. This is a most significant indicator of the importance attached by the Government to the improvement and expansion of these services.
I have read certain adverse comments on the apparent discrepancy between the proportion of national resources devoted to the social services in this country and in the other member states of the European Community and feel that it is necessary to say a few words on this subject. The dangers of international comparisons of this nature are well-known to all students of social policy. In this particular case, there is a very real difficulty in establishing the exact comparability of the basic data.
A recent study of social expenditure and the social accounts of the EEC concluded that "care must be exercised in drawing inferences from the comparisons on account of the incomplete coverage of the accounts which, it is felt, is particularly serious in the case of Ireland." To put it quite simply, the figures given for social spending in other EEC countries contain headings which do not appear in our social accounts—such as certain types of public service pension—and which tend to exaggerate the difference between the national figures.
Whatever may be the problems of comparability, it cannot be denied that there are real gaps between the levels of social provision in the various member states and that Ireland has some considerable distance to go before reaching the standards of coverage and protection afforded in some of the more advanced economies. It is necessary to appreciate the nature of the existing differences and to understand their causes, which relate to such factors as the current levels of economic development, the stage of industrialisation, the demographic structure of the national community, and so on. I welcome the steps which are being taken at European level to bring about a genuine concertation of social protection policies and to provide a basis for progressive improvement of the various national systems. The secretary of my Department has become a member of the high-level expert group recently established by the Commission to prepare and expedite work in this area.
I want to turn now to a brief consideration of some of the main current activities of the Department and, in particular, of the principal schemes of social protection. The total cost of social insurance schemes this year will be about £194 million. Of this total, the Exchequer contribution, through the social insurance fund, will amount to £46.6 million. During the year, the rates of payment under the various insurance schemes have been increased by up to 30 per cent. Thus, the contributory old age pension for a single person has been raised from £8.50 to £11.05 and the rate for a married couple, both over the pensionable age, has been raised from £15 to £19.35 a week. The contributory widow's pension has gone up from £7.80 to £10.00 a week, and the personal rate of unemployment benefit from £7.75 to £9.90 a week. The reduction of pensionable age to 67 years in the Social Welfare Act was the latest step towards the declared goal of a pensionable age of 65 years at the earliest possible date.
The duration of pay-related benefit—for unemployment, disability and maternity—was increased on two separate occasions during the current year. The position now is that a qualified person who is sick or unemployed can receive payment of pay-related benefit continuously for almost 12 months provided he or she has an underlying title to disability benefit or unemployment benefit. In this way, the position of persons out of work for prolonged periods due to sickness or to unemployment is being cushioned as far as possible by retaining for up to 12 months a substantial measure of direct relationship between the rates of benefit paid and earnings in general.
I regard the extension of the application of the pay-related principle under the terms of the Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Act, 1975, and of the subsequent Regulations as an important and progressive development in the overall social protection system. I am keeping the overall working of the pay-related benefit system under continuing review and I shall ensure that any necessary adjustments are made without delay.
The total cost of social assistance schemes provided for in the current year will be about £124 million, exclusive of children's allowances which will cost approximately £46 million. As in the case of social insurance payments, there have been considerable increases this year in the rates of social assistance allowances. Thus, the personal rate of non-contributory old age pension has been raised from £7.30 to £9.30 a week. The rate of urban unemployment assistance has been raised from £6.35 to £8.10 a week for a single person and from £10.95 to £13.95 a week for a married couple. The social assistance allowance for an unmarried mother and her child has been increased from £9.70 to £12.40 a week.
Improvements in children's allowances provided for in the budget mean an overall increase ranging from 93 per cent in the case of the third and subsequent children to 360 per cent for the first child since the 1973 budget which placed children's allowances in an altogether new and more significant position within the social welfare system.
The qualifying age for non-contributory old age pensions was, of course, reduced to 67 years in line with the position for contributory pensions. Consequently, the qualifying age for the free travel, electricity and television licences schemes was reduced to 67 years as from the same date in April last. A further easement of the means test was also introduced with effect from April. This provided for an increase from £5 to £6 a week of current income in the amount of assessed means which can be disregarded for the purpose of the non-contributory pensions and similar schemes administered by my Department.
I estimate that the effect of the progressive reduction in pensionable age, together with the substantial easement of the means test, over the past two-and-a-half years has led to a 30 per cent increase in the number of pensioners, to the peresent total of about 150,000. In the case of non-contributory pensioners the number now in receipt of the maximum rate of pension is in the region of 90 per cent.
A total of £4.446 million has been provided for social assistance allowances. These allowances include those for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and their children, single women aged over 58 years and prisoners' wives. There are approximately 14,500 personal and child dependent beneficiaries of these allowances.
The estimates this year provide for an expenditure of £7.93 million for the various miscellaneous services administered by my Department. These include such schemes as the provision of free travel facilities for all those over pensionable age; the provision of free electricity and television licences, and the school meals scheme. Changes in pensionable age and in the means test rules have led to an increase in the numbers benefiting from the provisions of these schemes. For example, it is reckoned that 9,000 additional pensioners will become eligible for free electricity and 6,500 more licences will be provided under the free TV licences scheme.
The total expenditure of the social insurance fund in 1975 will amount to £194.27 million. Ten years ago, in 1965, the equivalent expenditure was in the region of £27 million. Contributions from employers and employees have risen from about £16 million ten years ago to £144 million this year, including pay-related contributions. The Exchequer contribution to the fund, at £46.6 million, represents approximately 24 per cent of the total expenditure.
Some 945,000 persons are at present covered by social insurance in this country. Of those just over 800,000— or 72 per cent of the workforce—are covered for all benefits. About 110,000 persons in various parts of the public service are insured only for widows and orphans pensions and for occupational injuries. The number of self-employed persons who, with few exceptions, are not covered at all by the social insurance system remains very high—there are approximately 185,000 engaged in agriculture for example.
Consideration of the role of the Department within the overall social programme of the Government indicates a most significant and progressive trend. Total Exchequer spending on social welfare has risen from £92 million in 1972-73 to £210 million in the January budget estimate and, as a percentage of current Government expenditure, has increased from under 14 per cent to almost 17 per cent of the total. Spending on social welfare and health now amounts to approximately 32 per cent of total Government expenditure. This is clear evidence of the importance of social policy in the on-going plans of the Government.
The cost of administering the services of my Department, including Post Office services, is just over £15 million, or 7 per cent of the total Exchequer cost involved. As a percentage of gross expenditure in 1975 administration costs are no more than 4 per cent.
I want, in this connection, to comment briefly on the day-to-day working of the Department of Social Welfare. The total staff of the Department provided for in the Estimates for 1975 is 3,277, including 2,867 officers and 321 clerks to old age pension committees and 84 branch managers of employment offices. The great volume of work involved in the administration of the various schemes continues to give rise to very real pressures on staff and calls for a high degree of patience and commitment. Accommodation problems were eased somewhat during the past year by the occupation of premises at Oisín House, Pearse Street, and at Townsend Street. These new staff locations helped to relieve the overcrowding of Aras Mhic Dhiarmada and permitted better allocation of space in the Department's main building.
Deputies will readily appreciate that the many changes in the rates of payment of benefits and allowances and the introduction of new and expanded schemes involve a great deal of work for the personnel of the Department. The processing of all of this work, including in particular the implementation of the new October review of rates, has proceeded with a high degree of efficiency. The pressures have been great, with much necessary overtime working. I want to pay a very sincere tribute to the staff of the Department at all levels and in all locations for the manner in which they have dealt with the heavy burden of work which has been placed upon them. They have made a ready and enthusiastic response to the Government's attempts to expand and improve the social welfare system. I am sure that Deputies on all sides of the House will join with me in thanking them for their efforts to provide an efficient and humane service. I must also thank the other Departments which have continued to co-operate fully with my Department in its work and must pay a special tribute to the staffs of the Revenue Commissioners, of the Office of Public Works and of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
The Department continue to study ways and means of improving the quality of their service to the public. It should be remembered that the total number of social welfare recipients, including personal, adult dependant and child dependent recipients, is more than 900,000. The Department deal with well over 70,000 items of correspondence each week, including claims, medical certificates, queries and general correspondence. There are of course some delays and errors in dealing with such a volume of work. These are sincerely regretted and I repeat what I said in this House last year—that it is recognised that a delay in relation to any social welfare payment, a pension claim or a disability benefit application, can cause real hardship to a man, to his wife and to his children. It is essential that such delays are cut to the absolute minimum.
During the past year a study of the workload of the outdoor inquiry staff has been completed and the recommendations arising from this study will result in a more efficient service. Computerisation and study of the use of the micro-film techniques have proceeded. The organisation and review section have sought to introduce needed changes in the working methods of many sections. Since moving to Oisín House last autumn the children's allowances section, dealing with over 400,000 families, have been switching to a new automated filing and index system which is having a significant effect on efficiency.
In my statement to this House on last year's Estimate I made the point that problems do arise in connection with the making of claims and that these problems frequently occur due to incorrectly completed application forms. A project is under way within the Department to redesign all forms and explanatory leaflets, using all possible visual aids and utilising the simplest possible text. All unnecessary questions are being removed. This project should help significantly in combating delay and the first of the new forms are now in use. The ending of the requirement that application forms should be certified by certain approved categories of persons should also speed up applications in many cases.
The 21 information offices operated by the Department throughout the country are very much appreciated by the people of the surrounding areas. This fact is amply demonstrated by the volume of inquiries received, about 12,000 a month, roughly 80 per cent of these being from people personally attending at the centres. This form of personal contact has obvious advantages over written communication especially where the subject matter is complex—and social welfare legislation is growing in complexity each year—and the clientele quite often has difficulty in dealing with the details of the various schemes. The information officers were asked for their comments on the effectiveness of their own particular centres. Their comments have included the observations that local newspapers have praised their work in some areas; that the elderly are particularly satisfied with the help they are getting in completing their claims; and that the privacy which personal callers to the information centres enjoy is appreciated. Most of the offices have a private interview room for the public.
