Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 27 Jun 1952

Vol. 132 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Vote 60—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £264,040 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.

The Estimates for my Department, which I now submit to the Dáil, were prepared without reference to the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Act, 1952, which became law on the 14th of this month. As a result of those Acts, certain Supplementary Estimates will be required for the current financial year, in addition to the Estimates now before the House, in order to provide the increased amounts which will become payable as from the beginning of July, to the recipients of old age and blind pensions, children's allowances, widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and sickness and disablement benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts. I will, however, deal briefly first with the Estimates for 1952-53 as originally prepared, and then refer to the Supplementary Estimate for children's allowances, which is also before the House.

There is a net increase on all seven Votes of £595,330 as compared with the amounts provided for 1951-52. This is more than accounted for by an increase of £713,000 in the Vote for old age pensions which is due to the fact that the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1951, which increased the rates of old age and blind pensions, will operate for the full year as against a half-year in 1951-52. A Supplementary Estimate will be required later in the year in order to provide for the increased payments arising out of the Social Welfare Act, 1952.

There is an increase of £64,000 in the Estimate for Children's Allowances as originally prepared. This increase is a normal feature of this Vote. I will deal later with the Supplementary Estimate for this service, which I am also presenting to the House now.

The Vote for National Health Insurance shows an increase of £18,990, which is due to an increase in expenditure on treatment benefits, such as dental, optical and hospital benefits. The increased amount payable by the Exchequer in respect of national health insurance benefits under the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, will have to be provided later by means of a Supplementary Estimate.

The four remaining Estimates, as now presented, all show decreases for 1952-53 as compared with 1951-52. These Estimates are those for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and miscellaneous social welfare services.

The decrease in the net amount required for the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare in 1952-53, as compared with 1951-52, is £44,520. The provision shown in the Book of Estimates for this Vote for the year 1951-52 included, however, an amount paid in that year but applicable to the previous year in respect of the increased salaries awarded to civil servants in 1951. If adjustment is made for this, the amount required under this Vote for 1952-53 is approximately the same as for 1951-52.

The decrease in the amount required for the Vote for Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance for 1952-53 as compared with 1951-52 is £103,300. This is due mainly to the fact that the amount included for unemployment assistance in 1952-53 in the Estimate now before the House is £92,000 less than the corresponding amount in the Estimate for 1951-52. Owing to expenditure on unemployment assistance in 1951-52 being less than expected, there was a substantial saving under this sub-head of the Vote and, accordingly, a somewhat reduced provision was made for 1952-53. This Estimate will have to be increased later in the light of the recent Act.

The third Vote on which there is a decrease in 1952-53 as compared with 1951-52 is that for widows' and orphans' pensions. The decrease amounts to £15,040 and is due to an estimated drop in expenditure on noncontributory pensions in 1952-53 as compared with 1951-52 which would have been realised had not the position been changed by the 1952 Act. This Estimate will also require review at a later date.

The last Vote on which there is a decrease is that for miscellaneous social welfare services and the amount of the decrease in 1952-53 as compared with 1951-52 is £37,800. This decrease is due mainly to the fact that the amount provided in 1952-53 in respect of grants towards the supply of fuel for necessitous families is £40,000 less than the amount provided in 1951-52. The smaller amount required in 1952-53 arises from the fact that provision was made in the Estimate for 1951-52 for the accumulation of a special reserve of fuel by the Dublin Board of Assistance to meet any difficulty which might be created by a break down in deliveries of fuel to the Dublin area during the winter period. This special provision does not require to be repeated in 1952-53.

I have now dealt with all the Estimates as they are being presented to the House and have drawn attention to those for which Supplementary Estimates will be required later as a result of the enactment of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Act, 1952.

The Supplementary Estimate for Children's Allowances is required early owing to the fact that an additional sum of over £2,000,000 is required for this service this year in order to pay the allowance for the second child and the increased allowances for the third and subsequent children which are provided for in the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Act, 1952.

I am, therefore, presenting this Supplementary Estimate to the House now along with the original Estimate for Children's Allowances in order that sufficient money may be made available to carry on this service up to the end of the financial year.

The remaining Supplementary Estimates to which I have referred are not so urgent and will be presented later. I ask the House to approve of the Estimates and the Supplementary Estimate before it, and if there is any further information required by Deputies on any of these Votes I shall endeavour to supply it when replying to the debate.

Mr. Norton

Am I to take it that speech covers the Estimate only?

Dr. Ryan

No, no. I am covering the group.

Mr. Norton

I thought the emphasis on the last portion of the Minister's speech indicated that he was only taking the Supplementary Estimate.

Many aspects of social welfare were discussed in this House during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, Children's Allowances Bill and other aspects of social legislation which we had an opportunity of reviewing recently. It is not, therefore, necessary or desirable to travel over the same ground again.

There are, however, a few administrative matters that I would like to raise with a view to focusing attention on these problems and in the hope that the Minister will give attention to them during the ensuing year.

