Reading over the Book of Estimates in connection with the Vote for the office of the Minister for Social Welfare one finds that a sum of £2,324 was provided in the Estimate last year for an adviser to the Minister while there is no provision in the Estimate for 1953-54 for such an adviser. The Minister did not tell the House what had become of the adviser to his Department. Has the Minister dispensed with the services of his adviser? Does he no longer need the services of an adviser? As the sum of £2,324 was provided in the Estimate for the financial year 1952-53 for an adviser, has the Minister arrived at such a stagenow that no adviser is necessary to give advice on the running of the Department? If the Minister considered that he required the services of an adviser last year, what has happened since that no adviser is required to advise the Minister this year? I would like to hear from the Minister the reasons for the change and why he has discarded the services of an adviser; whether the Secretary of the Department is filling the rôle of Secretary to the Department and adviser to the Minister. I think we should have a statement from the Minister so as to clear the air in regard to that matter.
The Department of Social Welfare seems to be a very extragavant Department. It seems to be a Department in which endless sums of money are being spent on administration. In other words, we are reaching the stage where the Department of Social Welfare is becoming the most expensive Department of State. One Minister is in charge of the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health yet in the Department of Health it only costs something like £156,000 to administer £10,500,000 while in the Department of Social Welfare the administration of £22,000,000 costs £1,500,000. It costs £1,500,000 to administer £22,000,000, yet it will be within the memory of the Ceann Comhairle and the older members of the House that many years ago the Department of Local Government administered old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and the various branches of social welfare as well as the affairs of the Local Government Department itself efficiently at a considerably lower sum.
I think there is room for great economy in the Department of Social Welfare. It has the services of a Minister and of a Secretary—it had the services of an adviser—and it has the services of a Parliamentary Secretary at the present time. One can compare that to the manner in which those services were catered for—in my opinion, competently and capably—in the Department of Local Government up to a few years ago at a much lower cost of administration to the taxpayer.In connection with various services for which the Minister is responsible— children's allowances, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, and so on—we must give consideration to the fact that a very large section of the community is in some way depending on this Department. That is so more particularly at the present time. If we calculate the number of old age pensioners, add on the number of widows and then add the number of orphans, add again those in receipt of children's allowances and add again those in receipt of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit, we will come to the conclusion that a very large percentage of the population is in very close contact with the Department and is greatly dependent on the funds provided and on the manner in which they are administered.
There has been a good deal of talk about old age pensions, widows' pensions and blind pensions. Let us not be wool-gathering. Must not every Deputy admit, without fear of contradiction, that never in the history of the country since the pension was introduced by Lloyd George have the old age pensioners been worse off than they are to-day? Is it not true to say there is a graver plight, more poverty and greater gloom in their homes than ever before in the history of the country? Yet various Deputies supporting the Government will vote and will speak loudly about the administration of the present Government and will boast of the improvement they have effected in social services. They will speak loudly and bravely and without a glimmer of shame of the manner in which the Government has increased these old age pensions and has introduced widows' and orphans' pensions, blind pensions and children's allowances.
The fact of the matter is, however, that we are not dealing with what we did or what these pensioners had but what they have to-day or should have. I am glad that Deputies are concentrating on that. Our advice to the Minister should ring on what those pensioners should have. If they had 10/- per week pre-war—that is what they had—we must not forget that 10/-in1939 had the purchasing power of 23/6 to-day. The pension is only 21/6 to-day and all the old age pensioners do not get 21/6. How can any Deputy tell us, then, that he supports a Government that has introduced better times and has provided a greater measure of prosperity for the old age pensioners? It can be proved beyond yea or nay that they are worse off to-day than ever before. One would be inclined to hang one's head low with shame on considering that the majority of our citizens, after working hard and providing for their families for close on 70 years, whether they have been employed on the fields, in factories, in mills, on the roads or elsewhere, must fall back on 21/6 per week.