The Department have continued to mount major advertising campaigns with the objective of making people aware of their entitlements and obligations whenever changes and extensions were being introduced. From the media point of view the main goal was to achieve the widest possible coverage and a special analysis of the effectiveness of the campaigns showed that 97 per cent of the total adult population had an opportunity of seeing the various advertisements and that the schedule adopted provided an average of almost five opportunities of seeing them. This new approach to advertising on the part of the Department of Social Welfare has been widely welcomed by the public. The annual summary of social insurance and assistance services has been widely distributed in response to a heavy demand. A special supplement is available giving details of the October changes in rates. I have already on more than one occasion made clear my concern that the fullest possible information should be made available to all citizens on the social welfare system. The working and the effectiveness of the present methods in use will be kept under continual review to ensure that any necessary improvements will be speedily introduced.
While speaking of information I wish to refer to a major development during the past year which has given me personally a great deal of satisfaction and encouragement. The establishment and formal registration of the first substantial group of community information centres marks a most important departure in the provision of an up-to-date and efficient information service for the citizen. The work of the National Social Service Council in implementing the Government decision to support this new service has been most efficient. As always, the council have succeeded in basing their work on a practical collaboration between the statutory services and local, voluntary effort. I feel sure that this new service will prove to be of immense value to large numbers of people and I am pleased to learn that the National Council are proceeding with arrangements for extending the initial network throughout the country and for providing a first-class, professional back-up service.
The work of the National Social Service Council in informing those engaged in the social services of developments and changes in the various social welfare schemes and in Government social programmes as a whole—through the pages of the excellent periodical Relate—is proving to be most effective and deserves the appreciation of all who are concerned with the citizen's right to know.
In speaking on last year's Estimate in the House, I referred briefly to the issue of the financing of the social services and of social welfare in parfactio ticular. I spoke then of the need to ensure the best return, in terms of genuine social service, for high and increasing levels of public expenditure and of the existence of regressive tendencies in the system of flat-rate social security contribution.
In the current financial year the proportion of total social welfare expenditure borne directly by the Exchequer will be approximately 59 per cent. This ratio is exceptionally high by international standards—only in Denmark among the EEC states is the state share higher.
Contributions to the social insurance fund are made by the employer, the employee and the Exchequer. In the past three years the full weekly cost of the stamp has risen to £4.67 for a male worker and for a female worker to £4.55. This increase has been so shared between employers and employees that the proportion is now roughly 58 per cent from the employer and 42 per cent from the employee. Indeed, the employee contribution has fallen marginally as a proportion of average earnings.
I am conscious that increases of this size in the level of contributions —which are also for many workers accompanied by pay-related contributions—can give rise to considerable difficulties in certain cases. I am also aware of the fact that a basically flat-rate system does give rise to some anomalies. In particular, the stamp is a heavy burden for lower paid workers and for women whose average earnings are very much lower than those of men. It has also been represented to me that the level of contribution can be a problem for certain categories of employer.
Having regard to these considerations and to the overall issue of the financing of the services of the Departments of Health and Social Welfare, which together have a gross expenditure running at an annual rate approaching £600 million, the Tánaiste as Minister responsible for the two Departments has initiated a study of all aspects of this question of financing. This complex job will take some time, but I am confident that the outcome will be a more efficient and equitable system and one which will ensure the continued development and expansion of our social services on a sound footing. This work must also be viewed in the context of the Government's wish to bring the financing of these services progressively into line with those in other EEC countries as the process of concertation of social systems proceeds.
I want now to turn to a brief review of the progress made in a number of areas which I raised for purposes of debate in my Estimate statement last year. I can report to the House that substantial advances have been made across a broad front and that the foundations are being solidly laid for the achievement of the overall objectives laid down for this part of Government social policy.
I have already referred to the extension of the pay-related benefit scheme, and to the initiation of the community information centres project. I want now to report on matters which I consider to be of special importance: the work of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty; the reform of home assistance; policy work in relation to pensions and consideration of the special position of the self-employed in relation to the social insurance scheme.
Before the end of next month, it is anticipated that contracts will be signed by the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty and the EEC Commission for the implementation of three pilot schemes in Ireland as part of the overall Community programme which was approved by the council in July. This will mark the end of the vital period of planning and preparation and the beginning of action on the ground in this series of significant projects of action research.
The period since the establishment of the national committee has been one of very careful development and planning. When I spoke at the first meeting of the committee last year I said that it would "have the immediate responsibility of advising on the organisation of the project, on the appointment of staff and on the location and working objectives of individual projects." The committee has been working hard on these vital aspects of its overall task and I have no doubt, from my contacts with the committee and its staff and from the views of experts here and abroad, that their systematic approach has been correct and that it will pay dividends in the future.
The committee now has a permanent headquarters and a highly qualified professional staff under a director who has set about what is a most demanding job with skill and commitment. The staff, apart from its work in developing project plans, has already established a wide range of contacts at home and abroad which will enable it to work in close collaboration with local and national bodies, and to draw on relevant international experience.
Four projects have been chosen for implementation—three of which will be funded partly by the Commission within the EEC programme and one which will be undertaken by the national committee independently, with its results being fed into the EEC system for purposes of comparison. Deputies have already received details of the individual projects in the committees introductory booklet Combat Poverty which was circulated some time ago. They are both relevant in terms of impact on the ground and significant in terms of research. They offer the hope of early and important contributions to policy on service delivery and uptake; on community development and local community action; on social provision through coordinated effort and on the introduction of new policies. These projects will involve real positive action and will be characterised by a quite radical approach to the identification and tackling of deprivation. Participation will be stressed at every stage.
The committee's statement of basic working principles, quoted in the booklet to which I have just referred, is of great importance. It recognises the deep-seated nature of poverty and its structural implications, reflected in inequality, which will be solved only by long-term reforms. Closely related to this basic concept is the acceptance of the fact that, once started, a meaningful project will become a social process that will not be easily ended or reversed.
In initiating the work of the committee, I said that, perhaps, the major contribution of the project can be in the creation of greater awareness of the problem in the national community. As the various pilot schemes are brought to the point of implementation it is to be hoped that the national committee will give its attention to the possibilities of educational activity at a number of levels. Success will depend on public support, based on realistic understanding. For, as Tawney said "a society which is convinced that inequality is an evil, need not be alarmed because the evil is one which cannot wholly be subdued. In recognising the poison it will have armed itself with an antidote. It will have deprived inequality of its sting by stripping it of its esteem".
I wish to thank Sister Stanislaus and the members of the committee and its staff for their sound and professional approach to what is a most difficult and important task.
The Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill, 1975 now making its way through its various Stages in the House, represents the fulfilment of the undertaking given last year to pursue actively the reform of the outdated and arbitrary system of home assistance which has been the subject of so much adverse comment in this House, and outside, over the years. I hope that this measure will very soon become law.
My Department has carried out a major review of the implications of introducing a national scheme of income-related pensions. A Green Paper, or discussion document on this matter is now at an advanced stage of preparation and I hope to see it published in the near future.
The evolution of a comprehensive pensions policy is of the utmost importance for the overall development of social welfare in this country. However, the many factors—economic, social and administrative—which arise in this connection dictate that the most appropriate approach is to consult all the interests involved through the publication of the Green Paper and a follow-up debate to which the widest possible contribution from the population will be invited.
It was my original intention that the Green Paper on pensions would deal also with the situation of the large self-employed group within the work force who are not, at present, covered by the social insurance scheme. A great deal of work has been done within the Department on this matter but it has proved to be too complex an issue to be easily fitted into the structure of an already substantial document on the pensions question.
Accordingly, it is my intention to publish a separate document which will cover the various aspects of the inclusion in social insurance of the self-employed and which will, I hope, provide the basis for a debate at national level leading to an acceptable and effective scheme to cater for this group which represents almost one-third of the national work force.
I turn now to a consideration of developments in relation to the social policy of the EEC. The consistent and positive evolution of European social policy must be regarded as crucial for the future well-being and credibility of the Community as a whole. Perhaps understandably, the past year has seen the social policy area within the Community almost totally dominated by the effects and by the implications of the general economic situation. The re-convening under the Irish Presidency, of the Standing Committee on Employment gave a special focus to this topical concern.
Nevertheless there have been certain advances in the area of broader social policy. From the point of view of this country the adoption by the Council of the decision on the programme of pilot schemes and studies to combat poverty marked the culmination of almost two years of effort to give reality to an Irish initiative and, at the same time, the beginning of practical work on the project in all the member states of the Community.
This decision of the Council is in line with the consistent view of the Irish Government that Community social policy should be broadened in scope to deal with problems and issues of concern to the population as a whole. In particular, it has been argued that social policy should be designed to face up to the real problems of deprived individuals and groups. The Commission have recognised that, even in the most advanced modern societies, there still remain problems of chronic poverty which are unacceptable. The programme of pilot schemes marks the beginning of the necessary search for policies to deal effectively with these problems.
It has been most encouraging to see the degree of support and commitment of the governments of the member states at the various stages of development of this project. The hard work and skill of the Commission officials has also contributed to the successful launching of this initiative. What is now to be anticipated is a concerted and effective approach to the implementation of the programme of pilot schemes. Given such an approach, this initial Community action in a vital area of social concern can give real hope of advance towards a truly social policy of benefit to all the people of the member states.
On the social security front, the Commission have sought to give shape to the search for a realistic response to the declared aim of bringing the social protection policies of the member states into line and to commence the long and difficult task of achieving, if not harmonisation, at least an adequate comparability of scope and coverage. This task will take a considerable time but the effort is worthwhile in itself.
