I move:-
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in courseof payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.
The Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare, for which I am seeking the approval of the Dáil to-day, have been rearranged following the passing of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. As Deputies will have observed, they now consist of three instead of the seven Votes of former years-(1) that for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare; (2) a Social Insurance Estimate, and (3) a Social Assistance Estimate.
As far as the first is concerned, there is no material change from previous years in the form of the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare. It provides, in the main, for the administrative costs of departmental establishment.
The Social Insurance Estimate—the second of the three—provides mainly for the payment to the Social Insurance Fund by the Exchequer of the amount by which the expenditure of the fund is likely to exceed its income in the financial year. This payment, provided for under the 1952 Act, takes the place of various Exchequer payments in respect of the various contributory insurance schemes which formerly were made from separate Votes in respect of the different schemes. Thus the former National Health Insurance Vote ceases to be necessary, it being now one of the elements in the new merged Vote. Unemployment insurance is also an element in this Vote instead of figuring with unemployment assistance as a separate Vote in previous years. Finally, the State contribution for contributory widows' and orphans' pensions completes the composition of this Insurance Vote, leaving non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions to be dealt with in the separate Assistance Vote, to which it is more appropriate.
This more rational grouping of the insurance costs is accompanied by a complementary grouping of expenditure on assistance schemes. The Minister for Finance felt—and I agreed withhim-that, in order to present a complete picture of the Exchequer payments in respect of the non-contributory social welfare services, these payments should form a third Estimate-the new Social Assistance Vote. This Vote provides for unemployment assistance; non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions; old age pensions; children's allowances; and the miscellaneous social welfare services.
I think Deputies will agree that this reduction in the number of Votes, and the new alignment generally, is an improvement on the previous provisions. The Committee of Public Accounts has approved of the changes. I must admit that they may make it a little more difficult to compare the figures in the present Estimates with the corresponding figures for previous years. This is regretted, but it is an objection which will pass, and it is outweighed by the advantages of the neater presentation of accounts.
The Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare shows a net increase of £141,280 as compared with last year. I should say at once that this apparent increase is not due to any actual rise in the cost of administering my Department. That cost has, in fact, gone down. The apparent increase is explained by the fact that in last year's Estimate amounts appropriated from the various insurance funds in aid of the cost of administration were all credited to this Vote, with the exception of about £52,000, paid over to certain other Votes by the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund. The Social Welfare Act, 1952, provides for the recoupment to other Departments of costs incurred by them in administering all the insurance services, whereas formerly those Departments were only reimbursed costs incurred in connection with the administration of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts. As a result of this provision, it is estimated that a sum of over £235,000 will be paid by the Social Insurance Fund in the present year to Votes other than that for the office of the Minister for Social Welfare. This increase in the amount so paid to other Votes, as compared with the £52,000 of last year, is£183,000. The transfer of this sum from my Vote to other Votes more than accounts for the apparent increase of £141,000 shown in the Vote now before the House.
As I have already stated, there has actually been a decrease of over £21,000 in the provision for salaries and wages for the current year, and a net reduction of 90 in the number of officials serving in the Department. The most striking feature of these economies is that they have been achieved in face of greatly increased work thrown on my Department by the Social Welfare Act of 1952 and by the Children's Allowances Act of 1952. The latter Act, alone, increased by over 40 per cent. the number of families in receipt of children's allowances. The overall reduction in the number of officials in the Department was even greater-substantially greater-than the 90 mentioned, but it was offset by the necessity for allocating additional personnel, temporarily at least, to certain sections to meet additional work imposed by the new legislation.
As one of the major criticisms levelled at the recent social welfare legislation by ill-informed opponents was that it would entail "thousands of additional civil servants," I think it well to lay some emphasis on the administrative savings which have been achieved in my Department. Deputies are entitled to know the result of the efforts which have been made continuously, since the Department's establishment in 1947, to secure economies by eliminating unnecessary work and by increasing efficiency by the introduction of modern office equipment and improved working methods.
In the first year of the Department's separate existence, there was a net reduction in personnel of 164, which meant £28,000 a year in wages, equivalent at the present time to £36,000 a year. Each subsequent year added its quota of economies until, by the end of 1951, the total net reduction in staff had passed the 200 mark, representing a wages bill-excluding the recent arbitration award—of about £60,000 a year. Since 1951, as a result of a systematic overhaul of organisation andprocedure in three important sections of the Department, there has been a reduction of 205, with an estimated saving of £92,000 per annum in salaries when allowance is made for new work arising from the recent legislation.
It will be seen from what I have said that, since the inception of the Department up to date, substantial economies have been effected in the administration of the social services. The staffs administering the services taken over in 1947 have been reduced by more than 400, and a saving in the annual cost of salaries of about £150,000 per annum has been effected.