I noticed in the Press during the past week references to the praiseworthy endeavours of high-minded people to provide some means whereby aged persons might be enabled to get more enjoyment from the winter years of their lives. Efforts in that direction were initiated in Dublin about two years ago, when, as I said, high-minded people organised the Geriatrics Society with a view to providing certain amenities for elderly people. I think that is a praiseworthy endeavour and that the State should lend its assistance in every possible way in order to further a movement of that kind.

Department of Social Welfare, I was anxious to blaze a trail in one aspect of that work which was to make available to our aged people free access to the cinemas or, at all events, access to the cinemas at a nominal charge. For that purpose I saw, at my request, the secretary of the Cinema Owners' Association and put to him the consideration that cinemas ought not to be regarded only as a means of earning a dividend for those who invest money in them but that cinemas had a very valuable and growing social use and that those who own cinemas ought to be willing to demonstrate their desire to share with less fortunate citizens, particularly aged persons, the enjoyment which it is now accepted the cinemas provide for virtually the entire population of the country.

I think the proposal which I then made was sympathetically received, at all events, by the official with whom I discussed the matter but, of course, he had no authority to say anything from his principals in defence of it at that time. My view was that the cinema proprietors in Dublin and in the country might make arrangements whereby old age pensioners would be permitted to attend cinema performances at certain times of the day when the cinemas were not normally used by cinema-going patrons, either free of charge or at a nominal charge. I felt that that would not be a heavy burden on the cinema proprietors. I did not intend that the old age pensioners should sit out the full cinema programme. What I had in mind was that the cinema proprietors would put on a show for an hour or an hour and a half. It need not be the latest picture, the hottest picture or the most exciting picture. I felt that free admission to that show could be granted on one day per week or on all days per week to old age pensioners. In that way, it seemed to me, that the cinema proprietors would be making a very valuable contribution to organise leisure for elderly people, that they would be demonstrating their desirability of sharing the social benefits of the cinema with the less fortunate sections of the community and that, at the same time, they would be providing a very valuable source of recreation for a section of the community which I feel is entitled to every practical sympathy which we can give them. There would be virtually no cost involved for the cinema proprietors, and it would be a very great boon indeed, if they would permit the aged people to have access to cinemas, either free of charge or at a very nominal rate.

I felt that there would be no difficulty in having old age pensioners recognised; the Department could quite easily associate with the old age pension book some form of identification which would ensure that abuse was kept to an absolute minimum. I do not know whether anything has been done since in that field. I do not know whether the Minister or the cinema proprietors have come back on the proposition which was made to them. If there have been no developments in the meantime, I would ask the Minister to give some consideration to the possibility of using his good offices in that field in the hope that we can provide that amenity for our old age pensioners.

Another matter which I would like to raise on this Estimate concerns the position of managers of branch employment offices. The Department of Industry and Commerce previously and now the Department of Social Welfare staff a number of employment exchanges throughout the country which are run by persons who are not civil servants. These offices number about 90 in all, and they are called branch employment offices. Whoever is appointed to the office has the responsibility of running it for an inclusive fee which is based upon the volume of transactions in the office. It means that where a person is a manager of a branch employment office, his salary is highest where the unemployment is greatest. While everybody ought to welcome a diminution in unemployment, so far as a branch manager is concerned, that would be the worst catastrophe that could happen to him, because he is paid in accordance with the number of people unemployed. If, therefore, unemployment is substantially reduced or abolished, the office of the branch manager is either abolished or his salary is reduced to microscopic proportions. That appears to me to be a vicious method of employment. It is certainly a complete negation of everything that employment exchanges were originally created for. On the Continent, where, of course, employment exchanges are in existence longer than they are here, such offices are known as placing offices. They place people who are out of employment. The general intention underlying our unemployment exchange system was to endeavour to place unemployed persons in employment. However, so far as the manager of a branch employment office is concerned, if he manages to place a substantial number of people who are registered as unemployed at his office in posts his salary stands in dire danger of being reduced.

Not only are these managers notoriously underpaid, but the whole system under which they are employed is vicious. It is most unfair that a man should have his wages computed on the basis that the more people he has registered, the more salary he will get, and that when the number registered falls, his salary will fall accordingly. Clearly it is no encouragement to a manager to try to place those registered in his office in employment when the fact of placing them will reduce his salary. The basis of such a contract with the manager seems to me to depart from every decent standard.

When I introduced my comprehensive Social Welfare Bill which, of course, provided much wider services than the present one does, I contemplated taking the managers of branch employment offices into the direct employment of the State. That is, I proposed to absorb into the Civil Service proper those managers who could be certified to be giving full time to their employment offices. I had in mind absorbing those managers into the Civil Service either in an established capacity, or, if that were not possible, in an unestablished capacity. I had contemplated paying them on the basis of being regular civil servants, not on the basis of the number of persons who were registered at their offices, and encouraging them all the time, to ensure that, as far as possible, those who were registered at their offices would be placed in employment. The manager would be placing unemployed persons in posts in the knowledge that, by doing so, he was not in danger of getting a cut in his salary. I feel there would follow from a re-grading of that kind better administration in branch employment offices and better supervision of the whole unemployment problem.