I agree with the British commentator who has recently made the point that "if mutual learning about comparative social policy is to be made systematic, the Common Market would be a good place to start. If all countries had built up social services of exactly the same kind in the past, there would be much less reason to expect stimulus from co-operation. As it is, their systems of social aid are as various as their history, and comparing them can hardly fail to be of benefit to those in each country who need help most."
In line with the consistent aim of the Irish delegation to the series of social councils two significant initiatives were launched within the past year.
A proposal was made that special consideration should be given to the future role of the social fund in relation to the general development of social policy. It was felt that the time had come at which a detailed examination should be made of the overall financing requirements of the wide range of actions provided for in the social action programme. Such an examination would reveal the gap between the possibilities of application of the social fund, under its existing rules, and the total needs arising from the implementation of the programme.
The Irish viewpoint on the relationship of the social fund to the social action programme has been expressed consistently. While criticising the size and scope of the existing fund in relation to needs the point has been made that even the reformed social fund is not a social fund in the true meaning of the word. It is a fund which aids different types of training in the member states, and should be recognised as such.
However, discussion of this whole matter has been delayed by the concentration of attention on the employment situation. It will be pursued as appropriate because it is essential, in the long run that a balanced and progressive set of actions can be planned, put into operation and adequately financed.
A further important proposal was made, by the Irish Presidency, at the Committee of Permanent Representatives last March when the member states were asked to agree to the convening of a council of Ministers responsible for social welfare. What was sought was a meeting to initiate discussion on the broader long-term aspects of social policy stressed by the Irish government at various times. In particular, stress was laid on the need for study of the possibility of social action in the non-employment areas with a view to their inclusion in the new social action programme to succeed the present programme when it is concluded at the end of 1976.
The view of COREPER was that the time was not right for such a meeting, especially due to the problems of preparing a suitable agenda in the near future. The matter has been pursued subsequently with Vice President Hillery and with the Italian Presidency and there is reason to hope for a positive response in due course. No member state has expressed any opposition in principle to the idea and a considerable degree of support has already been forthcoming.
In concluding these remarks about the EEC I want to express my appreciation of the work done by officials of my Department in playing to the full their part in the successful outcome of the first period of Irish Presidency of the Council. A major contribution was then made to the strengthening of the Community and a foundation laid for much valuable work in the future.
I have described the wide ranging work programme of my Department which clearly illustrates the complexity of the issues involved in the improvement and extension of the social welfare system. Yet, this may be seen as but the fulfilment of the initial stage in the pursuit of the stated aims of Government policy in this area.
I want now to make some remarks about a number of matters which require study and decision in the near future in order to provide the basis for the ultimate creation of the comprehensive social security system, catering for all of our citizens which is the legitimate aim of policy.
To interpret this policy goal in practical terms it is necessary to concentrate attention on a number of key considerations: the overall purposes of social policy; the establishment of a workable and up-to-date legislative base for the development of the whole service; planned development of the social insurance system with a complimentary, support provision of social assistance and personal social services; coherent provision for a research input; a clear view of the special place of policies against poverty and in favour of redistribution in the overall context.
These are, to my mind, the major ingredients in the policy mix which must be given reality in the period which lies ahead.
There are increasing, and welcome, signs of a beginning of debate on the appropriate directions of general social policy, and of its relationship to economic strategy. In this connection, I welcome the publication of the National Economic and Social Council's study entitled An Approach to Social Policy which incorporated a most stimulating paper by Professor David Donnison, who has been recently appointed as chairman of the supplementary benefits commission in the United Kingdom. I believe that this paper, with its concentration on the central issues of equality and distribution, provides a most useful basis for social policy discussion by all interested parties.
Pointing to the need for community will and backing for policy changes if they are to be effective and successful, the council make the important statement that:
... the difference in attitudes towards changes in distribution should not be overstated. The Council believes that any change is desirable which brings nearer a situation in which the disadvantaged are brought nearer to the level that assumes their self-respect and the respect of others...in which opportunities for improving their living standards are as nearly as possible equalised.
This is surely a realistic and attainable goal for a society which is in any way sincere in its protestations of caring and concern. Inherent in the NESC view just quoted is a recognition that progress in the social area is a gradual process involving the evolution and statement of objectives and the establishment of programmes for their achievement. This approach demands that we understand the nature of the process itself and that we can distinguish between what we want, or think we want, at any given time and how we get there. We can only understand these things if we see them in the context of our particular set of circumstances. We must be realistic.
It is equally necessary to be clear about the importance of defining our purpose in social policy and giving this purpose its rightful place as a guide to the inevitable choices which must be made. Choices have continually to be made and these in the last analysis involve the whole community. The debate on social policy must relate to the manner in which we define our purposes and to the system by which we make our choices.
It is essential that the legislative basis of the total social welfare system should be conducive both to efficient and fair administration and to continuous improvement. At present neither of these desirable ends is served by the maze of legal enactments and statutory instruments with which Deputies, the Department's staff and those who have to deal with the social welfare system as claimants must struggle at present.
A major job of consolidation is being undertaken in the Department with the aim of producing streamlined, understandable and wellstructured social welfare legislation in the near future. I am satisfied with the progress made to date and anticipate rapid advance towards the introduction of a consolidation measure in this House. No doubt Deputies will welcome such a development as a substantial contribution to the future improvement of the social welfare system.
I dwelt at some length last year on the desirable shape of a comprehensive social security system, embracing not alone coverage for purposes of income maintenance but also for more general social services.
It is necessary to stress the central place of social insurance in any comprehensive scheme. Already the numbers covered by social insurance have been significantly increased by the removal of the income limit. I see the forthcoming pensions discussion paper, the work at present under way on the position of the self-employed and the study of financing initiated by the Tánaiste as the principal inputs into the preparation of the insurance side of the desirable future system.
Such a system of social insurance would have to be underpinned by an appropriate scheme of social assistance to provide adequately for those in real need or for persons who for one reason or another fall outside the qualification limits for the general insurancebased scheme.
At present the social assistance services, taken together, represent a major part of the total welfare system as may be appreciated from study of the details of this Estimate. However the development of these services has been piecemeal so that there are now no less than ten separate schemes in operation, several of which have been introduced within the past three years to meet specific and pressing needs. All of these schemes are means-tested and the Department of Social Welfare are responsible for the administration of a number of means tests and for the operation of the appeals procedure related to them.
I believe that the time has come to give detailed consideration to the future role, scope and structure of the social assistance services in the light of known social need and of the overall progress in the reform of the social insurance scheme. I am initiating work within my Department to this end. What appears to be required is a radical overhaul of the system so as to bring about a single national scheme capable of covering all contingencies and needs and appropriately linked to the personal social services.
In this connection consideration must be given to the adequacy of the social assistance provision made. I agree with the view that, in the last analysis, arbitrary ideas as to the appropriate levels of social aid or indeed of incomes in general are less relevant than a scientific approach to finding out whether the possible expenditure by a family or an individual in each of the various categories relevant to the area of social policy under consideration is less than what would secure a standard of living equivalent to the normal standards of their neighbours. The concept of belonging and participating should apply in this matter.
During the past year a permanent research and development section has been established within the Department of Social Welfare. To date the section has been fully occupied with development work, and in particular, with the reform of the home assistance service and the work connected with pensions policy and the position of the self-employed. The project on home assistance goes beyond the preparation of the draft legislation and involves detailed work on implementing regulations and necessary consultation with those who will have the task of giving reality to the new scheme of supplementary social welfare allowances on the ground. The section has a very busy work programme for the foreseeable future on the development side.
Research will play an increasing role in relation to policy development in the period ahead. I am encouraged by the level of commitment of those involved in the various social research agencies to the necessary task of achieving a proper balance between academic and applied research or, rather, research capable of being applied.
In this year's Estimate a small allocation has, for the first time, been made to enable the Department to commission research in relevant areas. Already one pilot study—in the area of unemployment—has been commissioned from the Economic and Social Research Institute. Other possible areas of direct involvement in the research field are at present under consideration.
The work of the research staff of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty will be of major significance in this whole area over the next few years—each of the action projects is matched by a scientific study of practical importance. For example, the welfare rights project will include a study of the adequacy of social benefits to meet the needs of certain groups and individuals and will thus provide a most useful input to policy review within the Department of Social Welfare.
Social welfare provision can always, and too easily, be reduced to merely coping with the effects of need and deprivation. It must be recognised that, in so far as poverty in our society is self-perpetuating—and it does appear to be so—then proportionately more national resources will have to be made available if society wills to end this situation. Social policies will have to be more rather than less redistributive in their impact, and they will have to take effect at a rate which will ensure a proper sharing-out of the increased resources of the nation. That is the challenge which faces us if we are serious about combating poverty.
I believe that a most fundamental debate must take place in this country about the appropriate balance between policies for economic development and policies for effective redistribution. There are, I feel, many and serious misconceptions about this matter and a danger that the real need for approaches geared to ending the inequality which breeds poverty will be seen as a threat to necessary economic advance. This cannot be the case as true progress will only come in a healthy society and an unequal society is, by definition, an unhealthy and threatened society. I am reminded of a statement in a popular newspaper column some months ago. It was said then that "the poor will always be poor because those who are less poor want to keep it that way." We all need to ask ourselves whether that is not an accurate observation about our present day Irish society.
Presenting an Estimate or Supplementary Estimate for social welfare can be a most frustrating experience in so far as the great bulk of what is being done cannot be more than a response to existing need and to the very obvious social problems of the community. It is essential, therefore, to seek to find the positive elements in the situation. These do exist, to an encouraging extent.
There is a greater realisation today of the existence of poverty and deprivation, even if this in many cases is no more than an uncomfortable feeling. There is a consequent willingness to listen when possible remedies are discussed or proposed. There is a beginning of understanding that social problems cannot be solved by the traditional unco-ordinated means. A number of completely separate, often competing, organisations— whether they be statutory or voluntary agencies—will not solve the great social problems of this, or any, community. The causes of deprivation are complex and inter-related. They call for a correspondingly integrated response to cure them and this response must be based on the fullest understanding and knowledge.