It is very sad when we find that when people are young and in the prime of life there seems to be a place for them all, if they are prepared to occupy that place—many who are employed in factories and businesses may be described as the white-haired boys when they are able to work and employers can make good use of them —but the moment old age creeps on them, the moment they find the bones commence to stiffen, the moment the hair turns grey or falls out completely, they come under the eyes of their employer and they are no longer looked upon as citizens who can yield a good return, they are looked upon as outcasts, as old crocks, as ready for the scrap heap. As soon as they reach 70 years of age they are thrown on that scrap heap and left there, despite all the appeals made to the present Government and to past Governments.
We here in Ireland, typical for its kindliness and hospitality to the old and aged, should be able to set an example to every Government and every country in the whole world, by providing sufficiently for the aged. Are we not very far behind the times? Have we not done very little in that respect? We seem to be giving the blind eye and the deaf ear to the feeble calls and feeble voices from the old and aged asking for help to assist them in their last days on the earth. But no, we provide 21/6 for them andif they cannot exist on that and have no friends or relatives, there is a place for them where they will end their last days. It will not be in the comfort of a very comfortable armchair, enjoying the heat of a good coal or turf fire, but in the body of some workhouse, lining up in the long queues for three meals per day in tin mugs, sitting in to their evening meals and evening prayers and lying in the cold iron beds of the work-house—because 21/6 could not keep them outside the walls of the county homes. Does not everyone know that to-day there is no boarding-house or lodging-house of standing, capable of taking in a boarder, particularly at the age of 70, and fully providing for all his requirements and necessities for 21/6 a week? The only alternative he has is to die in the workhouse. The old age pensioner will not die leaving money. When he does die, that is not the end of it. He has the iron wheels of the workhouse hears to sound along the roads until they reach the grave; and there, at the graveside, there may be one or two mouners and he will be lowered down deep into a pauper's grave. That is the treatment which is well known to many old age pensioners who have no relatives or friends and who would be very anxious to end their days outside the walls of a county home and to be independent.
Is it any compliment for any Government to provide fully, decently and sufficiently for its old citizens? I would like to see the old age pension not 21/6 per week but at least £4 10s. per week, so that the pensioner could live independently of everyone and would not be signing on the rolls of the St. Vincent de Paul Society for a bag of fuel or a voucher for Christmas. I often wonder—and I am sure Deputies in close contact with rural Ireland wonder—have the various Ministers or the Head of the Government any idea whatever as to the way these old age pensioners have to live at present.
A very short time ago, the old age pensioner could purchase a loaf for 6 1/2d. If he requires a loaf to-day he must pay 9d. for it. He is paying more for his bread to-day than it ever cost him. That goes to show that when the present Government gave a miserableincrease in old age pensions they gave it at a time when the prices of essential commodities were much cheaper than they are now. Having given that miserable and meagre increase to the old age pensioners, they then raised the price of the loaf from 6 ½d. to 9d. and they raised the prices of other essential commodities as well. A short time ago, the old age pensioner could purchase a pound of butter for 2/10, but to-day he must pay 4/2 and in some cases 4/3 per pound for it. How, then, can it be asserted that the old age pensioner is better off to-day than he has ever been in the light of these outrageous and exorbitant prices?
Many old age pensioners throughout the country are living on two meals per day from Sunday to Wednesday, one meal on Thursday and one meal on Friday morning. Then they proceed to draw the miserable 21/6 pension. They enjoy two good meals on the afternoon of the Friday, three good meals on Saturday and then they may cut themselves down again until the following Friday. Just consider the position of these unfortunate people and bear in mind the loud talk of the Minister about all that he has done for the poor. Is it not true to say that the only thing the present Government have done is to make the poor poorer and to make beggars paupers? Instead of increasing the pensions payable to old age pensioners, to the blind and to the widows and orphans, Fianna Fáil have actually put their hand into the pockets of these unfortunate people and taken money from them. Is there any difference between confronting a very poor man with a pistol and robbing him and taxing his food? Is there any difference between threatening him with a pistol and keeping down his pension and keeping him in misery and want and poverty? What is the difference? There has never been a greater wave of poverty in this country than there is to-day. There has never been such a cutting down on the consumption of food, especially by the old age pensioners, as there is in this country to-day.