I do not know whether the Minister has any intentions along that line, but it is a problem which cannot be postponed indefinitely. I would strongly urge the Minister, if he has not already done so, to examine the problem with a view to abolishing the present rate of remuneration, which I look on as vicious in its whole conception, and with a view to absorbing managers of branch employment offices into the Civil Service and regarding them as regular officers of the Civil Service. I know, of course, that it will be argued, particularly by the Department of Finance, that such an arrangement would mean more costly running of branch employment offices. Of course, it would mean more costly running of these offices. It always costs money to abolish slavery, and to do the thing decently. However, increased cost is no justification for maintaining a system of employment and remuneration which cannot be defended by reference to any decent standard. If it costs more to run branch employment offices, by reason of having them staffed by regular civil servants, then, I feel, that the community will have the compensation of knowing that these offices will be administered better, that there will be better supervision in those offices, and that factors of an undesirable character which grew up under the present system can be eliminated. Staffing by civil servants would quickly kill many of the difficulties which are inseperable from the present method of staffing these employment exchanges.

There are in the Department of When I had responsibility for the Social Welfare quite a considerable number of temporary clerks. These are officers who are employed in the main at employment exchanges throughout the country. They are the direct employees of the Department and many of them have been employed there for a considerable number of years. When I was in the Department of Social Welfare I was anxious to do something to provide these officers with an opportunity of securing established appointments. With that object in view, and in order to overcome the difficulties presented by the Civil Service Regulation Acts, I arranged for an examination to be held with a view to providing the temporary officers concerned with an opportunity of securing established appointments. The examination was, in fact, held for a certain number of vacancies but with the hope that the number of successful candidates could be extended and that established appointments could be provided for a considerably greater number of officers than those who qualified for the vacancies actually advertised. I do not know whether the Minister has since called any additional candidates from that examination but it is a problem which ought to be tackled with some sympathy and understanding. It is not fair that those who have been employed for a great many years should continue to remain in a temporary capacity.

In the case of those who competed in the examination and who demonstrated their educational suitability for established appointments, the Minister should make special arrangements to have those temporary officers called for established appointments and thus recognise the long and faithful service they have given to the State. There is a considerable number of these temporary officers in Dublin and there is quite a number of them at employment exchanges throughout the country. It is a problem which will ultimately have to be tackled comprehensively and now that the Minister has got through his Social Welfare Bill, which ought to provide expanding opportunities for employment in the Department, I hope he will lose no time in dealing with that problem and that he will find it possible to hold out hope to those who qualified in the last examination that established appointments will be forthcoming for them, even though it may be some little time before the Department would be able to absorb them directly on to the established class.

One other matter I wish to raise is this question of decentralisation. When the present Minister was on the Opposition Benches two, three and four years ago, he suddenly developed a passion for decentralisation; so did some of his colleagues, notably those from Cork and Galway. At that time everybody was bursting to have the Department of Social Welfare transferred either to Cork or Galway without, of course, the slightest regard for anybody who worked in the Department of Social Welfare. I assume from that that the fertile notions which the Minister had in 1949 and 1950 of uprooting the Department of Social Welfare from Dublin and transplanting it in some hallowed spot in Cork or Galway have by now fertilised into a master scheme for the transfer of the Department to either of those cities. The Minister has had 12 months now in which to meditate upon this master plan which we saw only in its embryonic stages about three years ago. No doubt he has filled in all the blanks during the past 12 months and he now contemplates, with the power at his disposal, transferring the Department to various cities or perhaps to one city outside Dublin, so as to prevent this monster of centralisation smothering the citizens of this city.

Will the Minister now tell us on this Estimate what he has done during the past 12 months to give effect to the decentralisation notions which he unfolded in this House a few years ago, how far he has got with the plan of decentralisation, what notice will be given to the staff of the Department of Social Welfare as to the date upon which they will be transferred, either to Galway or to Cork, and what accommodation will be provided for them in the way of housing? He might also tell us what opportunities they will get to bid good-bye and make all the necessary family arrangements in respect to those members of the family who cannot probably be transferred when this scheme of decentralisation is operated. Now that the Minister has the power to implement the decentralisation scheme we ought to have from him on this Vote some idea as to when this scheme will reach maturity and when this mass transfer of the Department is likely to take place.

Mr. MacCarthy

On the point of decentralisation raised by Deputy Norton and the facilities to be given in other cities to members of the staff who may be transferred, I am sure Deputy Norton realises that many of those employed in the Department would merely be going home. There are many applications from time to time of that nature. However, that point aside, it would be desirable at times, in connection with matters which have to come to headquarters to be dealt with, that the local managers and the officials would have more power to make quick decisions on matters that dealt with local problems. In many cases it is pure waste of time and causes inconvenience to the persons concerned to be referring all matters to headquarters. Once a general policy is determined the local officers should get more authority to deal with these problems they meet with from day to day.