Yet, in the last analysis, everything depends on the existence of the will to solve these problems. That will must be shown by Government, by administration and by the community as a whole. It will be made evident by the acceptance of inevitable change and by the acceptance of real involvement and participation by local communities in the work of solving their problems.
The long-term aim of social welfare policy must, therefore, be to go beyond the administration of income maintenance to create a flexible and sensitive system capable of providing those in need with adequate support and with the assistance they need to play a full part in our society.
I have spoken of the need to debate these issues so that we may better understand them. It is my belief that this debate is already well launched and that it will gain momentum. I agree with the conclusion reached by Professor Donnison in his NESC study that "information and patient education are essential prerequisites for constructive innovation in social policy. The message need not be shrill: once it is understood, the truth about inequality is explosive enough."
I hope that this statement has provided Deputies with all the information which they require and I recommend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.
During the course of his lengthy statement to the House the Parliamentary Secretary said a tribute was due to the officials of his Department. I should like to be associated with that tribute. My own belief is that the civil servants are people of integrity and dedication who have never been found wanting in the service of the nation. Of course, I am referring to civil servants who have worked their way up through the service to achieve the positions they hold. I am referring to those who have achieved those positions on merit. The Parliamentary Secretary's tribute is supported by my party.
It has taken the Parliamentary Secretary 1 hr. 25 mins, to unload himself of his script. That was an impressive amount of time to take up in a contribution to the House but the script could be taken as a compendium of the speeches made by the Parliamentary Secretary in particular, and some of his colleagues in general, before, with the exception of that part of the script relating to the various increases from 1st October. Certainly the area dedicated to research within the Department of Social Welfare, the production of a Green Paper on pension related income and the matter of the pilot scheme to combat poverty, have all been gone through before. It is proper that it should be mentioned again but when it is enshrined in speech after speech and is now presented to us as a sort of innovation it is of highly doubtful merit except that it is used as some form of propaganda by the Government as has been done in this instance.
In that respect they have exceeded themselves. The method by which they announce something which is going to happen and continue to announce the details of that project until it is completed is a form of mutual backslapping. It is a clever manipulation of the media and in this respect the Government have distinguished themselves. One has only to see the recent statement by the Minister for Local Government about his concern for the ratepayers of Dublin County who may have to face an increase in their rates next year of £2 in the £. Such an increase would bring the rates for Dublin County to more than £10 in the £. According to the Sunday Independent the Minister for Local Government expressed his “grave concern” and said he was having the matter examined. That is good propaganda stuff but it is not any consolation to those people who on the average have valuations of £25. Such people will have to meet rates bills of up to £250 next year. There is a solution to the rates problem and it is a Fianna Fáil solution, abolish rates on private dwellings.
That was a death bed solution.
The Deputy is getting away from the matter before the House.
I am typifying the trend which the Coalition are expert at and which emerges once more in the Parliamentary Secretary's script. Undoubtedly, the Parliamentary Secretary has shown great concern in this regard, more so than any Minister or other Parliamentary Secretary. When he was in Opposition he was concerned for the less well off sections of the community; in fact, since his election to the Dáil he has concerned himself about the socially deprived and less well off. However, the Parliamentary Secretary has been consistent and it is not a new-found vocation with him. Expression of concern is one thing and action taken is another. An example is the pilot scheme on poverty. This was announced on a number of occasions and it is now going ahead. This is a welcome development. It must be remembered that this is a pilot scheme and does not present the final solution to the problem; it is a beginning, a progression. It is well to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech does not contain anything new in the sense of being a departure in the area of social welfare policy.
On a number of occasions I contributed to the general debates on social concern. The Parliamentary Secretary stated:
The long-term aim of social welfare policy must, therefore, be to go beyond the administration of income maintenance to create a flexible and sensitive system capable of providing those in need with adequate support and with the assistance they need to play a full part in our society.
That is my own definition which I used on a number of occasions in this House. That is a proper aim of social welfare policy. It is encouraging to note that the Parliamentary Secretary accepted what has and will continue to be the Fianna Fáil aim in the area of social concern.
I would now like to deal with one of my own chestnuts: a suggestion must be made repeatedly before it is accepted or understood. The title "social welfare" might be abandoned and replaced by the words "social security". In reply to a parliamentary question the Parliamentary Secretary gave a very plausible answer as to the connotations and meanings of the words "social welfare". We are now in the area of the use of the word "psychological". We have heard the expression "the psychology of inflation". "Welfare" to me and to others inside and outside this House, has a poor law meaning. The Parliamentary Secretary outlined a number of schemes he is pursuing and if he could give himself a new title, such as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Security, and change the title of his staff—and this is not meant as a reflection on the staff for the work they have done over years—psychologically this would give a new image to the Department. There may be a better word than "security" but in my opinion, there is not a worse word than "welfare". That is the thought, the contribution, the suggestion, called for by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The most harrowing feature of his speech is one of the messages it delivers—the awful continuing and growing spectre of unemployment. The figures produced by this side of the House are not our own. Therefore, we cannot be accused of playing politics by taking figures from the top of our heads and saying that there will be 200,000 persons unemployed by the end of 1976. With the help of the Lord this will not happen. We have shown in our discussions on the economy that we are a responsible Opposition. We have not attempted to use the present disastrous economic situation to our political advantage. It is proper that all parties within the democratic process who are concerned about this country have a role to play to ensure that the present tragic and disastrous situation, through which this country is now passing, is not used to any party political advantage.
Any Deputy who might quibble or cavil about the increases might be considered to be living in cloudcuckoo land. Certainly, none of the Fianna Fáil Deputies can aspire to that nationality. In our view the increases are necessary because of the Government's mismanagement of the economy. The Parliamentary Secretary said that never before have there been two social welfare increases in one year. Inflation can be controlled if the people in charge have the will to do so but, according to the Government economic strategists, it appears to be uncontrollable. Because of that it is understandable that the Government should seek secondround increases in social welfare entitlements.
Under subhead L, Employment Assistance, the original Estimate was £27,436,000, the revised Estimate is £39,970,000 which leaves a deficit of £12,534,000. That is the real tragedy. The Parliamentary Secretary has asked for a serious debate on his document and within the limits of that invitation Members on this side will make serious contributions.
Under section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952 there is a payment to the social insurance fund of £11,415,000 and unemployment benefit would come under that estimation. The original estimate under the heading of social insurance was £35,185,000, the revised estimate is £46,600,000 which leaves a deficit of £11,415,000.
While making allowance for all the promised benefit increases and explaining the reasons for the secondround increases on the basis of inflation, we are still left with the tragedy of unemployment. This matter must be lifted from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and dealt with here. He has asked for a debate on this matter and we must seek a debate on what we consider to be the immediate problem. Unemployment and the need for new employment is an immediate concern. All the poverty schemes, all the boasting and trumpeting about Green Papers and the research carried out within the Department are all very well but, in our opinion, they do not deal with the immediate problem.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that employment is a prerequisite to a stable democratic society. Unemployment is socially evil and unjust and attacks the very fabric of society, namely its structures and institutions. Has the Parliamentary Secretary carried out research on the effect of unemployment on the family unit? Having regard to the immediate need, the pilot scheme on poverty does not deal with that problem.
It is well known to social analysts, social scientists and psychologists that unemployment has a harrowing and eroding effect on the family unit. That may not be the case with regard to short-term unemployment but long-term unemployment has this desperate effect. Cash is the main element which lubricates our society. It is the barter between individuals. If the man in the family, or the breadwinner—in our society it is the man—finds himself in the unemployment or dole queue for more than six or eight weeks he begins to feel inadequate. If the woman in the house goes to work, even on a parttime basis, the man takes on a secondary role. In such a case the man loses his self-respect and self-esteem. Time hangs heavily when a person is unemployed. There are those who say it is no harm that the man should have the experience of looking after the family and taking on the role of the wife in caring for the family. In the normal way men help their wives and families and they carry out most of the more difficult jobs when they have time but my point is that when the husband has to take a secondary role he gradually loses the respect of his family. I do not think God intended that men should spend all their time at home. He intended that men should go out and earn their living to supply their families with the necessities of life. When a man ceases to perform that job serious difficulties can arise.
When a man is unemployed where is the money to come from for such items as house repayments and television hire charges? Such expenses add to the strains of the family when all they want is to be able to pay their way within the community. Therefore, unemployment has an eroding effect on the family unit. Bad as is the situation when the father of a family is unemployed, it is a good deal worse if one or two other members of the family lose their jobs. One can visualise easily the younger members being tempted after a period of time to take the emigrant ship.
There are some sophisticates in our society who say that people are getting more by being in receipt of unemployment assistance than if they are working. I have not heard any unemployed person boast of any such situation. It is my experience that people want the dignity that employment offers and not the indignity of unemployment. That is why I do not agree with the sooth-sayers who contend that people prefer to be unemployed.
In the national sense unemployment has an undermining effect. It is the greatest social evil and tragedy from which a nation can suffer particularly when it becomes a national cancer as the situation here is gradually becoming. It is always interesting to listen to those people who complain of the younger generation engaging in various types of criminal activity if they are unemployed but we might ask ourselves from where they get the messages of violence. I have never known an under-18 producer or director of some of these very violent films we see on television. So far as I know most of these people would be more than 30. Therefore, we must acknowledge that the messages of violence are portrayed by adults. An example of this is the television series Kojak in which a lollipop in the mouth seems to be indicative of some form of male superiority. At any rate, the father of a family is relegated to play a secondary role.
A man and woman living together as part of the normal family unit should accept equal responsibility so that neither is placed in the position of being a second-class citizen in his or her own house. What is happening is that the fabric of society—the family unit—of which we are so proud is being broken down gradually by this Government's lack of policy.
