Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Dec 1953

Vol. 143 No. 9

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

Mr. A. Byrne

Yesterday a number of Deputies appealed to the Minister to relax the means test for old age pensions. The suggestion was supported by all sides of the House that the means test is too severe. A case of means test enforcement has come to my notice. I put forward a case for an old age pensioner who ceased work and claimed a pension at the age of 70 and for some reason or other the small pension of 6/- was granted instead of 21/6. It went to the Minister, apparently, on appeal, and a new suggestion which would be of interest to the House came forward. I asked what was the cause of the delay in deciding the old age pension appeal and the answer I got was: "Oh, we are investigating the prospects of the coming year's employment for the old age pensioner concerned." Can you believe that because the investigating officer thought that the claimant might get temporary work in the coming year he is to decide not to give the person the full old age pension in anticipation of work that he may get? I have heard here of investigating officers asking for a count of apples to see how much they would be sold for, and of an investigating officer asking a person how many eggs half-a-dozen hens will produce in the little backyard so as to put them against the old age pensioner's claim, but now a new idea is brought forward—what employment might the pensioner likely get next year. That is the worst I ever heard, and I hope that the Minister will investigate and see that that kind of situation will not be put across in order to prevent an old age pensioner getting the full allowance, the most inadequate allowance, of 21/6 per week.

I do support the appeals that came from all parts of the House that the Minister might this coming year try to make good a sum of money to the old age pensioners, the contributory pensioners, widows and orphans and those on national health. He ought to take into consideration the increase in the cost of living in the past 12 months brought about first by the Budget of1952 and repeated this year. You gave the old age pensioners a few shillings increase but you took it back from them in the price of the loaf. You raised the loaf from 6d. to 9d., so that if they only use two loaves a week you have taken 6d. back from the old age pensioners by increasing their cost of living. Take the old age pensioner. The old man has to do without his tobacco because he says he cannot buy half an ounce of tobacco now at the price. I think something ought to be done. In the case of widows and orphans there is a bar on the widow getting, or trying to get, certain employment to help towards the pension in order to keep her family. In most cases they found that it would be better to stay unemployed than to take one, two or three days' work that would be offered to them during the week—that the amount that would be stopped from them in their widows' and orphans' pension would be nearly as much as they would earn by going out to work for three or four days.

I often wonder when one is talking about widows' and orphans' pensions will the day ever come in which we will put up a plaque somewhere in the City of Dublin to the man who first thought of widows' and orphans' pensions. I refer to J.P. Dunne of the typographical society, who preached and spoke about it for many years before the widows' and orphans' pension was introduced. I only mention that in passing in memory of the man who first brought it forward, J.P. Dunne of the trade union, the typographical society.

Even though what we have to-day is a step in the right direction I do say that we have nothing to boast of in the House. I heard members yesterday boasting of achievements because one sided voted 2/6 and the other side said that they voted 2/6 too; but when you gave it you took it back instantly in the increase in the cost of living. The same thing applies to those in receipt of national health benefits. You took back in taxation from those people what you gave them. As I say, the loaf was raised from 6d. to 9d. Butter has gone up from 2/- to 4/2, so I justput it that none of us in the Dáil have anything to boast about when we talk about giving the unfortunate old age pensioners an extra 2/6.

There has been a demand by many sections of my colleagues in the Dublin Municipal Council and other councils who have sent letters and passed resolutions in favour of an increase in the unemployment benefits. A man on unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance with a family to-day is not enjoying anything in the way of the freedom that this country boasts of. That freedom brings prosperity to a certain number of people. It leaves 25 per cent. of our population enjoying the benefits to a great extent, but another 25 per cent. is suffering hardships, and it does not mean much to them if they have to continue to suffer those hardships from lack of employment in their own country and are drawing inadequate benefits.

I have heard family allowances talked of in the House with great pleasure. It was a very fine gesture, a step in the right direction, but the allowances are still inadequate. As we all know, the producers of milk have to get a fair living out of their work, and the price of the pint or the bottle of milk is the same to people who are on unemployment benefits as it is to the well-to-do classes in the city, so from that angle I would ask the Minister to reconsider the whole position and see if it is not possible to give some further facilities. I do not know whether it would be in benefits or in reductions in certain things that they have to use; but in the case of those people who were mentioned on all sides of the House yesterday—old age pensioners, widows and orphans, those on unemployment and national health benefit—anything we gave them we have taken back from them by increasing the necessaries of life. With other members of the House I do implore the Minister to do something again within the coming year to see that all those who are on those benefits, especially those who are unemployed, on inadequate benefits, are entitled to share in the prosperity that is being shared in by 50 per cent. of our people. The other 50 per cent. are not sharing to any great extent inthe prosperity or in the freedom that this country has.

Mr. Palmer

First of all I would like to refer to the fact that there is a feeling among the people and there are rumours that instructions were issued to pensions officers and investigation officers that when investigating claims for old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and blind pensions they were to be stricter in connection with the means test.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Ryan)

Do not start any story like that because it is not true.

Mr. Palmer

It is felt at any rate.

Dr. Ryan

Why do you start a story like that? Why do Fine Gael always start stories like that in which there is no truth?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. J. Lynch)

There is no harm in chancing your arm.

Mr. Palmer

I want to give the Minister a chance. I am not saying that it is true. I do not know——

Dr. Ryan

Of course you do not. That is the Fine Gael plan always.

Mr. Palmer

——but there is that feeling——

Dr. Ryan

There is that feeling, yes. Why do you go on with that sort of damn rot when there is nothing in it?

Mr. Lynch

There is no harm in chancing his arm.

Mr. Palmer

Not in writing, but orally.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, not in writing but orally. Fine Gael propaganda.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Palmer is entitled to make his statement without interruption.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister does not care to hear it.

Dr. Ryan

He knows it is not true and Deputy O'Leary knows it is nottrue. You know damn well it is not true.

Mr. O'Leary

Why do they count the hens and the chickens if it is not true?

Mr. Palmer

I have made the statement and I repeat it. I believe from my own experience that there is something radically wrong recently in connection with the making of awards. I shall give you an example, though I cannot name the person concerned. A pension was awarded to a widow and she received £10 in respect of arrears. A few days afterwards she received instructions that she was to return her book and she was informed that her pension was being withdrawn because of her means. It is rather peculiar that the official who investigated the claim in the first instance felt that this woman was entitled to a widow's pension and that on further investigation it was withdrawn. Cases like that make people feel that some new instructions have been issued to tighten up matters.

The increase of 1/6 that was given in old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and blind pensions, when the increased taxation was imposed in the 1952 Budget, was not in any way sufficient to meet the increased cost of living occasioned by the withdrawal of the subsidies. Certainly it is impossible to expect that widows who are solely dependent on their pensions could live in any kind of decent comfort on the amount they are receiving at present. In fact, they could hardly be expected to exist on that miserable sum. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, in reply to a question put by Deputy Lehane on Tuesday last, told us that it would take £1 to purchase the same quantity of goods as 5/- purchased in 1906. When the old age pensions were first introduced about 1908 the amount of the pension was 5/-. It was never intended of course that that 5/- would be sufficient to maintain an old age pensioner; it was given merely as a help. It can be easily understood that in those days, where an old age pensioner was a farmer or had some livelihood of that kind or was living with membersof his own family, 5/- would be a considerable help. There would always be sufficient food in a farmer's house. In the case of those, however, who are solely dependent on the pension and who have to pay rent out of it, it will, I think, be agreed that it is impossible for such people to live on the present amount of the pension. The very least that an old age pensioner or a widow should get at the present time would be 30/- or £2 a week if that were possible.

By retrenchment in other Departments, or by savings in administration, it should be possible to make available a sufficient sum considerably to increase the present pensions of these people. In the case of blind pensions there are certain applicants who may not be totally blind but who are prevented from carrying on their ordinary occupations owing to weak sight. Even if such people are only partially blind I think their cases should get the fullest consideration and that they should get the full pension. For instance, a tailor or a carpenter would require almost perfect sight and when his sight fails to any great extent it is almost impossible for him to carry on his work. Such people should get special consideration when their cases are being investigated from the medical point of view.

The amount paid by way of unemployment assistance at present is certainly inadequate to support a person who is genuinely anxious to work and cannot get employment. I, of course, would have no pity for people who are work-shy and who, in fact, would prefer to draw unemployment assistance rather than work. I would say that the amount of pensions on the whole are entirely inadequate owing to the present high cost of living. I would also urge that when officials are investigating claims they should exercise some common sense as regards the question of means and other matters. Where officials come from cities they have not a proper understanding of conditions amongst the farming community and the manner in which they assess means insuch cases is entirely wrong. Take a poor area like South Kerry. Surely they cannot assess the same value on cows or live stock of any kind in an area such as that as they would in the Midlands. Yet I believe that is the basis on which the investigation is carried out. As I say, there should be reason and common sense in all these investigations, not that I have any grievance against the officials. I have never heard any real grievance expressed against the officials. I am sure they do their duty conscientiously but I think they should not receive any instructions, such as I referred to in the beginning of my speech, from the Department to restrict their work in any way.

Mr. O'Leary

It is possible to cover a very wide field on this Estimate and on the motion proposed by Deputy Norton. I think the Estimate is the most important that has been before the House for a considerable time, since it deals with the amounts payable to the aged, the blind and the unemployed. I cannot see for the life of me why some Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party and their new associates can congratulate the Minister on the Social Welfare Act. No doubt, we would all gladly congratulate him if he came into this House with a Supplementary Estimate to meet the demands of the old people, the blind people and the unemployed. No matter how the Minister's supporters may boast about the amounts payable to old age pensioners, a reply which I received to a question which I put to the Minister to-day proves that many of these old people are unable to live on their present pensions. In that reply, the Minister stated that the amount collected from old age pensioners who had to go into the county home, now St. John's Hospital, reached a figure of £6,000. If these people were given sufficient to enable them to maintain themselves outside the county home, it would be far better than making paupers of them at the end of their days. It is sad to reflect that, after all the years during which we have enjoyed self-government, the old and the blind are still in want. Their condition has been greatly worsened by the withdrawalof the food subsidies which placed the cost of living beyond their reach. Since I put down a question here about a week ago asking the Minister to provide some additional help for these poor people, I received letters not only from my own constituency but also from Cork and other places throughout the country in reference to this important question. Anyone reading these letters must feel that these poor old people are suffering severely at the moment.

I do not know how Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll are going to trot into the Lobby after reading this plan, with Senator Noel Hartnett's photograph, of their policy in 1947 when they were telling what they would do for the old people of this country and condemning Fianna Fáil for not giving the old age pensioners a substantial increase. With the present cost of living, an old man with a pension of 21/6 per week cannot afford to get 1 lb. of butter if he has to pay rent for a local authority house, as many of them have to do in my constituency. At the same time, the local authority have to provide 6/-per week for blind persons to help them over their difficulties. Old men and old women have to try to exist on 21/6, and then, of course, the Minister says that his Bill was better than Deputy Norton's Bill. Deputy Norton's Bill proposed to give pensions at 65 to men and at 60 to women, while the present Minister said that these people could sign on at the labour exchanges until they are 70. Very few people want to employ a man of over 65 years and what he would get from the labour exchange would not keep him.

A Deputy

That is more than Deputy Norton ever gave him.

Mr. O'Leary

The cost of living was lower then. A man got more value for the money a few years ago than he would get to-day. At that time you could buy butter for 2/8 per lb. which is now 4/2; a 2 lb. loaf for 6½d. which is now 9¼d.; 1 lb. tea for 2/8 which is now 5/-; 1 lb. sugar for 4½d. which is now 7d.; a stone of flour for 2/8 which is now 4/6.

Mr. Fanning

What price were they off the ration?

Mr. O'Leary

These people are on rations all the time because they cannot get the food. The workers who are in receipt of unemployment assistance are on rations all the time. A working man never gets enough to eat because he does not get enough wages, not to talk of the paltry few shillings paid to the old age pensioners. £250,000 was given to the Aga Khan for a horse and none of these people objected, nor did they object to the money being spent on the Constellations and on the purchase of a prize bull. There was money to be got for all these things and no one asked where the money was to come from.

Dr. Ryan

You voted against the income-tax.

Mr. O'Leary

You are bleeding people for income-tax.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a money transaction.

Mr. O'Leary

Let him alone. I will annoy the Minister very much.

Dr. Ryan

You voted against the income-tax.

Mr. O'Leary

What did you vote for?

Dr. Ryan

I did not vote against the income-tax.

Mr. O'Leary

You voted for increased taxation.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, of course, to give it to the poor.

Mr. O'Leary

You did not give it to the poor; you gave it to the judges.

Dr. Ryan

We gave £7,000,000 to them.

Mr. O'Leary

You gave it to men who did not want it. If the cost of living has gone up for the Garda, the national teachers and the judges surely it has gone up for the old age pensioners. Do you think you yourself could exist on 21/6 per week?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy ought to address the Chair.

Mr. O'Leary

I should like to see him trying to exist on 21/6.

Dr. Ryan

Or you either.

Mr. O'Leary

I could not do it. As to the means test, I know more about that than anyone in the House because it was put into operation very severely by the Fianna Fáil Government in the case of my own father. He had a pension for the loss of his son in the first world war. Let me tell you about the means test.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not relevant.

Mr. O'Leary

When he came to 70 years of age he was only allowed 16/-to live on. Is not that true?

Dr. Ryan

That was under Deputy Norton.

Mr. O'Leary

Not at all, it was under the present Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was not during the last 12 months anyway.

Mr. O'Leary

You are the very man who voted when on this side of the House against an increase for old age pensioners.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please address the Chair?

Mr. O'Leary

He was not then a Minister, he was a Deputy, and he voted against an increase for old age pensioners. Then we hear talk about the Border. If we want to bring the people of the Six Counties into this State the first duty of the Government is to make the social welfare benefits as good as the people get across the Border. I would not like to bring in poor old people in the Six Counties and take what they have off them and give them 21/6 per week. There are people living here now who went to Great Britain for a few years and who now enjoy pensions which they got at 65 years of age. A married man gets an additional allowance. I have signed certificates for some of these people in my constituency. One of them is an Old I.R.A. man and he is drawing 34/-per week as a single man. When hewent to the labour exchange, what did he get there? Two shillings per week. What remark did he make? "I fought for de Valera in 1916, but I went to earn money in John Bull's country and I am now getting 34/- per week." Is not that a nice state of affairs? Any man like that who comes home and registers at the labour exchange because he has a British pension only gets 2/- per week benefit.

I wonder if the Minister is aware of these things. He got vexed with Deputy Palmer because Deputy Palmer spoke of the way in which officials investigate old age pension cases. Some of these busybodies almost turn up the bed to see what is in it. If a person has a pig or a chicken or is anyway thrifty at all he gets no pension. Then we hear of the great things the Social Welfare Act has done. In a question which I had down to-day I raised the matter of throwing the onus on the head of the household for the maintenance of dependents and not getting any money at the labour exchange for them. That has had a very serious effect in my constituency. The local authority have to provide assistance for these people because they are cut off at the labour exchange.

It is all very well to say that everything is lovely and that old age pensioners were given an increase of 1/6 to make up for the increase in the cost of living. It means semi-starvation for these people. It is a shame to have to get up in a Christian Parliament to expose these things. The old people are suffering. Mothers and fathers have to carry on and will not get an old age pension until they are 70 when they are on the verge of the grave. The Minister said it would be bad encouragement to give them a pension at 65, that he would rather see them working. Who wants a man to-day after 70 years of age? Very few employers want a man after he is 68 or 69. He is asked to get out and they get a younger man.