It is, however, necessary to point out that recent legislation has added in many ways to the work of the Department, and additions have had to be made to the staffs of some sections to cope with this increase in the work. Employment exchanges and central records and benefits sections (from which disability benefits is paid) have, in particular, been affected in this way. The staff of the records and benefits sections has been increased by approximately 60 during the past year, but it is not yet clear that this represents the ultimate addition which will be necessary. Furthermore, the volume of sickness experience is giving cause for perturbation, and unless the position improves it may shortly be necessary to take additional steps to safeguard the Social Insurance Fund by a strengthening of the medical referee staff and, perhaps, such supervisory and checking units as the inspectorate. The House may be assured, however, that, consistent with maintaining efficiency and security over the expenditure of voted moneys and money from the Social Insurance Fund, no efforts will be spared in my Department to keep costs of administration as low as possible.
When the transfer of the headquarters staff of my Department to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada has been completed, it may well be that further economies in staff can be effected. The improved accommodation and facilities are bound to be reflected in increased efficiency.
As Deputies will be aware, the bulk of the headquarters staff of the Department are now housed in Áras MhicDhiarmada. It is hoped that about 850 heads of staff will be accommodated there, and already over 650 have moved in. The remainder of the staff to be housed there will be moved in before the close of this year. Hitherto, the different branches of the Department were housed in ten or 11 different buildings throughout the city. The advantage of having all the staff in the same building will be obvious, and will lead to greater administrative smoothness and a closer liaison between the various services which are administered by the Department.
It has not been possible to provide a public office in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada. A temporary public office where personal inquiries are dealt with has been opened in the Custom House annexe but the general position regarding a permanent public office, which, of course, is essential for the Department, is at present under examination.
As I am dealing with Áras Mhic Dhiarmada I would like to correct some misapprehensions that appear to exist in some persons' minds regarding certain aspects of the building. I have seen from time to time allegations that no Irish furniture or equipment was purchased for the building. That, of course, is untrue, as my reply to Deputy Norton's question on the subject last April made clear. The bulk of the furniture and equipment is Irish made; in the main, only equipment which was not obtainable in Ireland was imported. The principal equipment which came from foreign sources consisted of accounting machines, Power-Samas equipment, addressing machines and the like, which are not made in Ireland. This machinery is, of course, extremely expensive but it is equipment which is absolutely necessary for the efficient functioning of the Department. Almost £62,500 has been spent in equipping Áras Mhic Dhiarmada, and of this sum the amount spent on Irish-made fittings and furniture was about £35,500.
There has also been criticism of the fact that the penthouse restaurant on the sixth floor is not available to the public. Charges have been made thatthe Department is depriving the public of an amenity that they would otherwise have. I want to make it quite clear that this restaurant was never at any stage in the designing and construction of Áras Mhic Dhiarmada intended for public use. It was originally intended as a staff restaurant for the workers in C.I.E. It now serves as a restaurant for the staff of the Department instead. Certain modifications in the original design of this restaurant were necessary following the change of purpose of the building and these modifications were carried out in an economical fashion. I hope that, by making it clear that this restaurant was never designed for public use, a stop will be put to what I can only describe as ill-informed criticism.
I now turn to the Vote for Social Insurance, No. 61 in the Book of Estimates. The main purpose of this Vote is to provide for the payment to the Social Insurance Fund by the Exchequer of the amount by which the expenditure of the fund will exceed its income during the year. At the time this Estimate was prepared, this amount was computed at £1,941,000. This calculation was, of course, made before the Social Welfare Act, 1952, came into full operation, and it was necessarily a conjectural figure. Expenditure on unemployment benefit and on disability benefit has been much heavier than was anticipated, and it is now clear that the amount provided in the Estimate will not be sufficient. A substantial Supplementary Estimate will, accordingly, be presented to the House in due course to cover the deficiency which will now inevitably arise on the full year's working of the insurance scheme.
The live register has shown an increase during 1953 over the figures for 1952. I would like to warn the House, however, that, in order to avoid drawing exaggerated conclusions from this increase, it is necessary to have regard to the considerable effect which the operation of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, has had upon the live register. For instance, following the coming into operation of the Act, agricultural workers were enabled for the first timeto qualify for unemployment benefit. To those already insured the modification of the contribution conditions gave benefit for a much longer period and, in addition, persons who had exhausted some or all of their title to unemployment benefit were enabled to qualify afresh. Deputies will recollect that there is a provision in the Act enabling qualified persons over 65 years of age to draw benefits continuously until they reach the age of 70. This also helps to swell the number on the live register. As well as these matters, the means limit for unemployment assistance was raised and the rates of assistance considerably increased.