In The Irish Press today there is a quotation from the NESC report and I quote:
"Unemployment is likely to be in the region of 120,000 to 125,000 by the end of December," according to the report. "And this could mean a March peak of 130,000 jobless or more."
"Employment opportunities between now and the end of the year will be noticeably less than in previous years for schoolleavers", the report goes on.
"Prices on average are likely to be more than 20 per cent higher than in 1974. The public sector borrowing requirement will be about 14 per cent on gross national product.
In the light of those few paragraphs the Parliamentary Secretary's brief will have to be read from a different point of view. There are some who do not like to be reminded too often that this is the Government that guaranteed full employment and price control. Having paid proper tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for his concern for the socially deprived, I can only say that he must be ashamed of a Government who may be responsible—although we hope this will not be the case—for 130,000 people being unemployed by March.
The Labour Party was born from a philosophy the object of which was to obviate hardship and to ensure that each man was given an equal opportunity, but the unemployment spectre disposes of that because it re-introduces hardship. Certainly an unemployed man does not have equality with his employed colleague. We have to admit—if we do not make the admission we are deceiving ourselves— that we all wish to be considered equal to others. Having to walk down to join the dole queue every week and pick up one's dole cheque has an undermining effect on both personal and national confidence.
The Labour Party must feel grim in the context of the present unemployment situation. To my own knowledge there are genuine Labour Party supporters who have expressed concern about the party conspiring, if you like, with the present Government in their lack of policy formulation to reduce the two great social evils of inflation and unemployment. These are conjunctive and must be seen together and dealt with together. We have economists who make the point that unemployment helps in some way to deflate and therefore to reduce inflation. I made a study a week ago of a paper by a very well known economist. Having studied the document I could not, for the life of me, understand how he reached that particular conclusion. It is not, of course, a new solution to the problem. It is not an original thought. He merely used it to develop his own ideas. The view is held elsewhere outside this country. It is a view I reject. It is an unacceptable view. The Labour Party must feel down in the dumps in their present association. I do not mean the Labour Party associating with the present Fine Gael Party in Government. We know that power has a capacity to corrupt.
The Deputy ought to know that.
I shall develop my point. Someone said it took 15 years for Fianna Fáil to become arrogant. It has taken the present Government only two-and-a-half years to reach that particular condition. Apart from the corrupting influence of unemployment and inflation the Coalition Government have engaged in paying off their pals on every possible opportunity right throughout the fabric of this society.
This is hardly relevant to the subject matter of this debate. The Deputy will have to confine his remarks to the Supplementary Estimate for Social Welfare.
In the context of the spectre of unemployment one can imagine the reaction of Big Jim Larkin and James Connolly, both of whom were deeply concerned people, one to the point at which he was prepared to lay down his life. I know Dr. Cruise-O'Brien would consider that to be a foolish act. That is his interpretation of Irish history. We, on this side of the House, believe it to be an evil interpretation.
It is not my intention to delay this Estimate. We understand the money is wanted urgently and, by delaying the passage of the Estimate, we might in some way contribute to the possibility of depriving people of their increases. However, there are a number of specific matters with which I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to deal. The total duration of pay-related benefits is 303 days. The amount for the first 147 days was 40 per cent, for the next 78 days, 30 per cent and for the next 78 days 25 per cent of reckonable earnings between £14 and £50. The Parliamentary Secretary made some vague reference to the possibility of a further extension. It is interesting to note that the percentage has been reduced from 40 to 25 per cent during the two extensions of the original period. On one occasion here we tried to maintain the upper limit of 40 per cent. The upper limit is now 25 per cent, a reduction of 15 per cent on the original limit.
I know this matter may not be within the Parliamentary Secretary's purview but this will probably be the last opportunity we shall have for some time of discussing this whole question of unemployment. One wonders how successful the employment premium scheme has been. There was some publicity recently in connection with it. It was suggested that the scheme, while good in concept, is not——
The scheme does not come under my department. It comes under the Department of Labour.
I know but there is a great deal of intertwining between the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Labour.
There is no intertwining in administration.
I know the scheme operates under the Department of Labour but, in the light of the Parliamentary Secretary's known concern about unemployment generally, he will agree, I think, that he has quite a part to play in giving people their entitlements, be they contributory or non-contributory.
The Parliamentary Secretary might consider discussing the question of the social welfare entitlement of school leavers. He will recall that, before the Dáil went into Recess, I asked him what was the social welfare entitlement of school leavers. He replied that men are entitled to unemployment assistance but that most categories of women are not so entitled which, again, offends against the Coalition stated intention to bring about a just society.
It is a well-known fact that quite a number of young people have left the country. The figures are not available to me. The position with regard to the abandonment of the census of population is becoming crystal clear. The Leader of my party asked the Taoiseach yesterday about this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary must be very concerned about it. He said:
Whatever may be the problems of comparability, it cannot be denied that there are real gaps between the levels of social provision in the various member states and that Ireland has some considerable distance to go before reaching the standards of coverage and protection afforded in some of the more advanced economies. It is necessary to appreciate the nature of the existing differences and to understand their causes, which relate to such factor as the current levels of economic development, the stage of industrialisation, the demographic structure of the national community, and so on.
We were to have the census of population next year in the ordinary way. Now we are told it is being abandoned until 1981. The Parliamentary Secretary will be left with a gap in his forward planning between 1975 and 1981. He is being left in a very serious position. His Department are deeply concerned with having immediate knowledge of the demo-graphic structure of the national community, the stage of industrialisation in that national community, and the current levels of development. All these things will now be the subject of guesswork, no more, no less. That is another very serious consequence of the abandonment of the census of population, for a sum of money which in the overall context of the type of money we are now discussing, something like £400 million—we are not discussing this specifically but the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned an overall figure of £400 million—appears to be chicken feed. I use the words "chicken feed" advisedly. The amount of money involved in a census of population is large, no doubt, but in relation to the overall type of money which has to be found to run the country and which goes from the taxpayer to the Exchequer, it is small potatoes.
To come back to the question of young people. We have dealt with people who have been in employment for many years. We have dealt with the effect of unemployment on the family unit and with the psychological impact unemployment has. What effect has the unavailability of employment on young people? A figure of 52,000 school-leavers was used. The Parliamentary Secretary should tell us the number of these people to whom he has to pay unemployment assistance.
I would imagine that the figure would not be anywhere near 52,000 because the truth of the matter is that quite a number of young people have left the parental home to look for employment outside our shores. Perhaps it is not right to talk about this because it might impress young people but it has to be said. That is another effect of the abandonment of the census of population. We will not know how many have left for quite a number of years hence because there is no community check in the absence of a census.
A number of suggestions have been put forward as to what the State or the Government might do to encourage these young people to join social community services. It has been suggested that they should be encouraged in their own areas to set up pilot schemes to investigate the general condition of the less well off section of the community in which they live, and to conduct surveys which they could monitor to the Departments of Social Welfare, Labour, Health and Education. The suggestion is that young people should be employed by the State, but there is a limit to the number of people the State can employ in the types of temporary schemes envisaged.
The Government should be thinking of temporary schemes to hold young people in the country until the recession ends. We were told last year by the Minister for Finance that the recession would be over by now. Now we are informed that, despite his most optimistic predictions, the recession will continue for another 12 months, if not longer. During this period of recession the generation from 15- to 19- and 20-year-old must be kept in the country. The Government have an obligation to produce a plan which will ensure that they will be contained here during the period of recession. If the Government do not do that they are in dereliction of their duty to that generation.
The Parliamentary Secretary has very properly outlined plans, research, and so on, which are being conducted by his Department and which are worth while. They relate to the future, be it the near future or the distant future.
What we need is a plan to overcome the problem with which we are faced today and that is not forthcoming. The generation about which I speak is literally leaderless in the context of any Government involvement or desire to give them hope. The Minister for Labour spoke the other day about a new apprenticeship scheme and so on but that does not solve the immediate problem. The immediate problem, as we see it on this side of the House, is to contain these young people within the country. One cannot prevent people in a physical sense from leaving their homes and community and going abroad but one can prevent them having to take such action by providing them with an alternative. The Government do not seem to be doing so. Were the Government to take some decisions and nine times out of ten those decisions were correct, then we, on this side of the House, would forgive them for the one incorrect decision. In the context of the economy Fianna Fáil during their last period in office took decisions, some of which may have gone wrong.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy; I have given him a lot of latitude but he seems to be straying into the area of planning and the provision of employment which is not the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary or of the Department of Social Welfare. This Estimate deals with the provision of benefits accruing to many categories of persons. The Deputy will have to await another occasion to deal with the question of planning and the provision of jobs.
I thought the Chair would agree with me and I do not want to argue to any great degree. The matter of unemployment assistance and benefit surely concerns us here. If there did not exist the unemployment situation we have today then the Parliamentary Secretary would not have to be paying out what is, after all, taxpayers' money to these unemployed people.
I am anxious that the Deputy would stick to the benefits under the scheme.
That is what I am talking about. Unemployment relates directly to the payment of unemployment entitlements.
The Deputy is straying into the area of responsibility of other Ministers, the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
No, Sir, with respect, I do not intend to engage in argument with you but the matter of unemployment is one of Governmental collective responsibility.
The Deputy may not argue with the Chair. I am ruling that the Deputy is straying very far from the subject matter of this debate.
I respectfully submit——
The Deputy has strayed very far from the matter of the Social Welfare Supplementary Estimate. I am asking him to come back to it.
All right. It is very difficult, Sir, to understand your ruling. However——
The Deputy should be grateful for all the latitude he has already had in this matter.