What we should do—and what the Labour Party will press to do—is to see that the old people, the blind people and such like will be provided for and get the necessaries of life, no matter what else has to go and nomatter where the money comes from. No one will object to paying taxes if the money is going to the right quarter and is helping someone. What the ratepayers are grousing about is the giving of money to people who do not want it, who are well off and very snug. A motion was brought in here for high salaries for judges and district justices. We are trying to fight for the plain people that we know and whom we have the honour to represent and who sent us here. They cannot make ends meet at present and they are starving, with the high cost of living, the Budget and the withdrawal of the food subsidies.

We have less this year for the free boot scheme and less in the grant for free milk for necessitous cases. It is cut down. Why does the Minister not give the county councils more money for these schemes for necessitous people in the country? Half the people this year will not receive any free boots as the money will not go around. It is the same as it was last year and the year before, but boots have gone up with the result that there will be less boots for the poor people. These are the things the Government should be interested in, to cater for the plain people who put them in in 1932.

Dr. Ryan

That is right—and they will again.

Mr. O'Leary

I do not know how you will ever get in again. It was very hard last year.

Dr. Ryan

You got in.

Mr. O'Leary

I got in by the votes of the plain people and beat you on one occasion and you were a Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies can have all this out in County Wexford.

Dr. Ryan

We will have it out.

Mr. O'Leary

We may meet again, next year. I am not afraid. It is very hard for a man who knows the position to listen to some of the artificial speeches made here, especially from the Government Benches. They have no idea what unemployment means, but I have. I had to sign up at the labour exchangeduring the slack periods. I know what it is to depend on national health. I wonder how many T.D.s sitting behind the Minister know that. Did they ever have to queue up at the labour exchange as I had to do? It is experience teaches.

I hear professional men congratulating the Minister. I hear Deputy Cogan congratulating him on social welfare and saying how well off the people are now. He forgets how it was when he was in opposition. There is not a word about the blind pensioners. Deputy Cogan said there was £21,000,000 spent in social services. It is not enough. If there were a war to-morrow and an emergency were proclaimed, the Minister for Defence would not ask this House where the money would come from as the Minister for Social Welfare is doing now. The money would be got. It was got for seven years of the emergency. Are we going to stay here and be silent while a big number of our people are starving or entering county homes and those who have not been able to get in there and who find they cannot get work are fleeing out of the country as they cannot exist on the donation they are getting? A man, no matter how many youngsters he has, gets only 50/- to keep a family. That is a bad substitute for work on housing schemes at £5 16s. That is the progress that Fianna Fáil has made—mass emigration, unemployment and starvation, in 1953. It is very hard to have to listen to some Deputies ridiculing Deputy Norton of the Labour Party. I suppose we are a menace here.

Dr. Ryan

Not a bit.

Mr. O'Leary

The Labour representatives are looked upon as a menace to the Government, but you will always have Labour representatives in the House, as there are enough Labour people who have their eyes open and who see that it is by Labour representation here we can get something for the downtrodden.

I will read this letter, a Cheann Comhairle, from an old age pensioner in Carrick. I would like to bring it before the Minister, Deputy Dr. Ryan.It is one of many. I have another here from Cork. This one reads:—

"I sincerely appreciate your most Christian feeling for the people by asking in the Dáil a question of Dr. Ryan about a rise in our pension. Sorry that you wasted your breath to ask that so-called gentleman who broke his heart when he got into power with a rise of 1/6. How did he manage it, when his boss could not see his way for 15 years to do likewise until he was losing power? He then raised it to 15/-. He lost his place and then the inter-Party Government got in and gave £1, which helped us to live. Now he is asked again but he is silent. Then we have the threat to put us to starvation by raising our cost of living. He is a most wonderful man to give thousands to other nations in distress, to get his name up. I am not grudging it to those poor victims, but why should we have any of the native Irish starve in their old age at 21/6 when they cannot buy at such high prices and still keep alive? They want the North to come in. Surely they are no fools when they can live nicely on the pension the same as in England. He can find money for Tulyars, for prize bulls and indeed millions for Dublin Castle. Where are all the yes-men now? Why are they so silent, without a word for our cause?"

That gives an idea of the way things are.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is the Deputy's own opinions on the Estimate that are relevant, not the opinions of people who write to him.

Mr. O'Leary

It is very difficult for me to deal with a letter like that.

Dr. Ryan

He was a scholarly sort of fellow.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will please confine himself to his own opinions on the Estimate.

Dr. Ryan

He was an unbiassed sort of fellow. Surely that was not from County Wexford?

Mr. O'Leary

That was from Carrick.

I have another from Cork and plenty from my own town.

Dr. Ryan

You would not get the like of that in Wexford.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister will be down there shaking hands next year, asking for their votes. It is about time that the question of old age pensions was dealt with. It should have been dealt with earlier and a big increase given to meet the cost of living. Everybody gets an increase except the poor old people and the blind people. Skilled and unskilled workmen can claim through their trade unions for an increase and can go to the Labour Court and get an award there, but the people for whom we are fighting-the old age pensioners and the blind—have nobody to fight their battles for them except their representatives in this House. I am quite certain that the smallness of the old age pension is a painful matter to any honest and fairminded Fianna Fáil Deputy who is as well aware as I am that the old age pension and the blind pension are not sufficient to keep their recipients alive. Everybody admits that that is the position.

The Government should not hesitate to get the necessary money immediately to meet the crying demands of the poor old people and the blind, who are in a desperate plight. Their cause is the most deserving cause that has been pleaded in Dáil Éireann in this year of 1953, at a time when we have reached the highest peak ever attained in the cost of living in our country. How can anybody honestly expect an old person or a blind person to eke out an existence on 21/6 per week?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary has already said that.

Mr. O'Leary

I hope the Minister will give us a favourable reply in this matter when he is concluding this debate.

Mr. Lehane

I want to suggest to the Minister that he should consider the abolition of the means test so far as old age pensions are concerned.Anybody who has attained the age of 70 years and has worked in this country all during his or her lifetime is entitled to receive the old age pension. It costs a great deal of money to administer this means test. In my own area we have old age pension officers who are paid by the State. In the course of their duties they sometimes hire taxis and travel 40 or 50 miles around the area—paying 1/- a mile, I suppose. They have their subsistence allowance as well. The sole purpose of their journeys is to find out whether Mrs. Murphy has ten hens or 40 hens. If Mrs. Murphy is 70 years of age and has spent her whole life working in this country she is entitled to receive the old age pension. No means test is applied in the matter of children's allowances. Wealthy people receive children's allowances just the same as the poorer classes and there is no means test whatsoever. They do not, however, get the relief in income-tax to which they would normally be entitled.

If we did away with the old age pension means test we could adopt a principle similar to that adopted in regard to children's allowances. The State would then be saved a considerable amount of expense which is incurred at the moment by investigation officers and it would not lose as much as it is losing in the case of the wealthier sections of the community who are drawing children's allowances.

I want to refer now to a statement which was made in this House by a responsible Minister of the Government on the 5th February of this year in relation to an officer of the Department of Social Welfare.

An Ceann Comhairle

Did the Minister for Social Welfare make that statement?

Mr. Lehane

I am referring to a statement that was made about an officer of the Department of Social Welfare.

An Ceann Comhairle

By the Minister for Social Welfare?

Mr. Lehane

I am referring to a statement that was made about anofficer of the Department of Social Welfare.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am asking Deputy Lehane a plain and simple question. Was the statement made by the Minister for Social Welfare?

Mr. Lehane

No, Sir. The statement was made by a responsible Minister of the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is another matter. The Minister for Social Welfare is not responsible for statements made by other Ministers.

Mr. Lehane

The statement was made about an officer of the Department of Social Welfare. Surely the Minister for Social Welfare is responsible for the officers of his Department? The Secretary of the Department wrote a letter on the 24th November, 1950, to an officer of the Department of Social Welfare.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may discuss the administration of the Department of Social Welfare during the past 12 months. What happened in 1950 is not relevant.

Mr. Lehane

This letter to which I have referred was written in 1950 and it deals with the dismissal of an officer of the Minister's Department. That dismissal took place this year.

An Ceann Comhairle

The administration that is under discussion now does not go back as far as the year 1950. The Deputy may discuss the administration of the Department of Social Welfare in the course of the past 12 months.

Mr. Lehane

No, Sir. But an officer of the Department of Social Welfare was slandered in this House last February.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is saying that he is not trying to discuss something which is irrelevant to this debate and yet he is doing it.

Mr. Lehane

A parliamentary question was tabled last February about an officer of the Department of Social Welfare——

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to make the position quite clear to the Deputy. The administration which is under discussion now covers the past 12 months. It does not go back any further. What took place in 1950— three years ago—is not covered by this Estimate. The present Minister cannot be held responsible for what happened then. We cannot discuss the administration of the year 1950-51 on this Estimate.

Mr. Lehane

A statement was made in this House last February by a responsible member of the Government——

An Ceann Comhairle

By this Minister?

Mr. Lehane

——in relation to an officer of the Department of Social Welfare.

An Ceann Comhairle

Was the statement made by the Minister for Social Welfare who is here present?

Mr. Lehane

The statement made was to the effect that——

An Ceann Comhairle

I can see that the Deputy is slyly endeavouring to get past the ruling of the Chair. If the Minister for Social Welfare is responsible, the Deputy may discuss the matter. The Deputy may not discuss a matter that took place as far back as 1950. He may not also discuss on this Estimate a statement made in respect of a matter by some Minister other than the Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Kyne

On a point of order. Is Deputy Lehane not entitled to upbraid the Minister for Social Welfare for not defending this officer and, in that way, can he not refer to the matter?

An Ceann Comhairle

How is the present Minister for Social Welfare responsible for the matter if the affair occured in 1950?

Brendán Mac Fheórais

The man was sacked only this year.

Mr. Kyne

The attack was made onthe officer in the course of the year which is under review.

An Ceann Comhairle

When did this matter affect the officer?

Mr. O'Leary

Last February.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

He was sacked during the course of the past year.

Mr. Lehane

The point is that a statement was made in this House in February of this year——

An Ceann Comhairle

By this Minister?

Mr. Lehane

——by a responsible member of the Minister's Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

That will not affect the issue. The Minister is responsible for the administration of his own Department. I will not allow any other matter to be discussed except the administration of the Department of Social Welfare in the course of the past 12 months.

Mr. Lehane

Last February——

An Ceann Comhairle

I must ask the Deputy to discontinue. I have made the matter perfectly clear to him. The present Minister is responsible for the administration of his own Department and the Deputy may discuss that administration over the past year.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Surely past statements of Deputies have been quoted in this House in this debate? It was done by Deputy Cogan.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know what has been discussed——

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I do.

An Ceann Comhairle

The present Minister for Social Welfare is not responsible for the way in which the Department of Social Welfare was administered three years ago. I am not going to discuss the matter any further. Deputy Lehane will now pass from it.

Mr. Lehane

Very well, Sir. I was prevented by the Chair from quoting a case on which a decision had been given by the courts——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy was told that he could put down a substantive motion if he wanted to raise the matter. He may not raise it in this way.

Mr. Lehane

May I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that an individual who was written to by his Department and told to report for duty on a certain date——

An Ceann Comhairle

When was he written to?

Mr. Lehane

On 24th November, 1950.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have told the Deputy that he may not discuss that matter now.

Mr. Lehane

May I ask the Minister when he removed from office Mr. Liam Barry, a social welfare officer in the employment of his Department, and may I ask him if Mr. Barry refused to resume——

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy persists, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. I have given him every opportunity. I have explained the position fully to him and he is not accepting the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Lehane

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the abolition of the means test, so far as old age pensions are concerned. I believe that it would not result in any heavy burden on the Exchequer.

Mr. Kyne

A good deal of lip service has been given by Deputies on all sides to the welfare of the old and the sick, of the widow and orphan and of blind people. I suggest that the motion tabled by the Labour Party gives an opportunity of expressing this sympathy in a very practical and concrete form. A vote for our motion will mean a lot more than promises of future help because it will impress on the Minister the solidarity of Deputies in their wish to see old age pensions increased. Coming to the festive season of Christmas I suggest that if this motion is passed it will bringgreater cheer and greater happiness to all who receive benefit from State funds in the form of old age pensions, and so on, under the Social Welfare Act than all the promises and all the lip service we have got in the past.

It is always strange to me, as a Labour Deputy—admittedly here only a short time—how the Government Party, who when they were in opposition and out of Government were so loud in their demands for increased social welfare benefits can, on returning to Government, become again conservative and miserable in their outlook towards these benefits.

Dr. Ryan

We are better than you were, anyway.

Mr. Kyne

What we are asking is that you be slightly better again.

Dr. Ryan

That is fair enough.

Mr. Kyne

I suggest that Labour— perhaps the Minister would like to contradict this—whether in Government or out, were consistent in both their demands and their pressure for increased benefits, and I may say that the Labour Party take no small pride in the fact that whatever progress was made was shared in by them in so far as the main pressure came from them, whether in Government or partly in Government, as they were, or outside it.

A little consideration of the value of present-day money compared with 1939 will make a case that will be admitted by Deputies on any side for the need for an increase in old age pensions. I presume that the answer of the Government or of any Deputy who does not desire to give these increases will be that "we understand there is a need for increased old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, blind pensions and unemployment benefits but the country cannot afford them until"—as I noticed the Minister said in his opening speech—"we have more production. We are paying as large an amount as the country can afford and it would be disastrous to go beyond it." I feel it my duty in whatever humble way I can to draw attention to the value of the pensions asthey are now and to stress and to underline the need for an increase and, not only that, but in a small way to make suggestions as to what I think my Party would support by way of increase, if necessary, to meet what will be admitted to be a genuine claim.

There are ways and means whereby the economic life of this country does not have to be endangered in any way, while still providing the extra £2,000,000, or even more, necessary to meet a limited increase in the various benefits to different categories. For almost a week, we listened here to a debate on the Estimate for the Department of Finance, during which pretty well every Deputy who spoke dealt glibly with millions of pounds. We had many references to the investment of millions and one would think that £1,000,000 was a very small sum. If a loss of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 in income emerged from certain discussions, it was very easily glossed over and a very little amount of explaining was sufficient to satisfy the House; but when it comes to a question of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 for a vital and essential investment, the health and the lives of disabled people, the old, the blind, the widows and orphans and the unemployed, the people who are deprived of an opportunity of earning an income by reason of an act of God, old age or the fact that work is not available, we find that it then becomes a very large sum. It again becomes an actuality and is impossible to obtain. Even a much lesser sum than £1,000,000 becomes a sum of enormous size.

We find, for instance, that a sum of £16,000,000 extra was invested by the banks last year in foreign investments. Had some system of taxation been introduced that would not permit that investment of £16,000,000 by the banks, but which would reduce that amount to £14,000,000 or £12,000,000, is it possible that anyone will suggest that the whole economy of the country was going to crumple up as a result? I find it difficult to believe that it is not just as important to invest in keeping the afflicted people of this country in some standard of comfort as it is to invest our external assets. If I amwrong in that my whole conception of Christianity must be wrong. Let us be open and blunt and say we are materialists and all that matters is the making of a profit and securing out of industry as much as we can for ourselves while ignoring the weakest section of the community. I would not like to believe that any Government or group of Deputies would believe in such a policy. If we do not believe in it—and we do not believe in it because we are contributing £21,000,000 already —what is the use of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar? If it is necessary to provide another couple of millions to bring the level of the benefits even up to that of 1948, I would support any proposal the Minister might bring before the House by way of an increase on cigarettes, petrol, drink and the excess profits tax.