On the question of salaries of unestablished officers to which Deputy Norton referred, there is a point in what he says. Too often we have a number of those unestablished officers in various Government Departments who, perhaps, eke out an existence well enough until they have come to their declining years, but then when it comes to the matter of pension and all the rest they suffer very serious disabilities.

As far as possible officers who go full-time, or very nearly full-time, in the Civil Service should be established and, thereby, have their future secured.

It is undesirable that salaries should be based on the number of unemployed in a particular area. Many are unemployed to-day really because of a change of system, and are for that reason deserving of very special consideration. In many of our employment exchanges to-day there are people registered for whom very, very few opportunities of employment are available. Some of these in their younger days were trained as office clerks, and so on. Because of the development of the typewriter, the comptometer and other office machinery of that type these clerks are now registering at the unemployment exchanges. I suppose that is the way of civilisation, and progress in one direction almost inevitably means victimisation of some group of people who have passed beyond the age when they can learn new methods or operate new machines. Consequently many of these unemployment lists bear no relation to the number that are really employable in present-day circumstances. What can be done for them is a problem that presents some difficulty. The managers in the local labour exchanges co-operate to the fullest extent with the local authorities in trying to get a few months for these particular people during the summer period when the regular clerks and office staff employed by local authorities are on annual leave. That is the only season of the year when any hope of employment is held out for many of these people.

Decentralisation was referred to by Deputy Norton. It has much to recommend it. If in the principal towns and cities, as seems to be the case, we have very competent officers in charge of the various Government sub-departments, I think they should have discretionary power to deal with matters affecting their own particular areas.

I want to appeal to the Minister, too, in relation to applications for special allowances. I am referring to the Old I.R.A. men in various parts of the country. I think the investigation into their means carried out by the social welfare officers should be done as expeditiously as possible. In many cases these welfare officers have their routine work to do and it is inevitable that some delay occurs in dealing with these special cases because of the applicants' inability to attend at a particular place for the investigation. A certain amount of travel may be entailed and certain arrangements may have to be made. All these things cause delay. I am sure the Minister will ensure that the reports to the Department of Defence are speeded up so that those who are qualified for special allowances will get them as quickly as possible. I think that practically all these matters have been discussed already in connection with the Social Welfare Bill. Very little remains to be said beyond pointing out a few items here and there where more efficiency and quicker decisions might be to the advantage of the service generally.

Mr. Cogan

Not being a representative of either Galway or Cork I have no very special interest in decentralisation. I am not sufficiently optimistic to hope that it might be possible to transfer the headquarters of the Social Welfare Department to Rathdrum, Baltinglass, or anywhere else in my constituency. My interest in this question, therefore, is mainly in connection with the suggestion that has been made that we should aim at decentralisation in the form of giving more authority to the local exchange managers. In that connection I think it is desirable that a new approach should be made by these officers and by the Department generally to the whole problem of unemployment. I am not now dealing with the question of finding employment or reducing the number of unemployed, because that is more or less bound up with industrial and agricultural development.

In the ordinary operation of the Social Welfare Department the bulk of the unemployed is made up of those who in some way or other missed an opportunity or have been jostled out of the opportunities offered of getting whatever employment is available. These people are deserving of particular attention and special consideration quite apart altogether from any monetary State aid that may be made available to them. I think it is essential that there should be a better understanding and a more sympathetic investigation of their circumstances by the officers of the Minister's Department. I agree with what Deputy Norton has said, namely, that the main interest of the manager of the labour exchange should be to try to find employment for these unemployed and fit them in in some capacity wherever work can be obtained. In order to do that it is essential that the personal circumstances of each applicant for unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance should be carefully investigated and the qualifications of the applicants for any work that may be available more thoroughly examined.

I think the labour exchange should be called an employment office and it should be the function of the manager of that office to concern himself mainly with the task of finding employment. In order to do that he should study the qualifications of each applicant and his family and personal circumstances. Since this work is most important in the life of the nation from a purely social point of view, I think it is desirable that public-spirited people should be asked to co-operate with the local manager in seeking to help the unemployed and in assisting them in every possible way. In the same way as we have vocational educational committees we should have employment committees representative of the people, representative of the workers' organisations, representative of the Church, representative of business. I think such committees would be of immense benefit and would perhaps help to raise the tone of the matter to a higher level.

There is always a danger when a young person starts to draw unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance that he or she will tend to become a chronic recipient and may develop a mentality of looking to the labour exchange for benefit rather than seeking employment. For that reason it is desirable that those people should be helped by advice and instruction as to where and how to seek employment and should be facilitated in availing of any technical education that may be within reach. In regard to younger people it is essential that, if they are unemployed, they should be given every opportunity to improve themselves by attendance at vocational classes where they are available. A local committee working in co-operation with the exchange manager would be of immense benefit in that direction. People who are unemployed should not be regarded as untouchable in the community. Our aim should be to lift these people up and to help them to get on their feet. If they have not an opportunity of obtaining technical training the opportunity should be provided for them. That would help them to overcome any obstacles they may meet in life and to secure employment.