I would not accept, Sir, that you had allowed me any latitude. I felt I was operating within the rules of order as is my wont. There is the rather glib reference in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, and here the Chair will have to bear with me. Perhaps he did not consider ruling the Parliamentary Secretary out of order when he was making the point. Perhaps I might ask for clarification on this matter from the Chair. Would the Chair not consider the tragedy of school-leavers to be a matter of immediate concern to this House, to be one of grave concern for the younger generation? Would the Chair not feel that the Parliamentary Secretary has some responsibility in the sense of collective Governmental or Cabinet responsibility for what would appear to be the abandonment of a generation by the Government in view of the unemployment tragedy obtaining in our community? Surely that has some relevance in the context of what we are speaking about? But the Chair has decided that it does not have any relevance in the context of what we are speaking about and I must discipline myself to acceptance of that decision by him.
The Parliamentary Secretary—it appears I am now to be prevented from pursuing what I would speak about in the normal way—said:
The reduction in the consumer price index in the August quarter, the first for 12 years, further enhanced the value of the increases.
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has to produce the best possible reason for justifying the cancer of unemployment besetting our community at present. He tries to use the reduction in the consumer price index in the August quarter as a reason for trumpeting. But all of us know that the reduction in the consumer price index in the August quarter was eroded within 24 hours. We were told to keep quiet about it because the Government were engaging in the psychology of inflation.
If we were told that for the first time in 12 years the consumer price index had been contained, if not reduced, the psychological effect would be to dampen down price increases. The economic condition of the country is too serious to be engaging in statements of that nature. Were conditions different one could utilise a different description for a statement of that nature emanating from the Government. But do the Government realise the hardships being suffered by people at present, particularly those in urban areas? There are daily price increases on food items. There is also the very real hardship of rate increases on private dwellings. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary trumpets: The reduction in the consumer price index in the August quarter, the first for 12 years, further enhanced the value of the increases.
We are all for increases to people socially entitled to them. We make no complaint about that but we do complain bitterly about the continual erosion of these increases by the rate of inflation and the continuous demands on the Exchequer.
I know that the matter of external borrowing is for another day and does not arise under this Estimate. If our own personal accounts were in the mess the Government have this country in at present, then I suspect the bank manager would be asking us to reconsider our position in the bank. The Government have a great capacity for external borrowing. It may be totally unrelated to the Estimate before the House but we believe it is an important point.
As the Deputy says, it is totally unrelated to the Estimate.
One can continue to borrow and borrow but, in fact, what one is doing is borrowing oneself out of a temporary, immediate situation and placing oneself at the mercy of external forces in the future. By the way, all this money has to be paid back.
It is not relevant to the Estimate for Social Welfare.
The Parliamentary Secretary's script, as I have already said when you were absent, Sir, has a certain ring about it. First of all, it might be said that it has the stamp of the Parliamentary Secretary's personality on it, and it is good because of that. However, the Parliamentary Secretary might consider refraining— and he is not an unintelligent person —from engaging in this form of repetition in which the Government are inclined to engage: something is going to happen but you hear about it going to happen ten times before it actually happens. It happens, and you hear about it then ten times afterwards. It having happened, they engage in this form of self-praise at which they are so adept. The speech the Parliamentary Secretary has made here has been made before. Maybe it bears repetition but he should not cloud the real problem of unemployment with this type of sunburstry.
I should like to place on the record paragraph 48, page 29, of the report of the Economic and Social Council, under the heading "Summary":
Output will probably fall by at least 3 per cent in 1975. Unemployment has risen in response and will rise further to 130,000 or more by March, 1976.
We on this side of the House would support the Government if they were to take strong action to ensure that 130,000 people would not be unemployed by March of 1976. What is giving rise to hopelessness and what is of concern to those of us who are democrats is this apparent lack of leadership in the whole context of economic strategy. As we saw recently, the Government did take certain actions—and they were tough actions, one in particular—which were fully supported by the Opposition and the people. The people are looking for leadership and they respond to positive leadership.
Can I bring the Deputy back to the Estimate?
To continue with the final part of paragraph 48 of the publication of the National Economic and Social Council: "Economy in 1975 and Prospects for 1976":
The foreign deficit has improved significantly but the public sector deficit has risen very substantially. The world recession was partly to blame.
What the Deputy is adverting to now would surely be more appropriate to a debate in the future.
No.
It is not relevant to this debate at all.
It comes back to this matter——
The Deputy is straying into the area of social economics.
That is what we are talking about, social economics.
We are dealing with social welfare.
What is social welfare but social economics to a great degree——
The Deputy is being irrelevant and he knows he is being irrelevant.
——the organisation of the economy to ensure that people, if they are deprived in one way or another, will get better benefits? That is surely social economic organisation.
That is not what the Deputy has been talking about.
I do not want to get into an argument with the Chair if he thinks I should not pursue this.
No, I do not think so. It is more appropriate to another occasion.
I should like just to read this sentence:
The size of the increases in pay contributed to the uncompetitiveness—
Surely that is very relevant,
—and, therefore, to the fall in output and the increase in unemployment. Domestic demand was substituted for falling foreign demand without enough being done, and done in good enough time, to restore competitiveness.
It all comes back to the question of the Government taking action at a particular time when a problem has to be solved. However, the Parliamentary Secretary will, no doubt, receive the thanks of the nation—not to mention the undying ingratitude of those whom he has considered not to fall within the unemployment assistance category—and the gratitude of the younger generation, those between 15 and 20 years approximately, if he can think of some scheme to give them immediate hope of staying in their own country. That is the type of leadership the country requires——
I regret having to interrupt the Deputy, but it is clear he is engaging in repetition over and over again.
May I make one plea to the Parliamentary Secretary, a plea I made to him before? It is in the context of the script itself. The Parliamentary Secretary might consider—it is entirely a matter for himself—the possibility of giving the Opposition spokesman a sight of his script at least 24 hours before the debate arises. There might be reasons for his not so doing, and I am sure they would be all the right reasons according to the Parliamentary Secretary and totally acceptable to me. However, the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned the matter of his consolidating legislation, and I think he will agree that social welfare is probably one of the most complex and complicated areas with vast and wide-ranging legislation.
Might I conclude by welcoming the continued progress the Parliamentary Secretary has outlined—the pilot schemes for the combating of poverty: the major portion of consolidation of legislation on social welfare, which is now in progress; the research programme which he has undertaken with his Department; and the incomerelated pensions scheme which is to be produced in a green paper in the not too distant future? These are all welcome developments.
May I just make a final plea to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the possibility of giving the Opposition spokesman a sight of his speech before he delivers it? There might be ten good reasons why he should not do so but it would be a great help to us to receive it. This morning we were presented at 10.30 with a very weighty script and to read that while the Parliamentary Secretary is reading it and at the same time make notes really does not, with the greatest respect, make for a debate in any great depth. If the speech was given to us beforehand we could research what is stated in it to a great degree and this would make for a deeper type of analysis of social welfare. The Parliamentary Secretary has called for debate on the Department of Social Welfare and I believe he is receiving it. He opened the debate in his usual courteous fashion, which we appreciate. As I said, his personality is quite evident to good effect in the Department.
I welcome this Supplementary Estimate. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Andrews having to stand up and spend over an hour discussing everything except the Estimate before him. When one realises the contents of the speech and what has happened since the Government took office two-and-a-half years ago it does not leave one with much meat on which to chew. Deputy Andrews completely avoided this Estimate. The Parliamentary Secretary has from time to time introduced various aspects of social welfare policy. While the Deputy may have thrown a few crumbs of gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary at the end he ignored the basic outlook that is restructuring the whole social welfare fabric of our society.
Before this Government took office it was a question of a 25p or 50p increase, depending whether it was a good year or a bad year. There was no planned programme or no real concern for people who for one reason or another had to seek their right to social welfare. People complain that there are abuses in the social welfare field. Of course there are. There are abuses in every scheme. As long as human beings are as they are some will always abuse such schemes. But should we throw the whole thing overboard because a few people take advantage of certain weaknesses within the scheme and exploit them? We should not. The Department of Social Welfare are concerned about any abuses and are prepared to close any loopholes which can be closed. I believe there is very little abuse.
The pay-related scheme is a very good one. For the first time it gives to a man unfortunate enough to be out of work as much as possible of his basic pay. We know that many people through no fault of their own are thrown out of work. It is important that every effort be made to enable them to meet their commitments and that they get as high a percentage of their wages as possible. This approach preserves a man's dignity.
Deputy Andrews said that a man's dignity is taken away from him when he is out of work. The pay-related benefit scheme ensures that a man's dignity is upheld because he has been given sufficient money to enable him to meet his commitments and to look after his family. Deputy Andrews said that the Committee on Poverty was being brought up again on the merry-go-round. It is important to bring it up as often as possible. It has been brought up on this occasion because contracts will be signed with the EEC for three pilot schemes. We must welcome this because while we have to pay out social welfare money we have to provide for the less-well-off in our society.
Poverty is an ill in our society. Some people say that we will always have poverty with us, but that is a lazy attitude. We should try to eradicate this evil from our society. We must take positive action. When one considers the short time since this committee were set up and their new approach, having come up with three pilot schemes ready to go into action, they deserve nothing but credit. The Parliamentary Secretary also deserves credit for the work he has done.
We must get down to the basic root of the problem. It is a very broad subject, covers a vast area and involves most Departments, because poverty is found right across the board. I look forward to the pilot schemes. This is a momentuous beginning and it highlights the Government's concern about everybody in our society.