It would not be a bad idea at all if the Minister or the Cabinet devised some budgetary system on three lines. One line would deal with capital expenditure. Another would deal with the ordinary housekeeping of the country and the third would cover social services. In regard to social services, a tax could be put on excess profits, cigarettes, drink, cinema seats and entertainment. If that were done and even though cigarettes were dearer we would have the satisfaction of knowing that the last 2d. on cigarettes went to provide a pension for the blind. If we have to pay something more for petrol we will know that some old age pensioner is at least in comfort. If cinema seats cost more we know that some orphan is the better off for it.

There should be some such clear-cut policy and the Minister should see to it that a decent standard of comfort is given to those people. He should make those who work provide that decent standard of comfort by some such form of taxation. However, I suggest that the need is not there. It is a strange thing that in 1947-48 profits of £18,000,000 yielded a sum of £5,000,000 in taxation but, due to the fact that the excess profits tax was removed in 1952-53, profits amounting to £28,000,000 yielded only a tax of £2,500,000. That is to say, an extra£10,000,000 not only did not yield more or as much but £2,500,000 less. That is due to the removal of the excess profits tax. My Party is prepared to support the Minister if he desires to reimpose that tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Mr. Kyne

He has not, I quite agree. The Minister could, however, convey the suggestion to his colleagues that our Party would not vote against any decision in that respect. We have a loss of £10,000,000 this year through removing that tax which would go a considerable way to meet the losses that would be sustained by reason of the increases.

The value of the £ at the present moment is 8/8 and it is quite easy to see what increase would be necessary in the various benefits given by the Department to make them equal to what they were prior to 1939. In that year the old age pensioner received 10/-. That was admitted to be the lowest amount they could possibly be given. Another Party decided 9/- was enough. I am satisfied that anything lower than 10/- would have been criminal. Twenty-three shillings at present-day rates is equivalent to 10/-in 1939. Unfortunately, the old age pensioner receives only 21/6. An unemployed single man has at the present moment 24/-. Expressed in terms of money in 1939 that is equivalent to 10/7, but in 1939 an unemployed single man had 15/-. Instead of the unemployed single man receiving an increase he has been cut down from 15/-to 10/7, having regard to present-day prices and the cost of living. He would require an extra 6/- per week in present-day money to compensate him and bring him to the level he was formerly at.

The benefits proposed by Deputy Norton are pretty well on a level with what are paid at the present time by the Minister. If that scheme were introduced by Deputy Norton at the present day, to get the same value all benefits would have to be increased by 25 per cent. when you view the matter against the background of 1939 prices.There was an increase of 25 per cent. since 1949. If the index figure in that year is taken on base 100, it will be seen that it is now 125, so that there is no disputing the fact that an increase of 25 per cent. would only be the barest justice for the people drawing State benefits. I think that sums up pretty well all I can put forward at the moment in support of the motion. If any words or assurances of mine or of my colleagues would get from the Minister the smallest promise of even reconsidering the position, I would be pleased.

I would like to say just a few words in connection with the Estimate itself and in particular with regard to certain regulations made by the Minister in connection with social welfare benefits. I put a question on the Order Paper some weeks ago addressed to the present Minister asking him the reason why a certain widow received only half benefit on the strength of the stamps put to her credit by herself and no benefit in relation to two dependent children. I was surprised to discover that, under a regulation made by the Minister when this House was not sitting, a contributory widow, who had by virtue of her husband's stamps an entitlement to a pension which could not be interfered with and to which no means test could be applied, found, when she built up a credit such that if she were a single woman would give her a certain rate of benefit when unemployed, she was forbidden to get it in full and would only receive half benefit. Because of the fact that she had an entitlement to a certain amount under the stamps contributed by her late husband, the Minister decided that her dependent children should receive no additional benefits. Regulations such as that should not be brought out by a Minister. They merit, and should receive before being introduced and put into effect, the approval of this House. I have no doubt the Minister knows he could, with the majority of support he has behind him, secure the approval of the House, but it would at least give us an opportunity of putting before the public that act which, I believe, is one of the worst that has been committed under the regulations.

There was also the case that was brought to our notice of an unmarried mother with dependent children who, due to the fact that she was living with her mother and not independently in a house of her own, was not entitled to benefit. Again I think that is a regulation which should not have been made and that the opinion of this House should at least have been sought before it was brought into force. I am aware of the rights we have as Deputies in regard to regulations when they are made, but it is pretty difficult for Deputies to keep on examining the different regulations. Even if you had the time and the knowledge, it would be almost impossible to comprehend the various effects the regulations would have until a particular case was brought to your attention and an illustration given as to what could happen under it. It is most unfair that advantage is taken of the absolutely necessary proviso which the Minister has in the Act whereby he can make regulations, to make such sweeping regulations which are a negation of the actual Act under which he is working.

The working out of the Social Welfare Act and the different benefits given under it is, as far as I am concerned, not satisfactory. I have some small knowledge of the national health insurance schemes and of the working thereof. I have come across in the past ten years in my position as trade union organiser quite a number of cases of claims for benefits for unemployment, but I can say—and I am one of the Deputies who has taken advantage of the Minister's offer to communicate to him any delays which I notice or are reported to me—that never have I seen so many delays and so many mistakes as in the past six months. That is not just one of those wild statements. That is a statement I can stand over before any officer of national insurance and prove with facts and figures, including membership numbers. I know that some of these are due to the country agents not having an adequate knowledge of the new regulations. Branch managers, small labour exchanges, and so on are not expected to have ascomprehensive a knowledge as fulltime officers, but I do believe there is considerable delay both at headquarters, as well as below, in arriving at decisions, so much so that I have known of cases in which, for instance, one married person was deprived of benefit for a period of 18 weeks.

On reporting the case it was investigated at headquarters and strange to relate someone must have been wrong because, notwithstanding the Dáil reply from the Minister that the person in question was not entitled to benefit, on the same day the Minister gave me that reply the person was paid benefit in full and back money at £40. Someone made a mistake somewhere. I am quite prepared to give the Minister the name and address of that person— Joseph Organ, Senior, T.J. Murphy Place, Abbeyside, Dungarvan. The Minister can do any checking he likes on that.

Dr. Ryan

I am not doubting what the Deputy says. I would like to look it up again.

Mr. Kyne

I would like an explanation; one thing about it was that I got the credit.

Dr. Ryan

You deserved it.

Mr. Kyne

It is an ill wind that does not blow somebody good. I would like to make a plea to the Minister in connection with some of his officials. These are not the higher paid officials but the relieving officers under the Dublin Board of Assistance. I understand that a recommendation from the chief executive officer is actually with the Minister at the present moment in which he is asked to bring the cost-of-living bonus of which they are in receipt up to 30 per cent. They are at present in receipt of a cost-of-living bonus of roughly 20 per cent. I am told all officers under the Department of Social Welfare have been on that reduced cost-of-living bonus but all employees in similar clerical jobs under the Department of Local Government are actually receiving 30 per cent. I feel that these men are entitled in justice to have their claim accepted especially when they have the recommendationof the board which is mainly responsible for looking into their case and into their service, and they are as much entitled to it as the clerical officers of the Department of Local Government.

I understand that in other Departments of State there is an increment bonus of £25 given for long service, but that that is not given in the case of the officials of the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister would only be doing what is just if he saw to it that those who work in his particular Department get at least as much as they are entitled to. As I say, a recommendation has gone in from the chief executive officer of the board of assistance in Dublin.

I would like to conclude by making a special appeal to all Deputies in the House who are in favour of an increase for those most deservedly in receipt of benefit under the social welfare code, to add their voice to ours not with a view to attempting to put the present Government in a wrong light in relation to benefit but with a view to disentangling this from the political advantages that could accrue on either side. If it could be treated as an all-Party measure, if we in this House could believe that there is a need for an increase and if the various sides would agree between themselves that all political comment on the methods of securing that increase or making that increase possible, whether by taxation or in some other way, should be cast aside, we would be approaching the problem in the light that there are people suffering who cannot help themselves and that it is our duty to help them. In this regard the House should combine, throwing aside all political strife and making one effort to give these people at least the maximum the country can afford but the minimum on which they can live.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I support this motion:-

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.

I think the majority of Deputies will agree that a review of the rates of social services is, and has been, too infrequent since social services were introduced here, and since the establishment of an Irish Government. I do not think that the case that was made by Deputy Norton, by members of this Party and by other members of the House, could be too strongly stressed, especially when we have regard to how defenceless those people are who are in receipt of social services. Workmen, whether skilled or unskilled, are served by their trade unions, and likewise business people by their associations. Each possesses a certain strength in bargaining power. Those in trade unions can give their labour or withhold it. Their unions can come to certain agreements with regard to the wages which their members should be paid. Similarly, in the case of business people. Manufacturers and industrialists, generally, have a bargaining power which I think we are all agreed they wield pretty well and pretty frequently for their own advantage.

It has, therefore, as Deputy O'Leary has said, been left to the public representatives to fight the case on behalf of recipients under the Social Welfare Act with the strength that a trade union, or an association representing business people, would fight a case on behalf of those whom it represents. I wholeheartedly support the view that was expressed by Deputy Kyne, on behalf of this Party, namely, that the Minister ought to consider the introduction of a special Budget for the raising of money, through taxation or by other means, for the financing of the bill for social welfare that is presented to the House annually.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The raising of money is not the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I mention that because Deputies on the Government Benches taunted us with this: that while we are very prone to askthe Minister to increase certain benefits we never attempt to suggest how the money could be raised to meet the cost of them. In any case I do not propose to develop that point beyond saying that if the Government and the Minister for Finance have any particular views with regard to the raising of money through taxation especially for the purpose of increasing the social services, they will find the Labour Party, to put it mildly, rather sympathetic in their attitude to any such proposal.

There have been some protests, halfhearted in some cases, with regard to the amount that is being spent here on social services. Deputies from both sides of the House have mentioned that we have already reached the limit, or the ceiling, with regard to social services. I wonder when they say that do they mean that we have reached the limit or the ceiling with regard to the amount of money that we are now spending on social services, or that we should not go into other branches of social services and that the services which we have now spending on social services, or that we should not go into other branches of social services and that the services which we have now are quite sufficient to meet the needs of the country? I would suggest that in neither respect have we reached the limit. The House, as a whole, has accepted responsibility for old age pensioners, widows and orphans, blind people, people unemployed and people who are sick. If we have accepted in principle that responsibility I think we should also have the responsibility of seeing that these various classes of people get adequate allowances.

The bill of £21,000,000 for social services presented by the Minister does not frighten me and does not frighten the Labour Party, because the Deputies who, in the early part of their speeches, said that we had reached the limit with regard to social services, were the Deputies who also suggested that old age pensioners, blind pensioners, people in receipt of disability benefits were not getting enough. Apart from the fact that I do not believe we have reached the limit in social services in this country, as far as the amount of money that we are spending on them, is concerned, I amof opinion that there are other avenues which could be exploited with a view to helping financially people who cannot help themselves in that respect. I do not want to develop that point at any great length, but surely in the field of social services there is still open the question as to whether or not a non-contributory widow's pension should be applied to widows who are under the age of 48 years. That is an improvement which could be effected. I believe that the Minister and the Government have not closed their minds on that particular subject and that they are still open to be influenced on it.

Will anyone suggest that we have reached the ceiling in the matter of social services, and that we should put from our minds the consideration of granting old age pensions at the age of 65? To do that would not be revolutionary. I suggest that we are still entitled to consider, and I hope that any Government that we may have will consider, making some provision for spinsters who have reached a certain age.

I have given three examples of ways in which we could still further improve our social services, and I hope that the present Minister or his successor will give thought and consideration to the three proposals I have mentioned. I have said that, in my opinion, a review of the rates paid to recipients under the Social Welfare Act has been too infrequent. It is only at particular times, especially times of political crises, that Governments or Parties are prone to have regard to the plight of such people as old age pensioners, widows and orphans, people who are unemployed and people who are sick. I would suggest in all seriousness to the Minister for Social Welfare, whoever he might be, that he should review these rates when the Budget is being introduced.

The history of social welfare in this country has been mentioned in this House on several occasions. In my view, our record with regard to the payments made, especially to old age pensioners, is not one of which we as a Parliament can be proud. I would,therefore, repeat my suggestion that, on the introduction of every Budget, and having regard to the cost of living, whether it has gone up or gone down, the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Social Welfare should review these allowances from the point of view of granting increases if the cost of living so demands it. This particular motion asks that the different benefits under the Social Welfare Act will be increased and we suggest in this motion that, in view of the fact that the cost of living has gone up by about 23 or 25 per cent. since the Act was first introduced, consideration should be given to increasing those rates by a similar percentage.

The withdrawal of the food subsidies and the consequent increase in essential foodstuff prices has been a very big blow to people in receipt of benefits under the Social Welfare Act of 1952, because I think it is pretty well agreed in this House that the foodstuffs in respect of which the subsidies were withdrawn were the items of food that mean life or death to old age pensioners, widows, sick people and people unemployed. The compensation given in the Budget proposals of 1952 —take, for example, the 1/6 a week given to the old age pensioners—could not be regarded as adequate compensation for the increases in the prices of tea, bread, butter, sugar, flour, cigarettes, stout and, in some cases, the glass of whiskey. The 1/6 a week did not at all compensate them, because tea, bread, butter, sugar and flour were things which were absolutely essential to people in receipt of benefits from the Social Welfare Act of 1952.

There is another big item of expenditure especially at the present time and that is the rents of houses. All of us on the Vote for Local Government bewailed the big rents being demanded from people who go into houses that have been newly constructed, and surely it is not suggested —and nobody will agree if one were to give absolute thought and perfect consideration to it—that a person in receipt of 24/- a week by way of sickness benefit, or even 36/- a week provided he is married, could afford to pay a sum ranging from 10/- to 20/- a weekfor rent. It is inevitable that he would go into arrears and it is a fact that when his period of sickness was over and he could get his normal wages again it would take him quite a considerable time to pay off the arrears accumulated when he was in receipt of a mere 36/- a week.

Under a scheme which I think is administered by the Minister in his capacity as Minister for Health, that is the infectious diseases maintenance allowances scheme, there is provision for the payment of rent allowances. Persons suffering from T.B., and who are eligible for the infectious diseases maintenance allowances can be given, and are given, in most cases rent allowances to tide them over the period in which they are incapacitated. I would suggest that in respect of benefits given under the Social Welfare Act of 1952 the Minister should seriously consider making provision for a rent allowance. It is one of the principal items of expenditure every week and if a man has not his home he has nothing. It is the one thing he cannot give up, and I think one of the first considerations in regard to benefits under the Social Welfare Act should be the provision of rent allowances for old age pensioners, widows and orphans, blind pensioners, those in receipt of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance and those in receipt of sickness benefit.

No useful purpose would be served by my travelling ground that was travelled by Deputy Norton when he introduced this motion for consideration by this House, but it might be no harm to mention the rates which are paid in some cases. I would be wholeheartedly behind the proposal or suggestion made by Deputies McQuillan and Lehane that there be no means test for old age pensions. I would not be at all satisfied with the reply or quip that when we were part of the Government we did not abolish the means test. That would be the obvious crack to make but as we go ahead, we advance in our ideas and we accumulate much more information. The suggestion has often been mooted that if an old age pension were given to aperson who did not really deserve it, some other method such as income-tax ought to be devised to balance up or take a substantial portion of the pension of that particular person. I think that an approach to the question in that way might meet the objections that would be raised to the abolition of the means test in respect of old age pensions. The children's allowances are applied to all families who have two or more children and are balanced up when income-tax is being assessed and if it can be done in respect of the payment of children's allowances to everybody irrespective of means, I would suggest, therefore, that the Minister would do well to consider a similar approach to the granting of old age pensions to people who reach a certain age.