Dr. Maguire

I want to bring to the notice of the Minister the disabilities from which the national health insurance agents have suffered for quite a long period. It is unnecessary for me to state that it is really due to the devotion and loyalty shown by these national health insurance agents over a number of years since the initiation of national health insurance in this country that the former society was the success which it proved to be. Anyone who is very well acquainted with the duties imposed on national health insurance agents is astonished that their position has been defined as parttime. It appears to me that this is merely a form of escape by the Government in connection with their responsibilities to these people.

As a dispensary doctor I have very close association with the work performed by the national health insurance agents and I am convinced that their work cannot be done within reasonable hours. I am aware that night work, overtime, and even Sunday work, have been necessary in order to cope with the enormous amount of clerical work which needs attention from time to time.

The prospect for those agents who, since 1934, have by their efforts made amalgamation the success it has been, is anything but rosy. After spending 30 or 40 years as insurance agents they are forced to retire at 65 without pension or provision of any kind. It is only natural that, having given the best years of their lives to the service of the State, they would resent being thrown on the scrap-heap without any prospect other than to become a burden on the community. As we all know, these very loyal and hardworking servants have spent the best years of their lives travelling over bad roads on push-bicycles in order to carry out their duties. With the exception of those serving in the Cities of Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Dublin, they are paid on a capitation basis. This system militated against them inasmuch as the number of insured persons in the rural areas has not been on the increase, with the result that their emoluments have been sadly depleted.

I am informed that during the past couple of years agents have had on occasions to send reports to the Department concerning persons claiming benefit or pensions from the British Ministry of National Insurance and that they have not yet received any payment for such work which in strict justice they would be entitled to receive.

In connection with these servants we must remember that it was as a result of their attitude, courtesy and attention to duty at the start that non-compliance and malingering ceased. It was always very difficult for dispensary doctors certifying people to separate the malingerers from the genuine cases. It was as a result of the efforts of the national health insurance agents in this regard that the society were able to eliminate all but the genuine claims and so ensure the success which the society undoubtedly attained.

In order to obtain the continued success of the amalgamation and the new Social Welfare Bill, it is even more essential to ensure the continued loyalty and devotion of these agents. The one sure way to achieve that is to see that each agent is content and satisfied with his conditions of employment. I would ask the Minister to consider the claims of these people sympathetically and thereby ensure continuation of what the Minister and the Department admit was genuine loyalty on their part.

In connection with blind pensions, it appears that where a man has a blind wife and, say, three or four children, and he is earning, say, £131 a year or £2 10s. a week, the wife is assessed with half his earnings and is not entitled to pension. That is a matter that should be rectified. It is very unfair that the blind wife of a man who is earning £2 10s. a week should not receive some form of compensation for this tragic state of affairs. I do not know if the Minister intends to amend the section which covers such cases but I would appeal to him to see, if possible, that in such cases the wife would not be assessed with half her husband's earnings and that she would be able to receive some little form of consolation from the State in her affliction.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude?

Mr. Norton

Subject to the right to ask a question on the Estimates.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, of course.

Dr. Ryan

I want to deal first with Deputy Norton's appeal for certain amenities for old people. I was not aware that the Deputy had done anything about that matter but, naturally, I quite accept what he says. Consequently, I had not done anything by way of continuing those efforts.

I quite agree that we should encourage in every way we can the voluntary effort which is directed towards the praiseworthy effort to provide certain amenities for old people. Some Deputies may not be aware that the Red Cross have recently been devoting a good deal of attention to this matter. They have started old folks' societies which are organised, as a matter of fact, by some of the younger people in the Red Cross. The object is to visit those old people fairly regularly and especially what are called the lonely old people, that is, people who are living alone. They do messages for those people, help them to tidy up their houses and take them out for organised motor drives. They even organise socials for them in the way of concerts, teas and so forth. I have no doubt that they would be very glad to consider Deputy Norton's suggestion of finding out if they can get either free entertainment at a cinema or entertainment at a nominal fee. I shall pass the Deputy's suggestion on to them. I think it is much better that a voluntary organisation should do that type of thing rather than that the Department should do it officially. Of course, if they ask for help in any negotiations I shall be glad to give it. Certainly, it is an idea that is worth pursuing. We shall see if it will bear results.