I am very happy about the green paper on pensions which is to be issued. This is a very worthwhile exercise. People should have pensions by right at a certain stage of their lives based on their earnings. The sooner this can be implemented the better. The Parliamentary Secretary states that there are problems. Any vast change involves problems, but when one has the will to overcome the problems and implement a comprehensive pensions scheme one is sure to succeed. This is the type of development I want to see in social welfare. It is a positive step and is not the "handout" philosophy of the Opposition when they were in office. It is a step to give people security and the feeling that they are part of society and that they have rights embodied in legislation.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider giving some special allowance for elderly people, particularly for accommodation purposes. In local authorities social welfare recipients get a very good concession: in some cases they pay less than 5p a week in rent. If they own their houses they get a waiver of rates which, to all intents and purposes, gives them a free house apart from necessary repairs. I am thinking of the person in private accommodation, particularly accommodation that is not under the protected rents system, those moving in after 1967. They are vulnerable and have to pay £6 or £7 a week rent. Their position should be sympathetically considered. The other two areas are looked after and this is the third area that we might consider.
People may say: "Why should we subsidise landlords?" but landlords say: "Why should we subsidise the Government?" Our concern should be the person and to ensure that the minimum hardship is incurred by him. Some scheme of allowances in that case would help. We must always seek ways in which particularly the elderly social welfare recipients can be helped. We must always be conscious of the elderly who have given their life's work to the nation. They should always be our No. 1 priority.
The present allowances to widows and orphans are very good. We have heard of people earning more under pay-related benefit than they get when working but this is not true and the Parliamentary Secretary has taken pains to prove that. But I came across a case recently where a woman lost her husband suddenly and she is now in receipt of more money for herself than when he was alive. That may not be a great consolation to her but it shows that a woman can now remain at home and rear her family in reasonable comfort and that the old days of having to go out to work and having to put the children into orphanages have gone. This is the kind of social welfare we should be talking and thinking about and about which we must concern ourselves in restructuring the whole system so that families, whether out of work or losing a bread winner through illness or disablement, will never feel they have become second class citizens. The thinking now emanating from the Parliamentary Secretary's Department is precisely on these lines: to ensure that people who come up against these contingencies are protected and can retain their dignity. It is important that they should not feel themselves a burden on the State, considered as second class citizens. This thinking permeates this Government's ideas on social welfare.
The Parliamentary Secretary is considering doing something for the self-employed person, and that is important. A large number of people work on their own and they feel rather vulnerable without protection. I am glad that this position is being examined. It was overlooked for a long period but it is now being considered and hopefully, something will be done soon about it.
I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the information centres and leaflets. It is important to give as much information as possible to people to ensure that they are aware of their entitlements. This can be done through the media and possibly the best medium is television. It may be expensive but I think that from time to time the information centres should be made known to the people through the media, including television. If this is done people will be more enlightened and more aware of their rights.
By and large social welfare payments are made in post offices. We are becoming more sophisticated about social welfare with greater numbers of people involved in it and we should rethink the whole system. Many post offices are inadequate and there have been quite a number of robberies. They must carry substantial sums of money and there is a security problem. Generally, the premises are small. We should consider this system and see if we can provide better accommodation. I think we could. We see a great number of bank branches in palatial buildings and beside them we see the post office and the volume of business it does. Great credit is due to those who work in the post offices but I think there is too much hardship on old age pensioners who have to wait too long for their benefits.
Again I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the work to date and on this document. I can understand the Opposition's plight because there is very little by way of opposition to this. I suggest they select points here and praise them. When good legislation is introduced this should be done. Deputy Andrews was traversing the whole economy, even involving himself with political parties and their problems.
A lot could have been said by the Opposition spokesman on social welfare but he did not do so because he realised he would have to give credit to the Government for the changes they effected over a short period. Fianna Fáil were in power for 16 years but their record was not good. Obviously, Deputy Andrews was aware of their ineptitude and was embarrassed about it this morning. He should be magnanimous enough to accept, as a person who is concerned about social welfare improvements, that radical and progressive changes have been made by the Government. The Government will continue to make progress in this regard to ensure that we have a just society and one that is concerned for everybody. That will be a slow process but, having regard to the changes made in the last two years, I have no doubt that when we face the people again we will be proud of our record in social welfare.
I welcome the increases being given to those in need of social welfare. At the outset the Parliamentary Secretary paid tribute to the civil servants and I should like to join in that tribute. We are fortunate in having good civil servants and as we reach for higher and better standards of social welfare I feel happy in the knowledge that this drive forward is backed by the expertise and good social outlook of our civil servants. The Parliamentary Secretary took pride, justifiably, in presenting this Supplementary Estimate. I do not wish to attempt to decry it in any way but as a Deputy in Opposition it is incumbent on me to ask questions and put forward ideas.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to alleged abuses of the system. I feel sure abuses occur but it has been said that the abuse of any art is not a condemnation of it. I believe abuses occur but on a small scale. I do not think they should inhibit us in any way from thinking of an expansion of the social welfare services. Those who break the law in any context should be punished in the appropriate way and those who abuse the social welfare code should not be any exception. The Parliamentary Secretary said he was in no way complacent about the overall picture on social welfare but I detected a certain smugness behind the Estimate. With the clever use of the media the Government can show what great people they are and as they dispense their largesse—the emphasis on "their"—a picture is given to the people, to the unemployed and pensioners, that but for the big hearts of the members of the Government they would suffer even more than they do at present. If this atmosphere was allowed to go unchallenged it would breed into our people a total dependance on a government. In a democracy that could be fatal.
If we accept that increases are necessary in these social welfare benefits it behoves us to get to the root of the trouble and find out why they are needed. It reminds me of a person who is ill and calls in a doctor to treat him. The prime concern of the doctor should be to treat that person with the object of curing him. The same applies to governments; they cannot sit back and refuse the challenge of their time by dispensing social services even on a high level because any normal man wants to be in gainful employment rather than drawing dole. If the Government think they are going to get away with this, if they think they are going to impress the people by dispensing wealth but not providing jobs it is necessary for us to educate them on the reasons why they are in Government. We will have to lay greater emphasis on the necessity to bring forward economic doctrines and policies so that people can look upon social welfare as a temporary aid to the unemployed until they can obtain employment. Social welfare costs us a big amount of the total expenditure. I do not begrudge a penny of that to those in need but I should like to draw attention to a report of the NESC in this morning's issue of The Irish Press under the heading, “Grim Prediction of 130,000 jobless”, on this issue.
It is all right when the working force, who are heavily taxed at present, can bear this but we should look at what happened in the UK. For years they boasted of their great medical services and, at times of full employment, it was reasonably easy to maintain what were good services. However, this week the Government of the UK have ordered an inquiry into the general medical services because I believe a shrinking work force cannot afford to pay the taxation necessary to finance that health service. It is possible that they will revert from the free-for-all health service to a kind of pay-as-you suffer system. I am not criticising that Government but pointing out that it is not possible to go on increasing the outlay on social welfare or anything else unless the producing capacity of our people can be increased.
This can only be done by giving gainful employment to the men and women who want to work. The majority of people do not want handouts. They want jobs; they want gainful employment; they want to play their part in society; they want through their efforts to make this a better society. The people must show the Government that they are not satisfied to be recipients of the Government's handouts, well intentioned though they may be. The Government can set up as many bodies as they wish to inquire into the causes of poverty but many people in this and other cities have lived on the poverty line for a long time, and many of them are still on it. The basic cause of poverty is that many people have never been able to get a good job, to learn a trade or to work in commerce. That is one of the reasons this Estimate was brought in this morning. We will support the Government to ensure that the social welfare services are as adequate as can be.
This Government must stop trying to show the people how great they are when they increase social welfare benefits. Why must they be increased? Because of inflation the cost of living is increasing at a very fast rate. It would be grossly unfair to blame the Government totally for inflation. But they do not appear to have any worthwhile ideas on how to arrest this movement towards greater unemployment. There are many unfortunate people who cannot be gainfully employed—the disabled, the handicapped or the widow with a very young family. Are we doing enough for them? If the economy took an upturn tomorrow we could employ many thousands of men and women of all ages who are fit to take their places in factories, in offices and on farms. But there are men and women who have suffered mental and physical handicaps. Are we trying to ensure that these people will be given enough training to enable them to take their place in society? The Government seem to have adopted a paternal attitude towards the disabled. They appear to be saying: "We are giving you a pension and we are very good people to do that." But then they do nothing else.
I would like to pay tribute to those men and women who, without any financial return, voluntarily give their lives to the care and training of the disabled or handicapped. I would also like to pay tribute to the religious orders who for many centuries have dedicated their lives to the care of the handicapped. Even in medieval times they were concerned with the welfare of the people. It was not called social welfare in those days, they did not offer clichés or platitudes, they called it Christianity. This spirit motivated them to dedicate their lives to the welfare of their less well-off brothers and sisters and that should be the aim of each one of us and we should not boast of it. This reminds us of our duty to the less well-off people and we must use our God-given brains to try to build a better society.
I do not want to detract from any claims the Government may make that they are doing this through their social welfare policy. They are not tackling what might be called the problem of social welfare. Social welfare means the happiness of people. Who can be happy when one remembers that there are 104,000 unemployed at the moment, and according to the experts that number may increase to a possible 230,000. This may bring a touch of realism to the Government and displace their smug mentality. It is all right to say that the Government are not complacent but I do not know the difference between smugness and complacency. They both sound the same.
Even now the Government must take note of the disastrous economic situation. Unless something is done quickly they will find that the maintenance of even the present standard of social welfare payments may have to be inquired into by a Government inquiry similar to that which the British Government ordered on their health scheme.
Deputy O'Brien mentioned the social welfare payment system and the post offices. I should like to see in every town and village an institution based on the post office. It could be an information centre and pensions could be paid there. It would tell the people to what they are entitled.
Many old people living alone, whose families may have died or are not living near them, have no one to advise them. The health boards do an excellent job in giving advice but we need to get nearer to the people. In their own way politicians help but it is essential to have more social welfare centres. As Deputy Andrews suggested, perhaps we should drop the title of "social welfare". I cannot think of an apt alternative now but we should try to engender the feeling that all the organisations work towards helping people on pension, the unemployed and the handicapped.