There are a few matters on administration or on some of the regulations that I would like to raise with the Minister. Up to the operation of the Social Welfare Act of 1952, on January 1953 certain people who had been voluntary contributors could avail of the dental benefits and had applied to them national health insurance and the benefits in respect of widowhood or orphanhood in their families. Under the present Act the only benefit which they can claim arising out of their voluntary contributions is widows' pensions in respect of their wives and orphans' pensions in respect of their children. I think the Minister ought to reconsider his decision in that respect and have applied to these voluntary contributors the benefits that have been conferred on them up to January 5th, 1953.

With regard to delays in the payment of benefits, I think most of the delays occur where applications are made for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit where the applicants had stamps to their credit in Britain. I find on inquiry at the Department of Social Welfare that in the vast majority of these cases it is not the fault of the Department but it is the fault of their opposite number, the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of National Insurance in Great Britain. The Minister's predecessormade a reciprocal agreement with regard to insurance payments. The present Minister made a reciprocal agreement with regard to the payment of insurance in both these countries, but I think there ought to be some sort of complaint made or some inquiry suggested by the Minister for Social Welfare in this country to the Ministry of Pensions in Britain that applications which involved the transfer of credit from Great Britain have been unduly delayed to the detriment of unfortunate people in this country waiting for unemployment assistance benefit or national health insurance benefit. The general opinion here is that the Department of Social Welfare is to blame, but, in my experience, these delays are the fault of the British Ministry of Pensions, which does not have the credits transferred from Britain in the shortest possible time.

I want to raise now a matter in which I believe the Minister can be very helpful. I refer to the practice of certain people here, shall we say "common informers", who, in certain cases, try to do their unemployed colleagues harm by sending in anonymous letters to the labour exchanges stating that so-and-so was working on a particular day or days. It is true that in some cases men have been charged in the courts and found guilty of working and drawing unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit at the same time. No one condones that, but for as long as I can remember the Department of Social Welfare has tolerated the writers of anonymous letters and I hold that that is tantamount to encouraging the practice of informing on one's neighbour.

To my own knowledge there have been cases where an individual had a grudge against another man and, in order to do him harm and delay payment of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit or disability benefit, took up his pen or pencil and scribbled a note to the manager of the local labour exchange saying that this particular individual had been working and drawing dole at the same time. In that way payment of assistance was held up whilst the circumstances of the case were being inquired into. If anybodyhas any information about any irregularity he should at least have the decency to append his name to the letters he writes.

There is another matter to which I should like to bring the attention of the Minister, and that is the attitude of what used to be called the Court of Referees; I do not know what particular term is applied to it now. I refer to the hearing of cases in the presence of an appeals officer from the Department in relation to disallowing a man unemployment assistance on the ground that he is not looking for work. Veiled suggestions have been made here that numbers of men would prefer to draw dole rather than work. It has been said that we could save a lot of money if we were more rigid in our attitude towards the granting of unemployment assistance. We all know that in our own constituencies and in our own home towns there is a very small percentage who would prefer to suffer the indignity of appearing at the labour exchange every morning in order to qualify for unemployment assistance rather than be employed. There is a very small percentage which would prefer to suffer the indignity of being questioned and cross-questioned by the appeals officer rather than do a day's or a week's work for decent wages. Extensive evidence that the applicant has been looking for work is usually asked for. He has to produce letters from all types of employers to the effect that he has sought work and has been refused. The people who sit with the appeals officer and who are usually people from the particular locality in which these cases are heard, are in a far better position to tell the appeals officer what the situation really is with regard to employment. That would be preferable to having the unfortunate man going around for weeks or months before his case is heard asking at least ten employers whether or not they have work.

A question was asked here to-day and, despite the reply given by the Minister, the position still appears to be very unsatisfactory. I refer to the refusal of the Minister to give unemployment assistance to an unmarriedmother and an allowance in respect of the child or children. I think a regulation was made to the effect that before an unmarried mother and her child or children can get unemployment assistance she must be living in a separate house and must be, in effect, the head of the household. If she is living with her parents, or with a parent, she is not regarded as the head of the household for the purpose of obtaining unemployment assistance. Surely the Minister will admit that it is most desirable that an unmarried mother and her child or children should live with her parents and that it is entirely undesirable that she should live in a house apart from her parents. On moral grounds, I do not think there is any justification for such a regulation. I will put it no further than that.

The Minister represents the same constituency as I do and I am sure he is as interested as I am in the condition of the local offices of the Department of Social Welfare, usually called the labour exchanges. I have not had any complaints from any of the officials but as a result of my visits to Wexford labour exchange I can say it is certainly not a credit to the Department for Social Welfare. It looks to me to be in bad repair. It is badly lighted. It is not ill-kept; indeed, it is scrupulously clean, but it is certainly not the kind of office in which the affairs of the Department of Social Welfare ought to be conducted. I do not know whether it is the function of the Minister or the Board of Works, but I think he should ensure that the existing labour exchanges are put into proper repair or an attempt made to secure better premises.

A question arises in connection with certain officials who come under the jurisdiction of the Minister, namely, the home assistance officers. It seems to me that the conditions applying to home assistance officers differ from county to county and even from area to area. I would suggest, therefore, that a regular scheme and regular scale of salary or wages should be established for home assistance officers and that the conditions of employment of home assistance officers throughout the that the conditions of employment of home assistance officers throughout the Twenty-Six Counties should be regularisedand that the same conditions and the same rate of wages be applied.

I appreciate that because the Social Welfare Act of 1952 created so many changes it is very difficult to devise a regular scheme in a short time. A large number of officials find great difficulty in making themselves conversant with the provisions of the Act and the regulations that have been made since the operation of the Act. I would suggest that the Minister ought to have prepared, printed and distributed a booklet giving the main features of the regulations and the provisions of the Act to the general public and to public representatives. The book which has been published by the Department of Social Welfare under the title Summary of Social Serviceshas proved extremely beneficial to me and to any person who has been lucky enough to get a copy but such sweeping changes have been made in the Act by regulations that the Minister would be well advised to publish another booklet embodying the contents of this summary and in addition giving the main features of the regulations that have been introduced since the operation of the Act.

Mr. Cafferky

We on this side of the House are prepared to support the motion tabled by the Labour Party with a view to securing increases for the sections of the community referred to in it. Over the past ten or 12 years all Parties in this House, from time to time, have sponsored similar motions. It must be agreed that there has been a big change in the past ten years in respect of old age pensioners and widows and orphans, inasmuch as they have got in some instances 100 per cent. increase in pensions. It must also be recognised that there has been a corresponding increase in the cost of living. It was because of the increase in the cost of living that motions such as that now sponsored by the Labour Party were tabled. It is generally accepted that where the recipient of these pensions has to depend wholly on the allowance given by the State, the allowance is not sufficient.

Although we may claim that£21,000,000 is a large sum of money to spend on social services, if we are shouldering certain responsibilities we must face the fact that we have to make further efforts to secure extra provision for these people to enable them to meet the cost of living and to give those who are unable to help themselves a bare means of existence.

I do not wish to labour the position of the old age pensioner, the widow or the orphan because that has been stressed over the years by all groups in the House. I do not suggest that sincerity is not more than skin deep. I do not suggest that there is anything other than a desire to help these people. Let us hope that a desire to help these people is the object of the motion before the House and that it serves no other purpose and was introduced for no other purpose. If that is so, the sponsors of the motion can be assured of our wholehearted support. It is only natural that that should be the case in a motion coming from the Labour Party but similar motions have come from every other Party over the past ten or 15 years, seeking aid and assistance for the sections mentioned in the motion.

Deputy Corish referred to the fact that certain Deputies referred to the sum of £21,000,000, which indicated that in the opinion of these Deputies we had reached a ceiling or saturation point in the provision of moneys for these services. We must bear in mind that it is a large sum of money for a part of a nation, such as this is, and for such a small population. One cannot describe our population as comprising the very rich. A big percentage of our population are very poor. Our population is mostly comprised of small business people and working-class people. By direct and indirect taxation they contribute £21,000,000 towards the people mentioned in the motion.

I am sure that Deputy Blowick would not be a party to any suggestion that we would not in the near future consider the needs of old age pensioners, widows and orphans. What he intended to convey last night was that there could be economies within the administration of the Minister's Departmentwhich would go a long way in helping to make the increased provision which we have in mind for these people which would help to relieve the present strain.

I have in mind the considerable sum we spend in the form of unemployment assistance. I would not for one moment advocate abolition of unemployment assistance but I do say that we are making very little effort to reduce the number of recipients of unemployment assistance by the provision of stable employment. If this Government or future Governments could provide stable employment the money now spent on unemployment assistance could be utilised to increase old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

And where would we get the money to create employment, which would be much more?

Mr. Cafferky

That is a very deep question, I agree. The latest explanation given to us by the Minister for Education, who talked of capital investment, development and so forth, is that it is no harm to repatriate our external assets if the repatriation of those assets means the development of the country, the provision of employment, the development of industry and work. That would be worth advocating and supporting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Social Welfare is not responsible for that and it cannot be discussed on this Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

I agree with that, Sir, but I am replying to the interjection by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not permitted to go into that by the Chair, as you will appreciate, but I could very easily give you an explanation as to where the money would come from for the provision of employment. I would not consider that a big obstacle at all. However, it may seem a big obstacle to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Party he has the honour to be a member of. That I do not know, but I do say that when thissection of the House had the honour to be the Government of this country for three years and three months they set a good headline in that direction by the provision of employment and the reduction of the number on the unemployment register during that particular period.

However, I do not want to cross swords with the Chair and I will try to keep to the few points I intend to make. I do say that that would be one way we could find to reduce the number of recipients of unemployment assistance. While on that point I wish to bring another matter to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am glad it is he who is here in the House rather than the Minister, because I believe that he is more conversant with it, living as he does in the country down in Westmeath and with no strained relations between himself and the country district that he represents. I want to ask him candidly does he approve of the system where, if a young man to-morrow morning goes out to seek work on a minor employment scheme which may be under way for the past few weeks, he has to cycle six, seven and sometimes ten miles to secure a card and present that card to the ganger in charge of that job before he can get employment? Is it fair that if he goes out to-morrow morning and presents himself to the ganger and is asked:

"Have you a card?" and he replies: "I have not," he has got to go by bicycle, if he has one, or if he has not got one, he must walk ten miles to secure a card before he is considered a suitable person to be employed on that temporary minor employment scheme? I think it is wrong, and something should be done to change that system altogether. It is outdated and out-moded and primitive in every sense of the word and it is time that it was changed. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and his predecessors over the years have had it brought to their notice that something should be done, but they do not take any interest. I hope it will be changed.

Further, I want to say this about another matter which I think is wrong:there are in my constituency and, I am sure, in every other constituency young men who detest the idea of presenting themselves as applicants for unemployment assistance. They would rather go out and wash bottles than come down to that level. However, through no fault of their own but due to circumstances outside their control they are forced into that degrading situation. These young men who have come home from England perhaps in the back end of the year, coming home early in November and remaining at home until the end of February or the middle of March, have not a hope during that period of getting a job of work, one day's employment, unless they sign on at the local labour exchange and thrash out with the manager of the labour exchange and the investigation officer all their particulars and their whole life's history, what they have and what they have not got, in order to become the recipient of those few shillings that they get, and to qualify for a day's work. I think the time is here when any man prepared to take off his jacket and pull up his shirt sleeves and do a day's work should get it, and there should be none of this red tape preventing him from taking part in any particular scheme wherever it may be in operation.

There are young men in rural Ireland living on small uneconomic holdings, especially in the West of Ireland, rearing large families of six or seven and sometimes ten or 11 children, who are in receipt of unemployment assistance the whole year round and without warning some Monday morning by post or otherwise they are notified that they must report three or four miles away for work. It is argued that if such a man fails to report for work he is malingering, a slacker, just in receipt of this money because he wishes to be in receipt of it, and never has any intention of working, and there are some who say that he is one of the corner boys or idlers who never intend to do an honest day's work. That is untrue. You might find a few of those gentlemen in our cities or our very large towns, but they would be very few, and they are far rarer in the country areas.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider carefully the case of a married man with a family who has been in receipt of unemployment assistance the whole year round and is living may be on a holding of £2 10s. or £3 10s. valuation and is called out to work just at a time when he cannot go, due to circumstances at home. It may be just the time when he is fully occupied with his little bit of land during the haymaking or the harvest or getting the turf in which is to provide fuel for his family, but if he fails to report then for work he is disqualified and no longer in receipt of unemployment assistance which he cannot very well get on without. The single man is totally different, except in the case where the single man is actually shouldering the responsibility of a head of a family, we will say where the father has died and the eldest son has taken on the responsibility of the care of the home and helping his mother out to maintain the younger members of the family. In that case he is in every sense the head of the house and he should be so considered, but where there are a lot of young men in receipt of unemployment assistance I would not very well consider them if they did not report for employment. I would like that consideration would be given to each case in accordance with its merits.

I have no time for the Referee Court at all. It is only a matter of form and a waste of time to bring Tom, Dick or Harry before it to state their case, because they are condemned, judged and the verdict passed before they ever arrive there.

A lot has been said about the national health. I do not know how that functions at all. Every Deputy in this House from time to time gets letters from people who seem to be, so to speak, lost. They do not know exactly where they stand, and they can be for weeks and weeks and weeks sending in certificates but nothing coming in, no money. They may be all their lives employed and, due to sickness or some other reason, fall out of employment. They sign on for the national health and nothing is done. It goes on like that for months. I do not know where the mistake is or whois at fault, but definitely it is a widespread complaint. I am not saying that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister or his staff are at fault, but somebody is definitely at fault, and I would like that that would be looked into and corrected, whoever is at fault.

As regards the widow, I understand that you do not qualify for the widows' pension unless you have reached the age of 48 years, unless you have dependents—that is, unless you have a number of children. There are a number of young women who may have no family and their husbands have died, and nowadays it is very hard even for a single woman or a single man to find a partner, and a widow or a widower would find it hard to secure a second partner. Such a young woman if she remains on as a widow will find life difficult. Say she married at 24 or 25 and that her husband died at 30 and that she has a very small holding which she is anxious to cling on to, but she has no family and cannot secure a partner to help out in the cultivation of the holding, and even if she had an income out of it it would not be an awful lot because her husband, if he had lived, would likely enough be in receipt of unemployment assistance on such a small holding. He could not exist otherwise. Now she is expected to subsist on a pension which is reduced by 50 per cent. although she has no income. If she desires a little bit of tillage, she must pay somebody to put it down. She has no chance of getting any further assistance from the State unless she applies for home assistance, which is the last thing she would dream of doing except in very extreme circumstances. I think that the provisions of the Act should be changed or that something should be done to meet that type of case.

I stated that I would not delay the House and I do not intend to do so because it is rather late in the day to discuss Estimates when the money provided under them is almost spent. I should like the Minister, however, to consider the few points I have made in relation in particular to unemployment assistance and to the necessity of having to travel such long distances forcards to enable a man to secure employment on the little jobs that are going on throughout the country at present.