The reduction in the live register which normally takes place about the end of March each year on the coming into operation of the First Employment Period Order was influenced this year by two factors arising from the Social Welfare Act, 1952. In the first place, persons whose claims for unemployment assistance would have been disallowed during the employment period in previous years, qualified for unemployment benefit and so continued to register. Secondly, in previous years a person whose claim was disallowed for the employment period had no incentive to continue to register. Under the 1952 Act, however, contributions can be credited to a person for weeks of proved unemployment. The incentive, therefore, to continue to register during the employment period is very great since credited contributions will be essential to qualify for the various benefits at a later stage. There is no doubt but that these facilities have tended to increase the numbers on the live register as compared with previous years.
Comparisons between the total live register in 1952 and in previous years are, accordingly, difficult to make at the moment. The changes introduced by the 1952 Act have so altered the pattern of the register that it will be some time before a new pattern emerges. To base conclusions on a simple comparison of the 1953 figures with the 1952 figures is misleading, and such conclusions are completely vitiated when regard is had to the factors I have mentioned.
Before I leave the Vote for Social Insurance, there is one other matter with which I should like to deal. Deputies will recall that when the Supplementary Estimates for my Department were being detailed on 4th March last, I dealt with complaints about delays in payment by the Department. At that time, I said that I was very anxious to see the new scheme running smoothly, and I invited Deputies to send me their complaints of delay, because they would help me to get things smoothed out. I repeat that request now in the hope that I will continue to get the co-operation of the House in this matter. Complaints of a general nature are, however, useless, and many of the complaints which I have seen are general. When I ask for specific cases, sometimes I do not get sufficient details or I sometimes find that the complaints are not well-founded.
I do not wish it to appear that my Department never errs. With the volume of work involved, it would be little short of a miracle if delays and mistakes did not sometimes occur. For disability benefit alone, for instance, the payments average about 34,000 a week, and there are cases in which delay—if that is the correct term—cannot be avoided. For instance, complaints about delay are sometimes made about new claims because often it is not understood that payment is not normally made for the first three days of illness and that no payment is made until the second medical certificate is received. The first certificate is merely a notice of illness, but if the second certificate is received within a week of the first, the payment is usually in the hands of the agent for delivery within ten days of the date of the first certificate. In continuing claims, if the certificates are lodged at regular intervals, the payments are issued without delay.
Again, sometimes the insured person does not furnish all the particulars required with his claim and the inquiries, which are thus rendered necessary, delay the payment. Furthermore, since the introduction of increases for dependents, inquiries mayalso be necessary as to dependency, but every effort is made to clear these inquiries promptly. In cases where the investigations regarding dependency are likely to be prolonged, the personal rate of benefit is sometimes paid at once, but this is done in the interest of the insured person and not as an attempt to deprive him of what he is fully entitled to.
During the debate on 4th March last it was stated that, in one case of a claim for health insurance, 41 certificates had been lodged without payment. I am selecting this particular case to illustrate my point. It was found that 26 weeks' sickness benefit had already been paid and further benefit was not payable. The officers of my Department instituted inquiries, however, with a view to finding out whether there were circumstances in which further benefit could be paid— such as non-surrendered cards or employment for which contributions should have been, but were not, paid. The point which I wish to emphasise by referring to this case is the helpful attitude adopted by my Department towards the insured person, and this attitude is adopted in all cases whether or not any representations are made on his behalf. The case was decided, on appeal, in favour of the insured person, and immediately the decision was made the claim was paid.
Deputies should bear in mind that it was inevitable that some dislocation should have been caused in the payment of benefit following the introduction of the new scheme. No great changes in administration can take place without some hitches. It required a very big effort on the part of the staff of my Department to familiarise themselves with all the details incidental to the major changes which have recently taken place in social insurance, while at the same time dealing with the day to day work, which increased considerably as a result of these changes.
My anxiety is to have all claims dealt with promptly. Some delays are, however, inevitable but any person who feels that he is not getting the attention he should get is atliberty to write to me. I can assure him that his case will be examined and any grounds for legitimate complaint will be removed immediately.
There is evidence of an increase in the number of claims for disability benefit which cannot be explained as arising from a genuine increase in the ill-health of the insured population. It may be that with better benefits claimants are more particular about their health or that the standards applied by medical certifiers are not as strict as they should be. While the efforts of my Department must in the first place be devoted to seeing that the genuine claimant gets the best possible service and attention, the Social Welfare Funds must, at the same time, be protected against false claims. I would, consequently, appeal to Deputies by all means to support and help claimants where they are satisfied as to the bona fides of the claims, but to assist me also in eliminating bogus and fraudulent claims.