Let us not forget that a widow is expected to live on a non-contributory pension of £1 per week. That meansthat she is even worse off than the old age pensioner who has 1/6 per week more than she. The Department of Social Welfare must be aware that there are widows in receipt of the widows' pension to-day who are on the borderline of starvation. These women would probably be living in comfort and be enjoying the full fruits of a decent family income if the breadwinner had not been taken from the home. The greatest cross that can befall any family is the death of the bread-winner. Whilst her friends may sympathise with her, the hard fact is that the widow has to face the world and rough it. The only assistance she will get will be the £1 a week noncontributory pension. She must then suffer the humiliation of seeking home assistance or calling on the St. Vincent de Paul Society for help. What becomes of the unfortunates who say unto themselves: "To dig I am unable; to beg I am ashamed"? What becomes of that section of the people? Then we talk of the services provided by the Department of Social Welfare. The widows and orphans and the old age pensioners are worse off to-day than they ever were. It is only within the past two years of the present Government's administration that these decent people have been reduced to the level of paupers. It took Fianna Fáil to do that to them.
Let us recall some of the promises made from time to time by the Fianna Fáil Party. I remember that at one stage Fianna Fáil were promising old age pensioners to the tune of 50/- per week. We all remember the retiring allowances which the present Minister was promising. There were to be retiring allowances at 65 for men and at 60 for women. There was to be a general improvement in services. Instructions were to be issued by the Department to local authorities so that home assistance would be substantially increased. There were to be magnificent schemes for the poor—on the eves of general elections. The moment the general elections were over and past the poor were forgotten again.
Let us consider another injustice which Fianna Fáil have inflicted onthe old age pensioner. In rural Ireland—I suppose that the same can be said of our cities and towns—the old age pensioner took a delight in purchasing a pint of stout on the day of the week he drew his pension. The Fianna Fáil Government were not satisfied until they increased the price of a pint so that whereas formerly the old age pensioner could get a pint of stout for 8d. he must now pay 1/- for it. It is absolutely amazing to hear Deputies such as Deputy Cogan stand up in this House and assert that the old age pensioners, the blind and the widows and orphans are better off to-day than they ever were.
I am far from being satisfied with the treatment the present Government have meted out to the poorer sections of our people and I want to protest even more vigorously in connection with blind pensions than I have done in connection with either widows' or old age pensions. What greater affliction, what greater discomfort and what greater trial can there be than to lose one's sight? In view of the fact that blindness is recognised as the greatest trial possible, one would expect that blind pensions would be even greater than widows' and orphans', old age or any other pensions, but we find that large numbers of people who have only the sight of one eye and who are completely and totally disabled as a result, do not qualify for blind pensions.
The blind pension is usually paid or approved on certificates from the medical authorities and from oculists who have been requested to make a report as to the blindness of the applicant. I have known cases in which applicants for blind pensions have been turned down where it has been proven beyond yea or nay that the applicants were totally blind in one eye and losing the sight in the other. Because they were not completely blind they did not qualify for the pension. How does the Minister think a person can eke out an existence completely blind in one eye and half blind in the other? Yet the Department turns a deaf ear to that person's claim for justice and fair play.
The whole matter of blind pensions needs to be reviewed. There are various tests which applicants are put through before being certified as qualifying for the blind pension. They are called into a room and numbers are placed on a blackboard easel and they are asked to identify the number. There are other tests, but the real test is that a man cannot earn his livelihood. It is not a question of his being able to see the letter A or the figure 8 on an easel, or whether he can distinguish between a two shilling piece and a half crown. The real test is his inability to provide for himself. I do not know whether the Minister gives a special bonus to the officers of his Department who can prove to him that various applicants are not entitled to blind pensions or old age pensions, but the Department seems to exercise the greatest possible care to put every possible hindrance and obstacle in the way of an applicant being awarded a pension.
I have even greater fault to find with the administration of blind pensions than I have with the administration of old age pensions. I think we have reached the stage in relation to blind pensions when, if a doctor issues a certificate—there is no doctor who will lower the honour of his profession by giving such a certificate needlessly— saying that an applicant in his opinion is suffering from defective vision, that, in itself, should be sufficient to warrant the blind pension being granted. The spectacle of blind people being hauled into meetings, up the steps of courthouses, into ambulances, into and out of hospitals and into rooms with blackboards and easels and asked to distinguish between a two shilling piece and a half crown is degrading and one which speaks badly for the Department.