Mr. Cunningham

A few years ago, a reciprocal agreement was made with the British Government in regard to the payment of social welfare benefits of different kinds to residents in this country who worked for a period in Great Britain, Scotland or the Six Counties. Many of my constituents are people who work across the Border in the City of Derry or in the town of Strabane, and I find that when they become unemployed or fall ill, there are very long delays in the payment of unemployment benefit or sickness benefit. I realise, of course, that this agreement has been in operation only a short time and possibly there are snags in it, but I would suggest that, having had a few years' experience of the working of this agreement, a meeting should now take place between the officers of our Department here and officials of the Social Welfare Department on the other side, with a view to straightening out some of the snags that experience has brought to light. I do know that very serious delays have occurred. I know of cases where unemployment benefits have not been paid three months after the application was made and in regard to sickness benefits I know cases where the delays are even longer. I would suggest therefore that a further meeting should take place between the officials concerned on both sides so that these matters could be remedied. I was told that in some of the cases our Department wrote to the officials in Belfast, that a reminder was sent later on, and that no reply was received. That is a situation that I am very sure could be remedied, and I would suggest that it be remedied fairly soon, because there should be no difficulty in that respect.

I have figures here which show the increase in social welfare benefits in the past few years and the increases are fairly substantial. I think myself that in regard to children's allowances, sickness benefit and disablement benefit, etc., a great improvement has taken place because a number of years ago these benefits were only nominalwhile nowadays I think they are pretty good. There is one social welfare benefit which I should like to see increased and that is the benefit payable to old age pensioners. That is still too small. Another grievance, I think, is the fact that the limit in the means test is too low. A third grievance is that when a person who has been employed reaches 70 years of age and applies for an old age pension, his earnings for the previous year are taken into consideration in assessing his means. I think that should not be the case as everybody knows that it is not very much use when the 31st December arrives in any particular year, to go looking for one's earnings of 12 months previously. They are all gone. When a man reaches the old age pension age I think it is not right to hold against him his earnings for the previous year. If it is apparent to the social welfare officer that he is not now employed and that his income is under the statutory limit, I think that no question of his income for the previous 12 months should be considered and that he should be given the pension automatically.

I think the question of the remuneration and conditions of service of managers of employment exchange offices and sub-offices should also be reviewed. I am not quite sure of the exact details of their grievance but I know they have a grievance. The position of officials of the national health insurance organisation who were taken over by the Department should also be reviewed and these officials should be given full Civil Service status. I do know that there are a number of grievances there that should be remedied and I think their case should be dealt with as soon as possible.

I have experience, such as the last Deputy mentioned, of very long delays in the payment of sickness benefits to insured persons. There should be no delay or if some delay is inevitable, it should be as little as possible because it is during the period of sickness that benefit is most needed. It is not much consolation to a person who is ill to find that he has to wait three months before getting sickness benefit.

A final point that I should like to make deals with the wives of men who are permanently disabled. I do know that some time ago the wives of men who were not fit to work or who were permanently disabled were entitled to unemployment assistance. I find now that, as is the case with unmarried mothers, the wives of permanently disabled men are being deprived of unemployment assistance. I do not think that is right. If the husband is not fit to work, although he may be the head of the household, I maintain that the wife of that person should receive unemployment assistance. I do not know whether this is a new regulation but I am inclined to think that it is not. I think the wording of the Act remains the same but that there is now too strict an adherence to the letter of the law. The law is being interpreted more strictly now than it was previously.

That is also the case in respect to unmarried mothers. Some of these mothers who have two children are in receipt of children's allowance. Yet, for the purpose of receiving unemployment assistance such a mother, in many cases, is not regarded as the head of the household and, therefore, does not qualify for unemployment assistance. I agree with the point made by Deputy Corish when he said that the unmarried mother who is living with her parents or with another relative should be regarded as eligible. When an unmarried mother is living in a house of her own she gets unemployment assistance. Yet, when she is living with a father or with another person who is the head of the household the assistance is not paid. I think that that should be remedied.

Mr. Kennedy

I do not want to enter into this debate except to refer to one particular matter. Several Deputies, Deputy Corish in particular, raised the question of unemployment insurance for an unmarried mother. I wonder if Deputies are aware of the fact that in certain places in this country there have been very suitable institutions provided in latter years for unmarried mothers where first-class hospital accommodation exists, where the mother and child are taken care of,and the mother is trained in cooking and in domestic economy and various other matters. The good nuns in charge of these institutions go out of their way to get employment for these women and have done so successfully. They have turned out so many good girls in these institutions that there is a big demand for them; in fact, they cannot cope with the demand for the employment of them. If Deputies were aware of this fact, I think that the problem of the unmarried mothers would be solved very quickly. A woman, instead of feeling debased in the county home as heretofore, is looked after from her entry into the institution before the birth of the baby until she is trained. The baby is there with the mother for two years until the mother goes out to employment. If that fact were well known to Deputies, I think this question would not come up so frequently in the debate.

Unemployment insurance benefit and unemployment assistance are for those genuinely seeking employment. When they prove that they cannot get employment then they get either unemployment insurance benefit or unemployment assistance benefit. There is no hesitation in giving it to them. If they are in the unfortunate position that they become unmarried mothers, then the institutions in Roscrea, Kanturk and various other places train them properly and get them employment. They are no longer unemployed and many of them are very happily married afterwards.

Mr. O. Flanagan

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.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling away from the motion. The present Minister is charged with the responsibility of administering the Department of Social Welfare and the benefits provided under legislation. The provision of employment is not relevant.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I agree with that, Sir. The point to which I was endeavouring to draw the Minister's attention was that in the case where he does not succeed in providing employment at least he should provide unemployment benefits equalling remuneration as if the applicant was in receipt of full-time employment. I want to protest once more against the low rates of benefit being paid to these unemployed workers. It is high time it was increased and I trust the Minister will accept the terms of the motion tabled in that respect by Deputy Norton.

I would like also to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that some of the labour exchanges throughout the country from which these people are paid are a disgrace. Anything at all seems to be good enough for the unemployed. There seems to be a fire provided, a suitable table and suitable lighting facilities for the officers who are inside, but the unemployed people must remain eitherstanding in the halls or in a long queue outside and have their business disclosed to the whole public. Some of the labour exchange buildings throughout the country are a disgrace and there are much better stables and piggeries than there are labour exchanges in many areas.

Could the Minister tell us what he proposes to do in connection with the old age pension means test? If my memory serves me right, during the Galway by-election it was reported— not alone was it reported but it was sounded loudly and it re-echoed in every part of the South Galway constituency—that the means test for old age pensions was about to go and that everybody would qualify for the old age pension. That travelled quite a long distance and had the desired effect, I may say, and we would be very glad to hear now whether the Minister proposes to abolish the means test in connection with old age pensions, whether in connection with old age pensions and the means test he has ever had his attention directed to cases where the wives of county council workers reach the age of 70 and whilst they would probably be in the 67 to 70 years' region, their wives would not qualify for pension because of the fact that their husbands were in the employment of local authorities.

Deputy Mac Fheórais, I think, referred to the question of calculating the previous year's income. That is very wrong and I would ask the Minister to give consideration to the question of abolishing the means test with regard to old age pensions. In the long run it will represent an economy because there will be a considerable saving on administration, and it will ease a great amount of uneasiness that prevails to-day in regard to the old age pensions administration. Everybody who is over 70 should, in my opinion, have the pension.

The National Health Insurance agents have had their case presented to the Minister, and have asked for sympathetic consideration of it on more than one occasion, but very little seems to have been done for those people. They cannot make a complaint except through their superior officer.I would ask the Minister to obtain the advice of the officer in his Department in charge of these agents with a view to finding out from him what improved conditions can be provided for these agents. Their rates of pay are small, the amount provided for offices is small and the amount provided for clerical assistance is practically nil. The number of applicants for sickness benefit is greater than it was, but the rate of pay which the agent is in receipt of is by no means in accordance with the services which he renders to the Department. I would ask the Minister sympathetically to consider, as far as possible, the question of providing better conditions for these agents.

In connection with the payment of national health insurance benefits, I would like to impress on the Minister the necessity of giving some consideration to the dependents of insured persons who are patients either in sanatoria or in mental hospitals. I have known of cases of insured persons who were entitled to the full benefits under the Insurance Acts, but because they were patients in one or other of these institutions, the benefits were not paid to them, while at the same time their dependents at home were in very poor circumstances. I think that, in such cases, a large proportion of the benefit should be paid to the dependents to enable them to provide some little extra comforts for their relatives while patients in a sanatorium or in a mental hospital. I know that the Minister's attention has been directed to cases of this kind, and I would ask him to give them his consideration.

I want to recommend to the House two aspects of the present debate. The first is, that the manner in which the Department has presented this Estimate to us for the current year is unsatisfactory in that it does not provide sufficiently for the administration of the Department during the year, and, secondly, that Deputy Norton's motion, taken in conjunction with the Estimate, is worthy of the support of the House. I am sure that, having regard to the high cost of living and the low standard of living of old age pensioners, unemployment benefit recipients and others, the Governmentwill accept the motion moved by Deputy Norton. In order that the homes of those people may be made more happy and may have an air of contentment in them during Christmas, I hope that the Minister will be in a position to announce that he has given consideration to the question of increasing all those benefits.

I want to say, however, how disappointed I am. I feel that the Minister has failed miserably in his job and does not deserve congratulations. Instead, angry demands have been brought to his notice on behalf of those unfortunate people who are put to the pin of their collar to exist on their present poor, mean allowances. I want to say, lastly, that if Fine Gael were in office, or if the inter-Party Government were in office, no time would have been lost——

Dr. Ryan

Why did they not do it when they were in office?

Mr. O. Flanagan

We did.

Dr. Ryan

You did not do it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

We did.

Dr. Ryan

You gave nothing.

Mr. O. Flanagan

We did. We prepared——

Dr. Ryan

You prepared, but you did nothing.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The White Paper on social security which was issued by Deputy Norton in 1949 contained the very same——

Dr. Ryan

Proposals, and nothing more.

Mr. O. Flanagan

——benefits that you have to-day.

Dr. Ryan

Proposals that were not put into operation.

Mr. O. Flanagan

We had them in the Department a week after we came in.

Dr. Ryan

They were there before you came in.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You were just in luck.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Norton took my proposals in 1947 and put them aside for three years.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Be fair.

Dr. Ryan

Let the Deputy be fair.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Let us both be fair. Is it not true to say that the Minister for Social Welfare is now enjoying the results of Deputy Norton's administration?

Dr. Ryan

Of my own proposals in 1947.

Mr. O. Flanagan

As I have said, while the credit for the present increases has gone to the present Minister for Social Welfare, the spade work was done by the inter-Party Government.

Dr. Ryan

But no money was given.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The poor of this country appreciated it.

Dr. Ryan

They did and they showed that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

We prepared the schemes, and the present Government walked in at the time when these benefits would have been payable by the inter-Party Government, so that the present Government was committed by the inter-Party Government to pay those benefits. Therefore, it is only right that we should now place on record that if the inter-Party Government were in office—and having regard to the bad management and the mismanagement of the present Government in failing to keep down prices—they would have lost no time in increasing old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, sickness benefits and the rates of unemployment benefit. We would have a smaller number in receipt of unemployment benefit, because there would be more thousands of people at work.

Mr. Desmond

What I have to say on the Estimate will be related not only to it but in particular to the motion that has been moved by Deputy Norton. The debate on the Estimate has taken a very long time, so long asto merit what people in the country term an American wake. I should like to refer for a moment to the remarks that were made a moment ago by the Minister. I was surprised and disappointed to find that his memory is so short. It seems surprising that the Minister should say that, during the régime of the inter-Party Government when this Department was under the control of Deputy Norton, no increases were given to the people on whose behalf I intend to speak here this evening. Surely, the Minister cannot expect us to believe that his memory is so short that he forgets that in January, 1949, not only did old age pensioners, and such people, get increases in their pensions but that, in addition, they got what must be admitted to have been the largest single increase ever given since the establishment of native government here. While, perhaps, the Minister may not be interested in that, I am simply making it clear that I want the record to show that I for one, as a member of the Labour Party, have no intention of believing that the present Minister's memory is so short when such an important matter is up for discussion. I will not dwell on that except to say that in connection with that increase, we made it perfectly clear at the time that we were proud to be associated with a Government that could give the increase, but never did we say that we were satisfied that that was the final figure that should be given to these people. We say now that these people, the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners, the widows and orphans are not getting sufficient and we are trying in our own simple way to point out why we believe the rates paid are not sufficient.

When discussing the Estimate of this particular Department we must all realise that far and away above every other Department of State this particular Department has to work in connection with the over-all policy of the Government, and it is a clear reflection of the policy of the Government when we consider the Estimate of this particular Department. As each member of the House is supplied at various periods during the year with the number of people who are unemployedunder various categories, then we know that the Minister for Social Welfare has not alone the problem of dealing with his own Department but he must also accept the fact that through the inactivity of his Government as a whole he must meet part of the bill. When we realise that on this particular Estimate we are provided with headings such as "people having unemployment benefit claims,""people having unemployment assistance applications" and "persons with means" and "persons without means," we realise our responsibility in offering any suggestions whatsoever on this Estimate and —let me make it quite clear—the Labour Party has no intention of either trying to go off on a wild goose chase to demand something that we must consider fantastic. We believe that our policy is one that has direct sympathy with the position of these people who can be affected and who are affected by the policy in operation by this Department. We maintain that the claims we are putting forward are worthy of consideration.

The Minister stated according to reports in this morning's newspapers—it was given under a very large heading in a certain daily paper—that his work was crowned with success. I suppose he was justified from his point of view and from the point of view of those supporting the Government in drawing attention to the fact that between the years of 1932 and 1953 the amount of money provided through this Department went from £3,250,000 to £21,000,000. It is quite natural that papers supporting the Government would give prominence to these figures but we cannot agree that the work of these 21 years has been crowned with success to the degree we would wish for, because constantly and consistently in this House a prominent Minister of the present Government has been laying particular stress on the important fact that for a number of years back the £1 has devalued to an extraordinary degree. We know that.

While the Labour Party at all times supported the present Government, even prior to 1947 when the question of providing any advantages for people, such as old age pensioners and allothers, was under consideration, I think it must be remembered that it is not correct, in my opinion at any rate, to say to the people of this country that all benefits given in all the activities of the Department have been increased to such a degree as between £3,250,000 and £21,000,000. Three and a quarter million in 1932 meant a great deal more than £3,250,000 would mean now. We know that.

The Minister laid particular stress on another point in his speech. It was that while the Department carried out the duties imposed on it so well, yet it had consistently shown a reduction in the number of staff employed. We can come to that stage perhaps later when I shall have some remarks to make to draw attention to this particular aspect of the Department, but what did surprise me this morning was to see that while such prominence was given to the work that has been "crowned with success" apparently no space was found for the views expressed by the leader of the Labour Party in moving a most important motion in connection with this Estimate. I am entitled to ask why is it, when we are dealing with such an important Estimate because of its direct connection with the people, and with sections of the community which, whether they like it or not, we must be prepared to do our utmost to help, why is it that such important matters are apparently not worth printing? Had that not been the case I would have believed that the Minister was sincere—not alone the Minister but the Government—in trying to improve the present situation. But if every form of constructive criticism such as that offered by Deputy Norton and other speakers in connection with this motion is to be hidden from the public, then I cannot see any justification for the Minister saying that the work has been "crowned with success".

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has not any responsibility for what is published in the papers.