I am very anxious to encourage voluntary effort in other directions as well. Deputy Cogan mentioned that there might be some committee to co-operate with the manager of the branch exchange. I had not that in mind exactly, but I had in mind encouraging the provision of voluntary committees all over the country for, in particular, rehabilitation. I had in mind in particular people who are down and out because they could not get work for a long time or people who are down and out as a result of illness or for some other reason. I had in mind that I should like very much to encourage the organisation of voluntary committees who would take an interest in such people, who would call on certain employers who might have suitable employment for some of those people and who would try to persuade the employer to give a certain poor person a chance. I do not know how successful such an effort might be but, in any event, it might do a certain amount of good. I mention it now because it is an extension of the idea put forward to-day by Deputy Norton.

On the subject of branch offices, the position is as stated by Deputy Norton, namely, that the salary is based on the per capita rate or, in other words, the number on the register. I agree that it is a bad system. However honest and anxious a man might be in his efforts to secure employment for those on his register, it must cause him a certain amount of personal anxiety if he is too successful in his efforts. I should very much favour changing the system. Personally, I am not keen on taking all those people into the Civil Service. The Civil Service system is unwieldy for men who have to do work of that kind. Sometimes they must work a long number of hours and at other times they have very little to do. I think a contract of service would be better so that whatever amount of work might fall to be done within the year would be done irrespective of the long hours and the short hours of duty. Having said that, I agree that the men should be properly treated and properly paid. I am aware that Deputy Kennedy, the Parliamentary Secretary, has a report practically ready on the subject of branch offices in general.

It covers the type of office that is maintained in the various towns and villages, whether that office should be improved, whether there should be a general improvement all round or merely an improvement in certain cases. As well as discussing the building, he also has a report on the conditions applying to the office of branch manager. He is making certain recommendations as a result of an inspection which he made personally of a good many of those offices. I promised to have his review considered very carefully as soon as the legislation was passed. That is completed now, of course. Therefore I think I may say to Deputy Norton and to others who mentioned this matter that the whole question of branch offices, including personnel and conditions of employment, will be examined in the very near future. That will also apply to the national health agents. I agree with Deputy Dr. Maguire that those people have given very long hours of service to what is called a part-time job. I think that, on the whole, they have been a very good group of public servants. They have done their work very efficiently. Therefore they deserve to have the position reviewed also.

The policy advocated by Deputy Norton is being pursued in regard to temporary clerks. These men are being absorbed whenever an opportunity arises. Therefore I think the Deputy may take it that these men are being treated as he would wish them to be treated.

Mr. Norton

My recollection is that not less than ten vacancies were advertised in respect of the last examination. How many were called, over and above the minimum number advertised, from the last examination?

Dr. Ryan

I have not that information with me now.

Mr. Norton

I think that at the time ten were called or were in process of being called. The question of calling more was related to the subsequent developments in staff, matters consequent on the new Bill. Will the Minister look into the matter?

Dr. Ryan

Certainly. That will be kept in mind. I do not think that, in itself, the Bill will create much extra employment. However, it may.

I am in favour of decentralisation as a means of providing employment for more people in some of the larger towns throughout the country and in that way preventing Dublin from growing too large. I was in favour of decentralisation in 1947. In 1947 I sent a very important officer of the Department to Galway and Cork to investigate the possibilities of the decentralisation of the Department of Social Welfare. We were only investigating the matter at that time. It is not to be taken as anything other than an investigation if I send an officer to report on the possibilities of getting offices in Cork and Galway, to report on the accommodation which is there already, on whether or not it would be necessary to build an office and on the sites available; secondly, to discuss the matter of housing of the staffs with the county manager. That also was discussed. I think any Minister in any Department should consider ideas like that. There is no reason to conclude, however, that it will go on and that staffs will be ordered to Cork or Galway whether they like it or not. Instead of spending £500,000 on the Land Commission buildings if the Government sent an inspector round to have a look at the Phoenix Park, I think he was bound to do that but that is no reason why a Deputy should go down the country and say we are going to spend £25,000,000 on Government buildings. The same thing applies to decentralisation. The fact that I sent an officer down does not mean that next month or the month after officials will be sent to Cork or Galway. We should do as much decentralisation as we can but I do not think we will ever succeed in getting rid of the nucleus of a social welfare office. That will be in Dublin, where the Parliament and the Minister is. Dublin is the natural centre of the country for co-ordinating matters and the central office will also be here. I am, however, still keen on seeing how much can be decentralised.

In my reference to a report that is being prepared on the branch offices, one of the things I asked to have reviewed at the same time was how much work could be left efficiently with the branch offices and not have all sent up to Dublin to be dealt with. I think a certain amount could be left with each branch office. Some more work could be left in Galway or Cork but I have no idea how much work could be so left. I think everybody will agree that I am right in having the matter investigated. If, as a result of that investigation, we find that 5 per cent. of the work could be done in the branch offices and another 10 per cent. done in the provincial offices we will have gone a long way towards decentralisation. I would like to reassure the staffs that they are not going to be ordered down to Cork or Galway.

Mr. Norton

That is only in the Minister's mind. The buildings will remain here.