I take it this is all part and parcel of the £1,500,000 which it costs to administer the £22,000,000 services provided by the Department and when one realises this, one does not wonder at the Minister having to have had the services of an adviser last year. The Minister would need a school of advisers, but there is very little use in having a school of advisers, unless oneis capable of taking and acting upon their advice. What better advice could there be than the advice of the elected representatives in Parliament? From long and practical experience, they can speak of conditions with which they are much more closely and intimately associated than the Minister.
When one looks at the manner in which the various pensions are investigated, one wonders what has become of State Departments and whether Ministers have any say whatever in the long-drawn-out investigations of such claims. I have often wondered why it has been necessary for old age and blind pension claims to await decision for as long as six and eight months. Would it not be cheaper to give the old age pension or the blind pension on first application than to have hordes of officials, inspectors, doctors and oculists trailing around the country? Is that not a penny wise and pound foolish policy? The Department will spend endless money on oculists and doctors, on the provision of waiting-rooms and dispensaries for the interviewing of applicants and will lash money out on investigation officers and social welfare officers. Would it not be far wiser and would it not result in greater economy if, instead of using all these advisers, all these investigation officers, with hordes of doctors and long processions of oculists, whom the applicant must pass, the pension were granted on first application and so save the Exchequer all the trouble, loss of time, inconvenience and the cost involved in the provision of all these officials and professional men? We do not know what steps the Department have taken to exercise economy and reduce their staffs in this connection. Even in the case of the old age pensions there does not seem to be one official or inspector to make a report. The old age pensioner, as laid down in the Old Age Pension Acts, must first appear before the local old age pensions committee. He must then present himself for the closest possible examination before the pensions officer. He has to have a further examination by the pensions officer and then by the head pensions officer from the Minister's Department. Inthe case of an appeal he will have a call from two inspectors who are sent down to the most remote parts of the country for the purpose of investigating the claim. One would consider that in the interests of economy it would be far better to give out the pension and save the State the cost of all those inquiries and investigations.
I am sure that the members of this House are far from being in a position to express satisfaction with the rates for old age pensions, widows' pensions, orphans' pensions and blind pensions. We have the Minister shedding tears for the poor and at the same time robbing them. I fail to understand what sort of a conscience he must have which prevents him introducing legislation to provide amply for those people in accordance with the wishes of the majority of our people. Not a single voice was raised in this House giving approval to the present rates for old age pensioners, widows, orphans and blind people. On the contrary, every Deputy who spoke, including the last Deputy, who said that most of his constituents were employed in Derry City outside the jurisdiction of the Republic, emphasised the fact that the rates are too low. Even the members of the Fianna Fáil Party strained their vocal chords in no small way to emphasise the necessity for immediate increases in those pensions and benefits.
The Minister did not tell the House in the course of his opening remarks whether the widows, the blind, the orphans, the aged or the invalid could expect any increase in their pensions before Christmas of this year nor did he hold out any hope of an improvement in their condition for the coming year. There is no provision whatever in the Book of Estimates for increases in blind pensions or old age pensions during the coming year which commences on the 1st April, 1954, and ends on the 31st March, 1955.
How on earth can any responsible Minister increase the cost of living on the poor and at the same time keep down the miserable, mean, mangy, meagre, poor and pauperish allowances? I do not know how it can bedone. We seem to have reached the stage when the Minister and the Government are more concerned with the well-to-do, the rich and those who are in a position to invest money in Government loans than they are with those who depend on Government funds to eke out a miserable existence.
The Leader of the Labour Party, together with other members of his Party, has placed on the Order Paper of this House a motion which is under discussion at the present time in connection with the Department's Estimate. The motion reads:—
"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, in view of the high cost of living, the following benefits under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, should be substantially increased, i.e., old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, blind pensions, unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, sickness benefit."