Mr. Desmond

I am quoting from the words used by the Minister when he stated that the work had beencrowned with success, and I am simply drawing attention to the fact that, in my opinion, the work has not been crowned with the success which some members here would wish.

I had no intention at this stage of going into any details of the various numbers of people who are listed as unemployed and who are signing on the registers of the employment exchanges in this country. There is no need to do so. Perhaps at a later stage we might draw attention to the over-all figures, but the Minister, when speaking on this Estimate, drew particular attention to aspects of the activity of his Department under the new Social Welfare Act of 1952. I may be wrong, but again I say I cannot agree when he says he believes that people who are disallowed unemployment assistance during employment periods may qualify for unemployment benefit now. Perhaps it is because he is trying to hold on to that particular line of argument that he maintains that the present live register is as it is according to the figures. The Minister went so far as to say that a claimant who has been disallowed—that is, in the case of unemployment—can continue to register now under the 1952 Act. It is important to remember that contributions for weeks of approved unemployment can be credited to such a person.

I am trying to approach this matter in a clear-cut way. Things that are there to hinder rather than to help ought not to be hidden from the people. Does the Minister realise that while this suggested benefit in the 1952 Act can apply in certain cases the words "approved unemployment" are of vital importance? I can relate certain cases here for the Minister's benefit. I know of one case where a young girl was employed in a restaurant during the summer months. She was unemployed during the winter months. When she applied for unemployment benefit, having the requisite number of stamps, she was told she was not entitled to such benefit because there was work available for her. That work was not available within a reasonable distance of her home. It was available at a distanceof roughly 70 or 80 miles away. Where is the use in our quoting Acts and telling people there are certain benefits available to them when under the rules and regulations we are doing our utmost to prevent them from getting these benefits? It is no use telling the people there are certain advantages when the hidden hand of officialdom— I am not blaming the officials—is there offering, on the one hand, and taking away, on the other, any advantages that there are.

Some Deputies have already drawn attention to delays experienced in the operations of different sections of the Department. I am interested in the problem of inspectors dealing with special allowances for blind persons. I have no intention whatsoever of laying any blame or responsibility on whoever may be the inspector, but I do want to draw attention to the statement made by the Minister when introducing his Estimate. He said that he took pride in being able to reduce, for the sake of economy, the number of staff employed in his Department. I do not for a moment suggest that he takes pride in sacking anyone. He is proud of the fact that the Department is operating efficiently and well with a smaller staff than it hitherto carried. Now, I reported a certain case to his Department last November in relation to an unfortunate old age pensioner in Blarney who applied for the special allowance for the blind. I was told in November that an inspector would call on her as soon as possible. Up to a week ago the inspector has not been heard of in Blarney. I am not blaming the inspector but I am wondering if the reduction in staff has been made at the expense of these unfortunate people. I am not advocating an increase in staff, if that is not necessary, but I am not satisfied with the position. Last November I approached the Department and I have heard nothing since.

Dr. Ryan

Does the Deputy mean last month?

Mr. Desmond

No. November, 1952. I am not blaming the officials, but I have to ask myself is it possible we have not enough officials or inspectors?Deputy Norton very competently and very capably raised the question of the wages and conditions of employees in branch offices. The Minister may say that responsibility in that matter rests with the manager. The manager in these local employment exchanges cannot pay proper wages or give decent conditions of employment because his own salary is insufficient. I am not satisfied that that is the case. Only recently I heard of one or two vacancies and the number of applications received was overwhelming. Before anyone is appointed as manager in a branch office there should be an agreement that such a manager will in turn give decent conditions of employment and wages to those who work under him. While they may be employed by a private individual, as it were, they are doing very important State work. The present unsatisfactory condition of affairs should be altered. These people should not be expected to work extraordinarily long hours at very low wages.

I wonder are the managers of the employment exchanges fully conversant with the rules and regulations. Quite recently it was brought to my notice that road workers have to travel eight or nine miles once a week to the nearest labour exchange to sign on for unemployment benefit. I know that when they are putting in the first claim they must visit the employment exchange. After that, I understand they can notify the exchange in writing. In this particular case, however, the manager insists on these men cycling in that long journey once every week. Are these managers really conversant with the rules?

I have not yet had an opportunity of reporting to the Department the extraordinary delay that occurs in connection with the payment of national health benefit. I do not believe the fault lies with the Department. I believe it lies with the local manager because he fails to carry out his duties properly. I would like to have these matters fully investigated and I intend to send the particulars to the Minister and his officials as soon as possible. These things are important to the affected people.

I have also come up against the problem of the widow drawing a widow's pension who, on reaching 70 years of age, qualifies for an old age pension. In one particular instance I received the greatest co-operation from the Department in connection with this matter and I give the officials credit for that. I believe, however, that it would be better and more advantageous to the widows if, on reaching 70 years of age, they were automatically transferred to the old age pension rather than putting them through the old routine of sending in claims. I have in mind two particular cases. One widow, through ignorance of the procedure that should be adopted, lost between five and six months' old age pension. There is another case where a person will probably lose nine or ten weeks' pension. Arrangements should be made for the automatic transfer of a widow, on reaching the age of 70, to the old age pension.

My colleagues, Deputies Corish and Kyne, drew attention to the problem created by regulations. A Government Deputy mentioned the importance of the booklet that is at present on sale. Deputy Corish also spoke highly of it. The value of the booklet is completely nullified by the extraordinary number of regulations coming into operation every day. No Deputy can be familiar with every regulation. These regulations sound harmless and the ordinary Deputy may not know of their existence until he hears of the deadly effect they have when operated.

At present there is correspondence between the Minister's Department and the South Cork Board of Public Assistance dealing with the case of certain women who have been denied certificates this year in connection with benefits to which they believed they were entitled under the 1952 Act. I shall quote a letter that is in the Department, asking for a reply. The letter is dated 13th October, 1953. It is to the following effect:—

"The Board"—that is the South Cork Board of Public Assistance—"knows that under the provisions of the Public Assistance Acts, 1939, a poor person who is unableto provide by his or her own industry or other lawful means the necessaries of life for himself or herself, or for any persons whom he or she is liable to maintain, shall be eligible for home assistance, and that every woman is liable to maintain such of her children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as are under the age of 16 years."

The children referred to are, therefore, legal dependents of their mothers under the Public Assistance Act, 1939. A Minister cannot have the time to scrutinise every regulation that he has to sign. The tragedy is that he did not realise what the regulation in this particular case would mean to certain people in South Cork and other areas. The Minister turned down the request of the South Cork Board of Public Assistance in the first instance. The Minister is standing by a regulation that is contrary to and counteracting not only the benefits provided by the 1952 Act but the Public Assistance Act of 1939.

As I have said, the Minister in introducing the Estimate, emphasied the fact that about £21,000,000 is being provided for this important Department. The difficulty arises from the huge number of people involved. The Labour Party, in advocating increased benefits for old age pensioners, blind pensioners, widows and orphans, fully realise the problem. We do not advocate increases as a mere catchcry, whether we are in opposition or otherwise. Is it correct to say that there are about 166,000 old age pensioners and blind pensioners in this country, that there are over 60,000 widows and orphans and about 65,000 unemployed? It is only fair that we should understand and, what is more important, that the people should understand that the number of people benefiting by the social services is in the region of 290,000 to 300,000, excluding children who qualify for children's allowances. The higher the number involved in the share-out the smaller the amount everyone receives.

Deputies have referred to the problem of the old age pensioner trying to exist on 21/6 a week. DeputyHickey told the House what the old age pensioner receives per meal. Let us consider the amount deducted from the wages of an agricultural worker of 20 years or over, in respect of board. The worker pays his employer out of his wages 1/4 for breakfast, 1/11 for dinner. 9d for what is classified as afternoon tea and 1/4 for supper. A farmer is allowed, on that basis, 5/4 per day for the feeding of a man. Most of that food is at cost price, except, perhaps, tea and sometimes white bread that may be bought in the village or town. Most of it is at cost price, yet there is an allowance made by a Department of State of 5/4 per day for such a man. If we take it for seven days we come to the figure of £1 17s. 4d. Surely, then, we are entitled to say that if such an allowance is made at cost price by a State Department for keeping a man 21/6 is not adequate for an old age pensioner. Deputies have quoted the costs as regards old age pensioners.

They may perhaps have added on a little of what some people may regard as luxuries, but I have no intention of doing that. When we take into consideration that out of the 21/6 as well as food there is the question of light, heat and clothing—including no more than just the bare necessaries of life— it is a contradiction of everything we speak of here when we say that an old age pensioner can pay rent, feed himself and clothe himself for 21/6 while we admit that it costs £1 17s. 4d. to keep a worker in another capacity. The Minister may say that the money is not available.

Mr. Burke

You were there three years and you did nothing about it.

Mr. Desmond

Ná bí ag caint in aon chor. Éist do bhéal. The Minister may say that the money is not readily available, but as I said at the outset—I am not sure if the Minister was in at the time or not—when we are speaking on social welfare and the Department of Social Welfare we can never or should never be prepared to say: "So far and that is enough." We must be prepared always to draw no limits. In this particular instance two Deputies in this House spoke on it before the right honourable Deputy Burke, Godbless the man, came in to let us know he was here. Deputy Corry, I think, said to Deputy Hickey in the course of an interjection in this debate: "You gave nothing," but I would say to Deputy Corry and to Deputy Burke: "Just look over the figures themselves and find what was given. We gave an increase in 1949, an increase which, in my opinion, was at that time the best that could be given. It was not sufficient, but it was the largest single increase ever given to the old age pensioners in this country."

Mr. Burke

Half-a-crown.

Mr. Desmond

I am sorry. I thought that Deputy Burke was highly intelligent, but if we have such a mathematician as to find the difference between 10/- and 17/6 as being half-a-crown, well, then I hand it to Professor Burke.

Mr. Burke

We were giving 10/-then, of course.

Mr. Desmond

In your estimation, of course. They were getting 10/- down the country. It was increased to 17/6, and do not let us play with this figure. I am telling the Minister that the Labour Party are behind him in saying this much, that we are not going to bow the knee to anyone if we can provide more for the old age pensioner or the widow or the orphan. There was a Deputy in this House from South Cork who tried to say that the Opposition and the Government are vying with each other to know which of us will be the most socialist in our outlook, a Deputy who apparently believes that all Parties in this House are squandering money. Let us get away from those Deputies and realise, as Deputy Kyne did say this evening, that we must be prepared all the time to go to the very limit of our resources to try to give to one section of the community who cannot unfortunately have sufficient by their own ability to keep them going in this life.

Deputy Flanagan did mention the great importance that should be attached to our treatment of blind persons. Is it not right for us to say that we cannot just give lip service tothe Christian ideal in this country? Who but a blind person knows the handicap of such a case? While we may have difficulties at times I believe and I will say to the members of the Government Party that we should stand up against certain people in this country who would begrudge any increase we gave to those unfortunates. I will say to the Government that they will have the Labour Party solidly behind them in any case for giving an increase to the old age pensioner, to the blind or to the orphan. Let us realise that while this is, perhaps, a young State, we cannot afford to put up with cranks outside who do not know the hardships placed on members of the community who are grouped in that category of old persons.

I am sorry if I delayed too long, and I would simply add that it is useless to say: "We will go so far and no farther." There is an obligation placed on every one of us. The old are entitled not to lip service or to respect alone, but can claim from us as a right that we should give them in their old age sufficient not only to give them a mere existence but to give them the little comfort which they are entitled to in a Catholic Christian country.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with Deputy Desmond, and I think everybody in this House agrees, that we should never say with regard to social services "thus far and no further". I have never heard anybody say that in this House, and I do not think that it will ever be said by any Party. We can all subscribe to that.

I just want to mention a few of the points which Deputy Desmond raised towards the end of his speech. He mentioned the case of a contributory widow who got 24/- a week and when she reaches 70 is reduced——

Mr. Desmond

Ah, no. Might I explain that it was a general case that a person should, if it was possible, be transferred? I was not speaking of whatever reduction she might have.

Dr. Ryan

I know. What the Deputy said was that she should automatically get the old age pension—is that right?

Mr. Desmond

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid that, legally, it cannot be done, but we have tried to make it as easy as possible for the widow to pass on to the old age pension in this way, that if she makes the application in the ordinary way under the regulation we do not investigate the means, so that there is no delay whatever as far as that woman is concerned if she makes the application and gives proof of age. I do not think that is asking too much, and that is all that we are asking at the present time—that she should hand us over that proof of age.

Deputy Desmond said that he rereported a case in November, 1952, of an applicant for blind pension and that nothing has been done on it so far. I do not know what can have happened in this case, I must say, but I just want to mention for the benefit of Deputies who may not know exactly what the procedure is—that where a person applies for a blind pension it goes before the local committee which deals with old age pensions and blind pensions. Those Deputies from the country know that wherever there is a fair a prioricase at all the local committee is likely to recommend a person to get a pension. If it does the person must get examined by an ophthalmic surgeon. I am told that that seldom takes more than about four weeks, seldom more than a month, and should never take more than six or eight weeks. If he says that in his opinion the person is blind according to the Act, then as far as that is concerned no official has anything to do with it. The only thing that arises for an official then is to ascertain the means and the person's means would be examined, and if the means justify the pension then the pension would be given. I would like Deputy Desmond to let me know something about this case so that we may trace what happened in the particular case.

There was a good lot of comment— not as much as there was last year, because I think it would not be justified—about delay in the payment of benefit. For some reason the complaint appears to arise nearly always in the case of sickness benefit. It was raised very much last year and, as Imentioned in introducing the present Estimate, I did make an appeal last year to Deputies to let me know cases of delay so that I could have them investigated. As I said in introducing the Estimate yesterday, Deputies did not co-operate very much with me during the year in trying to get the system running as smoothly as possible. I should not like Deputies to be under the impression that these delays are widespread. Of course, I know that if there are a couple of thousand people in an area drawing sickness benefit, and if there are a dozen or so who have to complain about delay, people get to know about the dozen and even that dozen may cause a certain amount of trouble to Deputies and others.

During the year on three occasions I had a very full investigation carried out and I shall just mention what the result was. In Limerick City and County I had a very full investigation carried out on one occasion during the year. I find, on report, that there were 2,117 persons drawing benefit at that particular time. Of these, 36 complained, when asked if they had any complaint, that there was delay. When we examined the 36 cases, we found that only ten persons had any genuine complaint. In other words, in the other 26 cases the delay was due to negligence, or if not negligence maybe some mistake on their own part. Therefore, in that particular instance, out of 2,117 cases, there were ten cases in which I could say that the Department or its officials were to blame. That number is too many, if you like, but I just wanted to give the figure to show that, though there may be a very big number of people drawing benefit, you will hear nothing about them if everything goes smoothly; but in regard to the very small percentage indeed who have a complaint, the Deputy for the district is likely to hear all about it.

There has been a good improvement since last year and I am very anxious to improve the position still further during the coming year. I would, therefore, ask Deputies to co-operate and let me know when they hear of cases of delay. I have the figures here for the other investigations carriedout. We carried out an investigation of local agents' districts, that is, outside the cities, on two occasions during the year and the number of genuine complaints found amongst them was comparatively small. In one case there were 31,000 drawing benefit —that is practically the whole country —and only .74 per cent. had cause for complaint.