Because of official thinking, there are too many people in the country who consider themselves outside the national family, who think they must be thankful to us because they get a pittance. If we wish to build the society all of us want we must be able to generate this family atmosphere. That should be our target. In many of the so-called advanced countries society has become so impersonal that people leave those countries. It is not because they are poor or unemployed. This is happening in the advanced countries of Europe where they have an almost perfect social welfare system, where people are rebelling against this impersonal atmosphere. They are seeking a more simple way of life. We must give consideration to this aspect to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes as some of the European countries. They have the most magnificent social welfare schemes if one accepts big handouts from the State and nothing else as magnificent.
We must try to ensure that our society does not become impersonal, that the social welfare officer is regarded as not just from a Department of State but as a representative of a State that cares for the people in a very individual way. Our economy and our social welfare code are not developed to the same extent as those of some European countries and we have the opportunity to learn from the mistakes made by them. We may have something to contribute to such countries in indicating where they have gone wrong. I think they have gone wrong in that they have so institutionalised State assistance and have made it so impersonal that the recipient of a pension or an allowance does not consider it comes from an institution that cares about him. Rather does he see such assistance coming from a monolithic structure which disperses money or goods every week to a person with a number on his card. If Europe is not to be a horrible impersonal place it must get back to caring for the individual.
That is the basic message for the Government with regard to their social welfare policy. We must not regard the voting of money in this House as the be-all and the end-all of our social welfare policy. We must have a deeper commitment to the welfare of people. I am sure that the people on the board established by the Government to examine poverty have considerable experience and, in due course, I expect their report will give us food for thought but they must not be regarded as just another part of the Establishment. We must make sure that their report is not just an impersonal document, where although the economics may be sound the approach of regarding each man as one's brother is lost. Throughout the world people have opted out of society. There have been many cases where people from wealthy families have dropped out and have become very anti-Establishment, often with disastrous results to themselves and to some of their innocent victims.
This Estimate is large and it covers a very wide area but one feels more inadequate all the time to answer the question of what we are trying to do. Are we merely going to prescribe medicine by way of State assistance or are we really trying to build a society that will be in keeping with our traditions and the lofty idealism of a Christian society? I mean Christian in the widest sense. Are we merely trying to win elections by saying we can do better than the other side? Possibly there is some political advantage to be got from that but I do not wish to deal with this Estimate as a political criticism of the Government. Naturally, I reserve the right to criticise the Government when they fall down on the job. We must always try to bring our social welfare schemes to acceptable levels.
But it is difficult to define what is acceptable. A widow or an old age pensioner in receipt of £10 per week today may find that because of inflation that amount will not permit them to have the necessaries of life within, say, a few months. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the increases proposed here are intended to safeguard the recipients against the spiral of inflation. Admittedly, the increases will counteract inflation to some extent but the old age pensioners know that before long they will have to go without some of the goods that they can purchase now. This is an intolerable situation.
Why cannot we create a system of social security which will ensure for old people that within a few weeks or months their pensions will be adequate for their needs? Despite the advances in the social welfare area there are many old people in this city and no doubt in other places, too, who are in dread of not being able to stretch their pensions to meet their needs. Down through the years social welfare payments have been increased in accordance with increases in the national wealth but this policy is meaningless unless we can ensure a certain standard of living for our people. In other words, we should aim at a certain target whereby social welfare recipients can be guaranteed a certain level of security.
This debate is not the forum for a full debate of the economics of the present situation but we might at least ask why there should be 30,000 building workers unemployed while so many people are living in bad housing conditions. That is a situation that I cannot reconcile. Perhaps the answer is in the first place to enlarge our definition of social welfare so that it will not mean merely an increase in the old age or the widows' pension but that it will be an all-out attack on want. We must endeavour to define what is a living wage or income. We must show that this small country is capable of building a society from which it can be seen that apart from the necessity of material wealth there is the very important consideration of the concept of the dignity of each person. However, in this context of a much wider sphere of social welfare we must ensure that we do not create the sort of situation that has happened in other countries, especially in one nation which, although credited with having the best social welfare service in the world, also has some of the least happy people in the world.
While developing the social welfare system in the best way possible, the State must also encourage the various sections of the community to play their part in the welfare of the less fortunate. In this regard much credit it due to the many voluntary societies who are engaged in looking after the handicapped and the needy. These organisations have achieved much while operating within very limited means. The State must be prepared to help them in their work. Great strides have been made in regard to the handicapped, for instance. I remember a time when a handicapped person was an object of pity but the professional welfare workers and the lay people within the voluntary organisations have changed this whole picture. If I had the administration of a large sum of money, I would devote much of it to the training of handicapped children so as to ensure a place for them in society and a secure future for them after their parents have died. There is now the God-parent concept—somebody who lives in a home where handicapped children are accommodated and these young children are trained to go out to work in gainful employment. We thereby ensure that we cherish all our children equally, irrespective of whether they have a very high IQ or a low IQ. I hope in the next budget, now only a few months away, the Government will see their way to ensuring that societies which cater for these children will not be short of money. Investing in the future of a child is a good investment because in due process of time a certain dividend is paid. There is, too, the question of personal dignity in that these children realise they are not being cast aside by an uncaring society. Without being smug, we will be able to say that we cared and that we tried.
I am sure the officials of the Department of Social Welfare care just as much as we do for recipients of social welfare. We should, however, try to get away from the attitude that the State's duty ends with the provision of some form of social welfare. A pension book should be an acknowledgement by the State that a person is in need of help. It is said that if we keep people out of institutions we save money. It should not be a question of saving money. It should be a Christian matter of keeping the old and the handicapped in their normal environments, thereby safeguarding the family which is under such pressure at the moment.
The mother who is rearing a family is in the highest state of womanhood and we should ensure that such a woman does not have to go out and take up employment in order to rear her family. We have career women. I am not talking about those. I am talking about the ordinary mother who is forced to take up employment outside the home for one reason or other. If we make it possible for that woman to stay at home rearing her family, we will build a better society. In Europe and America women go out to work in large numbers. In both there is a frightening problem of juvenile delinquency. I wonder has anyone ever studied the relationship between juvenile delinquency and mothers working outside the home.
There are, of course, women who are forced to work in order to augment the family income. If the father is unemployed, then the mother has to go to work. The State should pay an allowance to mothers where that necessity arises so that they can remain at home rearing their families. Would the Government examine the possibility of giving an allowance to mothers? Such an allowance would show that the State recognises the dignity of mothers. Mothers need our help because rearing a family is a tough job. Mothers do not reap material benefit from rearing families. The fact that mothers provide schooling and clothes for their children and give them a better opportunity than they had is commendable. The State should ensure that in their efforts to rear families parents get every help.
Mothers should be given a special award by the State because of the work they are doing. The contribution which mothers make to the State should be honoured. In other countries they elect the mother of the year. In my own way I suppose I am saying what they are trying to say. We should make every mother who is striving to rear a family the mother of the year. The cost of this should not be measured. I know the Parliamentary Secretary, his Minister and his civil servants have to work out costs, but I do not think it is beyond our wit to devise a scheme for the payment of a special grant to mothers who are rearing families. In contemporary society the work of mothers becomes harder all the time. We should take note of this and be a little more generous in future budgets.
I should like to have the opportunity to study the Parliamentary Secretary's speech over the week-end and to speak again on it. Deputy Andrews suggested that we might be given a preview of the speech. This may not be possible, but, perhaps, it could be done. We could then make better contributions and suggestions, not just for the sake of criticism. We should establish once and for all that social welfare will not be treated as a political football. The person in need of social welfare will not stop to think whether it comes form a Coalition Government or a Fianna Fáil Government.
The Deputy's hour will conclude at 2.30 p.m.
We have no intention of making social welfare a political football. It is our duty to accept what is acceptable and to criticise what we think is wrong. I have made some suggestions which may be helpful. I hope they are. I realise they may not be practical. We should try to change the attitude that social welfare is an annual hand-out or a twice yearly hand-out of money. There is more to social welfare than the disbursal of pensions and allowances.
I have mentioned mothers rearing families. There are also the parents of handicapped children who are doing such a good job in their homes and through their organisations, and the religious orders who have dedicated themselves for centuries to the handicapped, the disabled and the needy. An allowance from the State is merely an acknowledgment that the State has a duty to handicapped persons and old age pensioners. We must go further and say we regard each citizen, whatever his capacity, as equally important with our most highly prized intellectual. Indeed, more so, because, while the intellectual may not need help, the person who is handicapped needs our help whether that handicapped person is a school leaver who cannot get a job, or the father of a family, or any person who loses his employment.
The State should never become smug or complacent. It is easy for me to criticise the amounts given although I have not done that so far. I realise the money has to be found. Broadly speaking, there is one way of finding it, and that is through taxation. I suggest in all seriousness that, unless the Government examine the economic prospects or lack of prospects for the future, we may well have to do what the British Government are now doing, that is, ordering an inquiry into their health services. Naturally, I do not know what is behind the Government's thinking on that. I suspect they geared their medical services to a society of full or nearly full employment and now, when things are not quite so good, the strain on the services is so great that they have to order an inquiry, and, perhaps, there will be a cut-back when that inquiry is finished.
If the Government say they have not got the money to pay pensions or allowances to those who need them, the question is why have we not got the money or how do we get the money. We can only get the money by having a society in which employment can be given to the vast majority of those who want to be employed, that is, 99.9 per cent of the working population. I presume this Supplementary Estimate is mainly the work of the Parliamentary Secretary. However, I fear he may find himself in trouble during the ensuring year unless the other arm of social welfare is attacked in an endeavour to provide sufficient employment possibilities to absorb at least 100,000 people to enable them to return to work and contribute their share to the national wealth, apart from having the satisfaction of being employed.
I hope some of the suggestions I have made will prove helpful. I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in complimenting the civil servants in the Department on their dedication to and competence in the administration of the various schemes.