Dr. Ryan

We have, as Deputy MacCarthy explained, some civil servants here from Cork and from time to time they ask to be transferred back to Cork. That does belie the statement that every Corkman wants to get to Dublin. The same thing applies to Galway. If we could get some of the work done in Galway or Cork we would have quite sufficient volunteers but if we have not got them my idea is that we should make the few top jobs very attractive for these men. We ought not to force them but let them know there is promotion. I am quite sure that we will get men in the Department to volunteer for promotion if that is how this matter is to be approached.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister compare that statement with the speech he made three years ago?

Dr. Ryan

I am quite sure that I promised the Deputy strongly to decentralise. Why should I not? I am in favour of decentralisation in so far as we can do that efficiently. When I said 5 per cent. of the work might be done efficiently in branch offices and 20 per cent. in the provincial offices, I would be more pleased if I find, on investigation, that that can be made 40 per cent.

Mr. Norton

The Minister knows perfectly well how limited that could be.

Dr. Ryan

How do I? I have not investigated the matter at all yet. I have investigated to find out how much can be done but that is all I have done at the moment.

Mr. Norton

Your officials will tell you very quickly.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy MacCarthy raised a point about special allowances. I shall certainly see that the investigation officers will do this job as soon as possible, although I am almost certain that I will find they are doing it as quickly as they can. I do not think there is delay but if Deputy MacCarthy tells me there is I must accept it and see that the matter is expedited in future.

Mr. MacCarthy

Their work is secondary. They have their other work to do as well.

Dr. Ryan

I know. The only other point raised was the one by Deputy Dr. Maguire in reference to the blind pensioner whose wife is blind and the blind pensioner's earnings——

Dr. Maguire

Not where the pensioner is blind but where the wife is blind.

Dr. Ryan

It is the same thing. Her means would be assessed at half. That is a general rule all through the old age pensions and blind pensions codes. The matter was considered generally whether we should try to make half of the husband's earnings go to the wife or half of the wife's earnings go to the husband. I am afraid it would be very hard to make an exception in this case although I can promise that it will be considered in case we are revising that code. That probably will not be revised for some time.

Dr. Maguire

In the case the Minister mentioned where a blind man is earning, is he not given an allowance?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Maguire

Why should not the other case be treated similarly? After all, it is a more deserving case.

General Mulcahy

I have a question to raise on No. 62. The Minister, I understand, is introducing a radical change in the payment of children's allowances. Instead of having the payment made through the post office, as was the practice up to now, does the Minister propose to cross the allowance dockets and have them paid through the bank?

Dr. Ryan

That is only where a person applies to do so.

General Mulcahy

It will not be a general thing?

Dr. Ryan

No.

General Mulcahy

There is no radical change in the way it is proposed to pay it?

Dr. Ryan

No. They will be paid through the post office.

General Mulcahy

Except where people apply to have it paid through the bank?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Norton

With regard to No. 65——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is better to raise all the questions now.

Mr. Norton

Are dental benefits running at the moment?

Dr. Ryan

They are not owing to a disagreement.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister tell us what is the position in regard to the suspension of dental benefits and what has brought this event about?

Dr. Ryan

The Dentists' Association asked for a revision of the fee payable and we cannot agree. That is the whole trouble. That happened before on one occasion. No dental benefit would be paid in the meantime.

Mr. Norton

Since what date have those dental benefits been suspended? Are there any negotiations proceeding with the dentists and are there any prospects that this dispute may be brought to an end?

Dr. Ryan

Since the 1st April. I think the Deputy has too much experience of matters of this kind to expect me to answer whether there is any possibility of ending the disagreement.

Mr. Norton

Are there any negotiations taking place at the moment?

Dr. Ryan

Not just at the moment. The dentists say they are entitled to a new scale of fees and I say they are not.

Mr. Norton

You are not talking to the dentists at the moment?

Dr. Ryan

Not actually.

Mr. Norton

Insured persons entitled to dental treatment will now have to wait.

Mr. Cogan

A letter appeared in an evening paper during the week to the effect that children's allowances, which are now being paid monthly, do not amount to the full 4/-.

Dr. Ryan

The amount will be a bit more. The monthly payment comes to 2d. more than if it were paid weekly.

General Mulcahy

There are many insured persons who would be entitled to dental benefits at the moment and who, because of the urgency of their cases, may have to get themselves attended to. Will it be possible for persons who get dental treatment while this dispute is in progress to get retrospective payment when the dispute is over and an agreement has been arrived at?

Dr. Ryan

I am sure that would be impossible.

General Mulcahy

Let us take the case of an insured person entitled to dental treatment who needs dental treatment, say, in the month of June, and who would receive it but for the fact that this dispute is in progress. Suppose such a person, because of the very great urgency of his or her case had to get teeth attended to, will he or she be entitled to retrospective payment, say, in October, when a satisfactory agreement has been arrived at?