There were many matters raised in the debate and I can deal only with some of these matters in a general way. Deputy Dr. Esmonde in opening said he was dissatisfied with the system obtaining in the case of blind pensioners. I think the Deputy was under the impression that officials could interfere with the opinion of the ophthalmic surgeon. They cannot. If the person concerned is dissatisfied with the report of the ophthalmic surgeon, he may ask for the opinion of another ophthalmic surgeon. In other words, applicants can appeal or, alternatively, if the social welfare officer is dissatisfied, he can appeal against the decision of the ophthalmic surgeon if it was in favour of the applicant. Then the opinion of the appeals ophthalmic surgeon must be taken as final so far as the degree of blindness is concerned. He follows the wording of the Act and he makes his report accordingly, but he does not submit his report to an official to interpret. His report is: "This person is entitled to a pension," or "This person is not entitled to a pension," so far as sight is concerned. As I explained already, the officials, of course, have the obligation after that of investigating means and a person who is passed as blind according to the Act may be turned down on the question of means afterwards.

I am fully in agreement with Deputy Dr. Esmonde that we should, as far as possible, rehabilitate the blind, that is, that we should wherever possible find work for them in whatever occupation we can possibly place them. I suppose Deputies are aware that up to a few years ago the only work that was given to the blind, on the male side, was making baskets, leather-work and things of that kind and on the female side, principally knitting. Well, wehave made some progress since. We have in the last few years placed some young blind persons as telephonists and others have been trained, I believe —I do not know with what success up to the moment—as physiotherapists. The work open to blind people is widening as time goes on. I am certainly in favour of placing blind people in employment, so far as it can be done.

I suppose I can say truthfully that most of the debate was directed towards the level of benefits. Let me say this, and I have often said it before: I am not saying, and never did say, that the blind person, the old age pensioner or the non-contributory widow has enough to maintain him or her in comfort. I can say at the same time, and I think I can prove it, that if members of the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party condemn the present scale of benefits, the condemnation will come back stronger on them on the benefits they were satisfied with when they were in power themselves.

Mr. O'Higgins

Food was much cheaper then.

Dr. Ryan

Even so. We shall take Deputy O'Higgins's figure as to the increase in the price of food and, even on that, I can show that these condemnatory speeches of the different Parties will recoil on themselves for the benefits that they thought were quite good and which they were quite satisfied, as Deputy Dr. Esmonde said, were the best that could be done at the time.

Mr. O'Leary

There has been a big change since then.

Dr. Ryan

I am not going to say that the old age pensioner is well off. I remember saying here before—I was reading up the famous debate of 1947 to which Deputy O'Higgins referred, and I came across what I said then— that the amount of the pension was never regarded as providing a decent living for the old age pensioner. The pension was 5/- in 1908 or 1909, and it has varied up along the years since. There are members of the Labour Party who do not seem to realise how it has varied since 1947. I do not wantto accuse these members of telling untruths. Therefore, I say that they do not appear to remember what happened in the case of the old age pension since 1939, if you like. The old age pension was 10/- at the beginning of the war. Certain increases were given since and for certain classes of old age pensioners there was a food voucher given. Some of these "toploftical" Deputies in the Opposition are inclined to sneer at food vouchers. But at the time it was recognised that a food voucher was more valuable than cash, because the old age pensioner had the advantage of being able to get certain foods on the voucher which an ordinary person could not get. For instance, he had the option of getting butter in addition to the ration supplied to him by his own family. He also could get other things; at any rate, he had the food voucher.

Mr. O'Higgins

What was the value of the voucher?

Dr. Ryan

About 2/6.

Mr. O'Higgins

He did not die from over-eating.

Dr. Ryan

Try and listen for a minute and allow yourself to be educated if you can. On the 31st March, 1947, these food vouchers were converted into cash. From the 1st April, 1947, old age pensioners got in cash 15/- in the cities and towns and 12/6 in the rural areas. Deputy Desmond whom, as I say, I would not accuse of making a deliberately wrong statement because I regard him as an honest man, said that Deputy Norton had raised the old age pension by 7/6 in 1949. That is not true. The old age pension on the 1st April, 1947, under Fianna Fáil, went up to 15/- in the cities and towns and 12/6 in the rural areas. If any Deputy has any doubt about that let him put down a question to me asking for the rates of old age pensions from 1939 to the present time.

Mr. Kyne

Was that made permanent by an Act of this House?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know about that.

Mr. O'Higgins

No.

Dr. Ryan

Is that significant? Are Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Kyne innocent enough to believe that any Party or Government could go back on a thing like that? Fine Gael Deputies wanted us to accept what Fine Gael proposed to do and which they never did. Now they are doubting what we did because we did not substantiate it by legislation. I said at the time we were doing it that we were bringing in a comprehensive Social Welfare Bill and it would be made right in that. As I proved on another occasion, the heads of that Bill were there when we left office and it was ready to be put into operation and Deputy Norton took them over and issued the proposals.

Mr. Kyne

Was it not intended to withdraw it from the national health benefit and, if you did that, would you not withdraw it from the old age pension?

Dr. Ryan

Withdraw what?

Mr. Kyne

The increase.

Dr. Ryan

It was never intended to withdraw it. Surely the Deputy does not believe that. Does he not think that we have a little bit of political sense? Does he think we would go to the country and say: "We are reducing the national health benefit"? Fine Gael, when they took 1/- off the old age pension, were fired out and that was a lesson to everybody.

Mr. Kyne

You were thrown out also.

Dr. Ryan

You were thrown out because you did not do what you promised to do. Let us come back to the old age pensions. When the Coalition came into office the old age pensioners in the cities and towns had 15/- and in rural areas 12/6. I want to repeat that I did not accuse Deputy Desmond of telling a deliberate falsehood because I know he would not be capable of doing it, but his memory is wrong. On 1st April, 1947, the pensions were increased in cash in the rural areas to 12/6 and in the cities and urban areas to 15/-

Mr. Desmond

In the rural areas that I am conversant with was it not fromthe home assistance officer that the old age pensioner had to get 2/6?

Dr. Ryan

I will answer that. If the Deputy will look at the Dáil Debates at that time he will see that the Dáil voted £2,000,000 on the last day of March, 1947, to cover the increase and from that date the post office books were over-stamped, because it was done in a hurry, and the Post Office paid out to old age pensioners in the cities and towns 15/- and in rural areas 12/6, and the local authorities were told that they could pay another 2/6 in addition to that if they liked. I invite Deputy Desmond or any other Deputy to put down a question to me and I will give all these particulars with day and date for them. Deputy Norton came along and he raised the old age pension to 17/6 in all areas in 1949. We came along in 1951 and we raised it to £1 for everybody, and in 1952 we raised it to 21/6 for everybody. That is the history of the matter.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Beegan)

We raised the lower income ceiling also.

Dr. Ryan

What are we told about the cost of living? The cost of living when we came into office was 109 and it is now 125. If we liked to argue the point that the pension was 17/6 a week when we came into office, the cost of living has gone up 16 per cent. But we raised the old age pension by much more than 16 per cent. Therefore, I say that the Labour and Fine Gael Deputies who talk about the miserable pittance of the old age pensioners are condemning themselves because they left the old age pensioners in 1951, even taking the cost of living into account, with a lower and more miserable pittance than they have to-day.

Mr. O'Leary

That is not true.

Dr. Ryan

It is true. The Deputy knows well it is true but he will not admit it. It is all right for Deputies to talk about the miserable pittance, but they left them with 17/6 when going out in 1951 and now they have 21/6. I will go this far. We will admit that they were taken very shortly, that the Labour Party believed that Fine Gael were with them in giving 2/6 toold age pensioners and did not know that Fine Gael were going to play a trick on them when they brought in the 2/6 by having a general election. We will admit the Labour Party were sincere in giving the 2/6. Even so, when Deputy Norton brought in the 17/6 in 1949, he said—Deputies can go back and read the speeches—that the old age pensioners were now being looked after as they should be. In other words, everything was properly done in 1949 and they had as much as they could expect, under the circumstances, and so on.

Mr. O'Leary

Read your 1932 speeches.

Dr. Ryan

We will take the effort of the Labour Party in 1949 as being a sincere and generous effort and forget about 1951 and work up from there. The cost of living is 25 per cent. higher now than in 1949. Therefore, if we were to do as well as the Labour Party who gave this Magna Charta to the old age pensioners in 1949 we should add 25 per cent. to the 17/6. What is that? I think it is about 4½d. more that we should be giving. It is extraordinary that the Labour Party which was so satisfied in 1949 should now have held us up for two days talking about the miserable amount we are giving to the old age pensioners.

Mr. O'Leary

We will hold you up again.

Dr. Ryan

We know, of course, that you will do it again. This talk has been going on for two days because we have given 4 ½d. less than we should have given according to Deputy Norton's Magna Charta of 1949.

Mr. O'Leary

Butter was not 4/2 a lb. in 1949.

Dr. Ryan

That is all it comes to— 25 per cent. on the cost of living. There was a Deputy speaking yesterday—I think it was Deputy Rooney; he would be capable of it—who said that the cost of living had gone up on the old age pensioner by 7/4. He took a loaf of bread, a stone of flour, a pound of butter, a pound of tea—imagine a pound of tea in the week for an old age pensioner—and a pound of sugar andhe added them up and got 7/4. It was a nice simple way of doing it, I must admit. These are the sort of mathematics we get from Deputy Norton, Deputy O'Leary and other Deputies of that kind.

Mr. O'Leary

Do you remember when you said in the Budget that 1/6 would meet the cost of living on the old age pensioners?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, meet the cost of living, as the Budget of that year had changed it. As I said already here, no Party in this country—I do not know about any other Party in any other country—Cumann na nGaedheal from 1922 to 1932, the Fianna Fáil Government after that or the Coalition Government, at any time purported to give the old age pensioner what would cover his rent, rates, tobacco, Deputy Flanagan's pint a day and the diet that Deputy Desmond laid down that would be given to an agricultural labourer. It was never contemplated that that would be given. When Deputy Norton brought in his Bill in 1949, which had the full approval of the Labour Party, it did not cover all that, even at what those items cost at that time. He did not cover in 17/6 what it would cost for food for an agricultural labourer. It was 3/4 per day for an agricultural labourer at that time; seven times that would be 23/-. That exceeds the 17/6 already. Then there is the pint a day, the two or three ounces of tobacco, the rates and all the rest. No one ever contemplated doing it. The most we can do for the old age pensioners is to help them. You may use that against us if you like. The most anyone can ever do is to help them. The great majority of old age pensioners have help through relatives and so on. I admit that some of them have not, that some have nothing else to get, but what can we do about it? We are helping them as much as we can.

I could go through these other things as well. I could take the sickness allowance. There was a lot of criticism about that. Deputy Flanagan said a man should get the full wage when sick. Deputy Hickey was talking about 4 ½d. for a meal. That was the sort ofstuff we had. Take a man with a wife and two children, the most favourable case for myself—I do not see why I should not, as the Labour Party and Fine Gael were not behind the door in that, either. He gets 50/- a week and there would be also 2/6 for the second child—more than he had in 1951—that is 52/6. If he was a sick man in 1951 he got 22/6. He gets 52/6 now. That more than covers the cost-of-living increase. If Deputy Hickey is right—I did not check his figures—in saying that a man with a wife and family has only 4 ½d. per meal now, what had he in 1951 per meal—and why was Deputy Hickey silent in 1951 about it? I could say the same about the unemployed men. I want to repeat that I am not saying this because I think the sick man or the unemployed man is getting enough. I am saying this to expose the hypocrisy of certain Parties who, when they see that social welfare benefits are increased considerably over what they did, attack us as if nothing at all was done.

Mr. O'Leary

It is not enough.

Dr. Ryan

Of course it is not enough. We all know that.

Mr. O'Leary

You gave the judges £450 and not a word about it.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

The Minister must realise that his Social Welfare Act was not opposed by this Party.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, it was not.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Is there any harm in looking for more?

Dr. Ryan

Not a bit of harm. Deputy Corish made a reasonable speech here, but when Deputies say Fianna Fáil did nothing it is hard to stick that sort of thing—from Deputies who were so mute during the Coalition time. It shows the mentality of the Labour Party—they are on to us to do more, but when they were there themselves they never got on to Deputy Norton to do anything.

Mr. O'Leary

How do you know?

Dr. Ryan

They never said a word here. They may have got on to himbehind closed doors, but they got no result, anyway.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is entitled to reply without interruption. Deputies have already had an opportunity of making their statements.

Mr. Davin

How did he vote in March, 1951?

Mr. O'Leary

He is dead nuts on the Labour Party, but only for the Labour Party he would not be a Minister in 1932.

Dr. Ryan

Unemployment benefit was attacked also.

Mr. Kyne

Take a single man in that.

Mr. MacCarthy

Stop the interruptions !

Dr. Ryan

Why should I take a single man?

Mr. Kyne

You try it and see.

Dr. Ryan

Surely we should take the man with a family who is worse off. The man with a wife and two children is the man you would have a bit of pity for?

Mr. Kyne

Try it the other way.

Dr. Ryan

All right, but let me take this one first. The unemployed man with a wife and two children had 35/- under the Coalition Government. Things were grand and there was no motion put down to increase it or anything else.

Mr. Allen

They increased the stamps on the employed.

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Allen is coming to the Minister's help.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, they increased the contributions on him—that is all they did. Now it is 50/- plus 2/6 for the second child. He has got an increase of 40 to 45 per cent. The cost of living has gone up 25 per cent., so the unemployed man if he knew the truth—I do not expect he will be told the truth by any of the Parties opposite—wouldsay: "I may be badly off, but at least Fianna Fáil have done better than the others for me."

Mr. O'Leary

He is badly off, because the work is stopped.

Mr. Desmond

What did the Minister do in 1951 when Deputy Norton's Bill was here? He and the rest voted against it. There were to be pensions at 65.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Desmond has already spoken. Deputies should allow the Minister to conclude without these interruptions.

Mr. O'Leary

We want to remind him now and again.

Mr. Desmond

He is looking for it.

Dr. Ryan

Take the contributory widow's pension. She had, when the Coalition Government was going out, 22/-, 26/-, 27/- or 28/- according to the occupation that her husband had held and the area of her residence. That is, if she had two children, of course. Now she has 38/-

Mr. O'Leary

She is made up with that, according to you.

Dr. Ryan

She is better off than under you, anyway.

Mr. O'Leary

She never was worse off.

Dr. Ryan

She got an increase of from 26 per cent. to 72 per cent. That covers the cost-of-living increase. The non-contributory poor woman who was not insured at all and who had two children, had 22/- to 26/- then ; she has now 32/-. She has not fared as well as the other lady, but she has got an increase of from 20 to 30 per cent. Take unemployment assistance. The man with a wife and two children, if he was living in a town, had 28/-: now he has 38/-. That represents an increase of about 26 per cent. If he was living in a rural area, he got 18/-: now he has 28/-. That represents an increase of 38 per cent. All round, every one of these increases would more than cover the increase in the cost of living since 1951.

I have been asked what did we do in 1951. Deputy Davin constantly asks me that question and Deputy O'Higgins tackled me with it yesterday. They accused me of voting against an increase in old age pensions in 1947. I should like to deal with that. It is the only thing that they can cast at me. Last night, when I heard Deputy O'Higgins talk, I felt that I must have a great record for social welfare when the only thing that they can cast against me is that I voted against a cock-eyed motion which was moved by Fine Gael in this House on 20th March, 1947. It was the silliest and the most cock-eyed motion ever moved in this House. This is how it read:—

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the basis upon which income is assessed for the purpose of the means test in the case of persons entitled to old age pensions, blind pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions, requires revision and in particular that in assessing income for such purpose, no cognisance should be taken of (a) gratuities paid to a pensioner by members of his or her family whether in cash or in kind; (b) any benefits received otherwise than in actual cash, and (c) casual moneys earned by the pensioner, and requests the Government to take all necessary steps accordingly."