Is there a single Deputy in this House opposed to that? Does the Minister not consider it time to increase those pensions, which have not been increased since the cost of living substantially increased last? In connection with sickness benefits, the poorer sections of the community have to endure very great hardships because of sickness. Because of the illness of the head of the household, the mother and children of large families have to suffer very severely. I fail to understand why the sickness benefits could not be increased forthwith. If we have the same Minister responsible for those benefits as is responsible for the health of the community, how does he consider that we can have a healthy community or that a man can be restored to health on the miserable allowances paid out at the present time in sickness benefits?
When certificates are submitted by the various agents administering the national health insurance scheme they are usually sent to the Minister's Department. In many cases, it is well known, particularly in rural Ireland, that the sickness benefits are often held up six weeks, two months, and in many cases three months while investigations are being carried out. During the hearing of the investigations not onepenny enters that house except, perhaps, 10/- or 12/- home assistance which is paid at the discretion of the county manager on the recommendation of the home assistance officer. As soon as the national health benefits come every penny paid out in home assistance will be taken from that sum. When a person is certified as being medically unfit for work and is an insured person entitled to sickness benefits provided under the Insurance Acts, I fail to understand the regulation under which the amount of the home assistance paid is deducted from the amount of insurance benefits. I want to lodge a vigorous protest against such a regulation. It leaves the sick person worse off. It means that his family is driven into debt and it means that the value is completely taken from the amount of sickness benefit.
I think that in these hard times the Minister should at least issue instructions—or make an Order—and see to it that the local authorities do not deduct from the moneys due to an applicant in respect of national health benefits the amount paid in home assistance pending the decision on the claim. I had some very hard cases in that connection and I am sure other Deputies had similar cases. County managers will make the excuse that the law is there and that they are bound to make the necessary reductions. If the Minister is of opinion that there are cases of severe hardship, if he did not want to make an all-round Order he could at least examine cases on their merits—because most of these cases are deserving of meritorious consideration—with a view to having an Order made asking the local authorities not to deduct the amount of home assistance from the national health benefits that would be due.
A few moments ago, the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of a few words in reply to Deputy Cafferky, hinted that it would be as well that there were unemployed people and that it would be much better to get the funds to provide unemployment benefits than to provide work. That was the gist of Deputy Kennedy's remark while Deputy Cafferky was speaking.I think that moneys paid out in the form of unemployment benefits are at entirely too low a rate to enable the worker to exist during his period of unemployment. Steps should be taken, in order to comply with the terms of the motion on the Order Paper moved by Deputy Norton, to increase the rate of unemployment benefit and to give consideration to the amount of wages earned by the worker prior to his unemployment. It is disgraceful to see a man who would be in receipt of from £5 to £6 per week, on finding himself unemployed, reduced to the allowances that are available under the various Unemployment Assistance Acts. At the present time there are some thousands of people unemployed in the building trade. There are thousands unemployed in agriculture; we have over 1,800 unemployed in the transport industry; there are over 1,800 people unemployed in the distributive trades; in connection with food and drink, 1,500 people are unemployed; in the engineering industry we have over 800 people unemployed; in mining and quarrying we have 700 people unemployed. Along with that we have Bord na Móna adding to the list considerably, not in scores but in hundreds.
These men would much prefer to be in receipt of a decent week's wages rather than be in receipt of unemployment benefits. I want to say this, in the hearing of the Minister for Social Welfare, because he was a party to it, that the present Government disturbed the minds of the working class people very much from the very day they took office because they promised them work and promised them wages. They failed to give work; they failed to give wages, and the next thing they introduced was free beef, free boots, free vouchers and half crowns added to this and half crowns added to the other. There is no Irish worker who wants free beef, free boots or free milk and the sooner the Government realises that the better. It is very demoralising and it is wrong for the Department of Social Welfare to be advocating schemes of free this, that or the other when all the people want is work and wages. If they do not provide the work, if they do not provide the wages,it is the duty of the Government to provide the alternative to work and the alternative to wages.
I cannot understand why the Department of Social Welfare can give consideration to various schemes and to the payment of unemployment benefits and unemployment insurance. It would be far better that the time of everyone concerned in the Department would be devoted to providing work and decent wages rather than to be engaged in the provision and distribution of the mean and meagre unemployment benefits that are now being paid. The Government has a responsibility to provide work and if they do not provide the work the full alternative to work.