Mr. Norton

Before the Minister answers this question may I say this? Dental treatment is a very spread out operation. A person goes along to the dentist who looks at his teeth and suggests treatment. There is a fair amount of coming and going in the preliminary stages. Then the dentist extracts the teeth. There is another interregnum while the person concerned is waiting to get an impression taken. This transaction drags along for months, and for years in some circumstances. This strike has been in operation since the 1st April. I suppose one may call it a strike. On the day before the strike took place, there must have been quite a considerable number of insured persons in the hands of dentists awaiting treatment. But for the fact that this dispute intervened, their treatment would have continued and ultimately they would have got out of the dentist's hands and have had their requirements satisfactorily met. The Dental Association now say: "We will not do any more business until we get a new agreement from the Department." What has become of the people who had teeth extracted before the 1st April and who have had an impression taken by the dentist? If such people make up their minds, for one reason or another, that they want to have full dental treatment and do, in fact, get such treatment, surely debarring them from the benefit which they would have got as insured persons under the National Health Insurance Acts is not contemplated? Is it now contemplated that persons who are entitled to benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts are to be denied these benefits because they proceed to have the treatment completed by a dentist in his private capacity? Would the Minister clarify the position in this regard?

Dr. Ryan

As a matter of fact, all insured persons who were receiving treatment on the 1st April have had that treatment finished. Only those who needed treatment after the 1st April will be affected. Everybody who applied for treatment prior to that date has had his treatment completed.

Deputy Mulcahy asked whether we could, as it were, make retrospective provision so as to pay those who would be treated in the meantime. I am afraid that would be impossible. Even if I say we will have the matter considered, I feel it is extremely unlikely that anything will be done.

General Mulcahy

The Minister will appreciate, of course, that this practically means a withdrawal by the State of dental treatment over a period. I am sure that is not the desire. If an agreement were in operation the State would have been prepared to give this free dental treatment. I feel that an impossible position will be created for the Minister if persons are made to suffer—in urgent cases at any rate.

Mr. Norton

The present dispute is probably one of the most difficult disputes to settle. On the one hand there is a dental association which is well organised and in no way dependent on this kind of work for the livelihood of its members. On the other hand there is the State with all its majesty and all its starchiness. On what terms is this dispute going to be settled? That is the problem. If it is left in the hands of the Dental Association it will be a long-drawn-out matter. The State's resources in matters of this kind are limitless and the Dental Association is sufficiently strong to be able to dig its heels in permanently. On the one hand the State will sit tight, the staff in the Department will not be losing a penny; the Dental Association will continue to get patients, and it is only the unfortunate insured persons who will lose as a result of the dispute. No wounds will be inflicted on the State, the Dental Association will be able to hold out for anything like 12 months, and the unfortunate insured person will have to suffer while this battle of wits is going on between both sides.

This is an occasion in which there ought to be some sense of savvy. Somebody ought to approach the problem from a statesmanlike point of view with a view to getting the matter settled. I would suggest to the Minister, if he feels he has justice on his side, to get the matter examined either by a single arbitrator or by a group of arbitrators. Both sides would be bound by the arbitrator's award. If the Minister does not want to waste time getting an arbitrator to deal with a matter of this kind, perhaps the thing to do would be to take the case to the Labour Court.

The Labour Court is a qualified board, recognised by legislation and composed of persons competent to express an opinion on a dispute of this kind. Both sides, the Department on the one hand and the Dental Association on the other hand, could come before it and have the dispute resolved. It would be a much better arrangement than having both parties sitting down, making faces at each other and getting into a strait-jacket, as happens in disputes of this kind. As I said before, the Minister should submit the case either to a single arbitrator, to a group of arbitrators or else get the matter resolved by the Labour Court. Both sides would be bound by the award. Would the Minister consider doing anything on these lines?

Dr. Ryan

I think it would be better to leave the matter as it is.

General Mulcahy

The point raised by Deputy Norton is important. I feel it would be as well to isolate the staff problem from the major problem and to ask the Minister to discuss it in cold blood. Where people are going to be deprived of dental benefit of all kinds from 1st April until this dispute is settled, I think the Minister would come to the conclusion that that would be unreasonable.

Dr. Ryan

The people need not be deprived of dental treatment for a long period, because if they are able to make the case to the local authority that they need dental treatment and cannot pay for it, the local authority will provide for them. If they can pay for it they will pay it themselves.

General Mulcahy

That is side stepping into another realm entirely.

Mr. Norton

The Minister was never a member of a local authority.

Dr. Ryan

I was.

Dr. Maguire

Concerning the claims of the dentists, will their claims be considered on the basis of making their position pensionable?

Dr. Ryan

I find it very hard to understand what the position is. I think the position is permanent but it is not pensionable. Under Deputy Norton's legislation they were made civil servants.

Mr. Norton

They were taken over. They were required to resign at 65. They may now carry on after 65 but they have no pensions.

Dr. Maguire

It is no advantage to to be permanent if their posts are not pensionable.

Dr. Ryan

The whole thing will be considered.

Vote put and agreed to.