That motion was in the names of the late Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and Deputy Costello. Deputy O'Higgins described him last night as the "Leader of the Opposition". I suppose I can accept that from all Parties—that Deputy Costello is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is that meant to be a slight on Deputy Costello?

Dr. Ryan

I just want to know where I am. I suppose I can accept it that the Labour Party accept Deputy O'Higgins's statement that Deputy Costello is the Leader of the Opposition.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

We will not be answerable to you, no matter what our position is.

Mr. O'Higgins

This is a point of order, Sir. Deputy Costello is the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister and the country know that well. There is no necessity for any facetious references by the Minister.

Captain Cowan

On a point of order. Deputy Mulcahy, as Leader of the Opposition, is paid a Government grant.

Mr. O'Higgins

Sit down.

Mr. Desmond

And, for the information of the Minister, Deputy Norton is the leader of the Labour Party. The Minister knows that well.

Dr. Ryan

I thought that.

Mr. Kyne

And Deputy Cowan is the leader of his own Party.

Mr. O'Leary

And Deputy Dr. Browne is the boss.

Mr. Desmond

The Labour Party is an independent Party. It is not under any other Party. It is entirely independent and under neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael.

Mr. O'Higgins

Deputy Cowan is the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Dr. Ryan

He does not claim that. I should like to get back now, if I may, to this motion which was proposed by Deputy Costello—I do not know how I will describe him now.

Mr. O'Higgins

You will shortly be describing him as the Taoiseach. The very moment you give the people a chance of indicating their views, Deputy Costello will be the Taoiseach.

Dr. Ryan

I started to deal with this motion, which was moved in 1947. I said that (a)—gratuities paid to a pensioner by members of his or her family, whether in cash or in kind— was already allowed, but that Fine Gael did not know it. They brought in a motion which showed their interest in the old age pensioners. With regard to (b)—any benefits received otherwise than in actual cash—I said that the old age pensioner is already allowed that, too, but that Fine Gael did not know it. They put down amotion in order to create a bit of trouble, I suppose. They did not know what the old age pensioner was entitled to receive. They wanted me to accept a cock-eyed motion that did not mean anything, because the old age pensioner had it already.

Mr. Davin

What did you say it would cost?

Mr. O'Higgins

£500,000.

Dr. Ryan

The only thing that Deputy Davin can throw at me is that I voted against that cock-eyed motion. Of course, the Labour Party voted for it.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister said that the old age pensioners already had the benefit of the provisions of that motion.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to (c)— casual moneys earned by the pensioner —I said that it was estimated in my Department that it would cost about £500,000. I did not say that we could not afford it. If Deputy Davin can find any record that I said that we could not afford it I shall be interested to see it.

Mr. Davin

The point is that you voted against the motion.

Dr. Ryan

I gave my reasons for voting against the motion.

Mr. Davin

You also voted against the other one on the 2nd March, 1951.

Mr. O'Leary

I would much prefer to hear what the Minister proposes to do about the present plight of the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners and the widows and orphans than to spend our time now going back to what happened in 1947.

Dr. Ryan

I will read out (c) for the House again—casual moneys earned by the pensioner. Bear in mind that that is what the Fine Gael Party wanted us to accept. I said that I did not agree with the motion. I further said that if the Fine Gael Party would put up a proposition to do away altogether with the means test we would discuss it butthat we would not agree to the sort of proposition contained in the motion which they moved in this House on 20th March, 1947. I pointed out the position of an old woman who continues to work for an old client by doing two days' charring a week and who gets 6/- per week for it. I pointed out that, under law, that 6/- counted against her as means. If the Fine Gael Party wanted to change the law, why did they not tackle the case of the poor charwoman?

Mr. O'Leary

For one thing, they were not 16 years in office, like Fianna Fáil.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy O'Leary always tries to defend Fine Gael. When I was explaining to the House what the motion meant, I looked up to the press gallery and saw the journalists there. Of course, there were different people there then. I asked the House to take as an example a journalist who has retired from regular work and who, let us say, has a large pension. If that man writes an occasional article he will get five or ten guineas for it but that will not count against him. I asked the House if I was expected to vote for a cock-eyed Fine Gael motion, and to please Deputy Davin, which would debar a poor old charwoman who is regularly getting 6/- per week for doing two days' charring for an old client while a casual worker such as a retired journalist or a retired barrister can do occasional work whenever they feel like it without being affected. If a retired barrister gives an opinion and charges ten or 20 guineas, that will not count against him. If a retired journalist writes an occasional article for a newspaper and gets ten guineas for it, that will not count against him. However, a poor old charwoman who is getting 6/- a week for doing two days' charring would have to submit to having that amount put down against her as means.

Mr. Davin

That is a cock-eyed argument.

Dr. Ryan

Fine Gael wanted me to vote for that motion. The Labour Party voted for it; they would vote for anything like that.

Mr. O'Leary

You voted for your own pension.

Mr. Dunne

Let the Minister give us some more of that. I am enjoying it.

Dr. Ryan

I was asked for my objection. I said that I could not accept (c)—casual moneys earned by the pensioner. I pointed out that (a) and (b) were there already and accepted. Fine Gael did not know that (a) and (b) were there already. I said that I could not accept the motion and I gave my reasons. Since that day, the 22nd October, 1947, every time a discussion arises here on social welfare, Deputy Davin asks me what did I do in 1947 and why did I vote against the motion.

Mr. Davin

And in 1951.

Dr. Ryan

In spite of all that I have said, the next time a discussion on social welfare arises, he will remind me again. Deputy O'Higgins has taken it up now. Is it not a great tribute to me that this is the only thing they can say against me so far as social welfare is concerned?

Mr. Davin

That is a cock-eyed argument.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister flatters himself.

Dr. Ryan

I certainly do, if that is the only thing you can say against me.

Mr. O'Higgins

There is a big "if" there.

Dr. Ryan

Somebody said to-day that it would be much better to remove the means test altogether. I often get an estimate of that. I think I would favour it if I could get the money.

Mr. Desmond

Look for it and we will support you.

Dr. Ryan

I do not expect that the Labour Party would agree to give me the money, considering that, in 1952, when we gave £7,000,000 in social services and when we brought in taxes for the purpose, they even voted against the increase in income-tax, even though the increase applied onlyto the 18,000 most wealthy people in the country. Are we to expect a Party like that to support us?

Mr. O'Leary

This is the real crossroads talk.

Dr. Ryan

They will, of course, support us in giving more to the old age pensioner and the widow.

Captain Cowan

The House will remember the effort to remove the means test in the mother and child scheme.

Mr. O'Higgins

And will remember the time when Deputy Cowan was waging war on Fianna Fáil.

Dr. Ryan

When we ask for the money, Labour will go in with Fine Gael, will follow the Fine Gael Whip, and vote against the tax whatever it may be, as they did in 1952, as they did when they voted against the increased income-tax in 1952 and when that increase, as I say, applied to only 18,000 of the most wealthy people in the country. These are the men who say to me: "We will support you if you raise the old age pension." Of course, they would, if I could get it out of my own pocket or out of the air, but if I look for the money, they will not support me.

Mr. Desmond

Look for it in the right quarter.

Dr. Ryan

Where is the right quarter?

Mr. Desmond

Get it from the imperialists and the industrialists.

Dr. Ryan

Where is the right quarter?

Mr. O. Flanagan

Take it out of the banks.

Dr. Ryan

I do not want any support from the Labour Party in increasing these pensions. What I want to see is the Labour Party putting down a motion, supported by Fine Gael—because Fine Gael ought to support them sometimes, as they always support Fine Gael—setting out the increased benefits and the taxesthat will bring the money in. If they do so, we will find it very hard to resist it. I do not say that we will accept it, but we will find it very hard to resist it. Let them try it, anyway.

Mr. Desmond

Follow Deputy Norton into the Lobby to-night and you will see what will happen.

Dr. Ryan

Promise, and then go to the country. Let us talk about this suggestion for no means test. Old age pension costs £2,000,000 and does every Deputy not agree that, if we do it for the old age pensioners, we will have to do it for the widows, because we could not very well leave them out? That is another £1,500,000, making a total of £4,000,000. There is the problem—it will cost £4,000,000 to do it. If the Parties opposite like to make this a non-Party issue, I shall be glad to meet them.

Mr. Kyne

We will be delighted.

Dr. Ryan

And tell us where we will get the £4,000,000.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Get it out of the Dublin Castle money.

Dr. Ryan

Dublin Castle! That is the sort of help we get from that Party, and it shows the sincerity of these Deputies. They have no sincerity whatever in this matter.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

On a point of order, when some speakers from this Party attempted to say how money could be raised for the purpose of increasing the benefits under the Social Welfare Act of 1952, they were ruled out of order, and I suggest it is not reasonable to allow the Minister to continue in this strain when we were not allowed to refer to it.

Captain Cowan

Nothing was stopped.

Dr. Ryan

The Labour Party voted against every tax we proposed, including the increase in income-tax.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

No, that is untrue.

Dr. Ryan

It is easy to prove itfrom the records. If the Parties opposite are sincere, let them come along with that proposition and let them make it a non-Party issue. Some Deputies tried to give the impression that the means test is more severe now than when we came into office in 1951. When we went out in 1948, the means test in respect of old age pensions ranged from £21 to £29, according to the area. If a person had anything more than that, it counted against him for pension purposes. Deputy Norton made that £29 to £39, and in our Bill we made it £52 10s. He went up by £10; we went up by £13 10s.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You put the cost of living up—he did not.

Dr. Ryan

I dealt with that before the Deputy came in and I do not want to deal with it again. I do not think that Deputies would wish me to do so. The Deputy can read all about it. These figures refer to the widows' means test. It was £59 in 1947 and was raised to £96, and in our Bill it was £130 15s. In the case of the old age pension, it was £15 12s. 6d., and anything over that began to count against the applicant, up to 1949. Deputy Norton raised it to £22 12s 6d., by £7, and we raised it to £52 10s., or by £30 over that figure.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Was there not a circular sent out to social welfare officers asking them to raise the income assessment in the case of certain applicants?

Dr. Ryan

I am giving figures in relation to the means test.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Did you issue a direction to social welfare officers to make higher assessments?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Murphy cannot make a second speech.

Mr. O'Leary

He is only asking a question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He is not in order in asking any question.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Was that not an instruction to make higher assessments?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. Lynch)

It shows the bad case they made in the debate.

Dr. Ryan

We heard about the 1951 proposals, and we are told that we voted against them. We brought in an amendment because they were not as good as they should be, and we argued that they should have remembered children's allowances, old age pensions and widows' pensions in the scheme. By the time the Bill reached the Dáil, Deputy Norton had embodied a proposal in relation to old age pensions.

Mr. Desmond

At 65.

Dr. Ryan

Not at 65, at that time. He brought in a proposal with regard to old age pensioners, and our attitude was that he should withdraw the Bill and bring in a better Bill because we wanted him to increase widows' pensions and children's allowances as well. What was the attitude of the Labour Party? It was: "We will not give anything to the widows or in respect of children's allowances." To our suggestion that the then Minister should withdraw the Bill, the Parties opposite said no.

Mr. Desmond

Let the Minister be honest now.

Dr. Ryan

Look it up and you will find that it is a fact. It was a bit of debacle, so far as the Labour Party were concerned. The general election came along and that was the end of it. Such as the proposals were, they dealt with sickness, unemployment, unemployment benefit and old age pensions, but did not deal with widows or children's allowances. These were brought into our scheme, and, even though Deputies on the Fine Gael and Labour Benches may say to me: "Look at our proposals," the fact is that there was nothing done for widows and orphans or for children's allowances in these proposals and, what is more, nothing was intended to be done for these people. Even in their motion to-day the Labour Party have shown their bias against children's allowances. They did not include them to-day.

Mr. O'Leary

You are dead nuts on the Labour Party.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You must be afraid of the Labour Party in Wexford.

Mr. Everett

You need not court them. They will never join you again. You have the boys. Keep them now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Everett cannot make a speech at this stage. The Minister is in possession.

Mr. O'Leary

He is not telling the truth.

Mr. Everett

He never did.

Dr. Ryan

I would not like to have Deputy O'Leary's definition of what truth is.

Mr. O'Leary

What did you say?

Dr. Ryan

If Deputies would only calm down I could talk about something else. Some Deputies asked for an explanatory leaflet on the social welfare regulations. An explanatory booklet is being prepared. The intention is, as has been the practice for some years past, to reissue this booklet and bring it up to date from time to time. The booklet will be issued in the very near future and will deal with all the regulations now made. As I have said, it will be brought up to date from time to time.

Deputy Blowick made a claim here. I suppose I should deal with it. He spoke about children's allowances. Deputy Blowick is not here now, but when he spoke yesterday he said——

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister for Finance is the man who will give you the money for our motion.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Blowick said that there would never have been children's allowances without him and his Party, that they made us bring in children's allowances.

Mr. Cafferky

And we did.

Dr. Ryan

He claimed more than that. He said he made us bring in a lot of other beneficial schemes.

Mr. Cafferky

Faith, we did.

Dr. Ryan

Could Deputy Cafferky, speaking for Deputy Blowick, say we ever did anything wrong?

Mr. Cafferky

An awful lot.

Dr. Ryan

Why did you not stop us then? There you are now. That is enough about that.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

You had better read out what the Minister for messages brought in.

Mr. O'Leary

A lot of help it would be for the poor old people.

Dr. Ryan

It is very clear what the Labour Party voted against when we wanted to give money to the old age pensioners. Here it is:—

"That surtax for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1952, shall be charged in respect of the income of any individual the total of which from all sources exceeds £1,500 and shall be so charged at the same rates as those at which it is charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1951."

Who voted against that? Deputies Brendan Corish, William Davin, James Everett, Michael Keyes, Thomas Kyne, James Larkin, Johnny O'Leary, William Murphy and Dan Spring.

Mr. O'Leary

And Dr. Ryan.

Mr. Davin

Was Tulyar in that?

Dr. Ryan

And that was the Party that was all out to do something for the old age pensioners. I gave them an increase out of moneys that we got in the way of tax from individuals with an income of over £1,500 and the Labour Party voted against it.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Was that motion taken on its own?

Dr. Ryan

It was. That Resolution was taken on its own.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Might I ask the Minister what he is quoting from? It is the usual procedure to quote the volume.

Dr. Ryan

It was Resolution No. 1. That is what it was.

Mr. O. Flanagan

What was the Resolution?

Dr. Ryan

I read it out—that thetax in respect of the income of any individual in receipt of £1,500 a year be increased. That was on the 2nd April, 1952.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Read it.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

What is the full Resolution?

Dr. Ryan

Here it is again:

"That surtax for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1952"—

It does not say here to cover the old age pensioners but that is what it was for—

"shall be charged in respect of the income of any individual the total of which from all sources exceeds £1,500 and shall be so charged at the same rates as those at which it is charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1951.

(3) That the several statutory and other provisions which were in force on the 5th day of April, 1952, in relation to income-tax and surtax shall have effect in relation to the income-tax and surtax to be charged as aforesaid for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1952.

(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927)."

Then the question was put.

Mr. O. Flanagan

There is nothing about old age pensions in that.

Dr. Ryan

The question was put.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Give us the volume.

Dr. Ryan

The volume is 130 and the column is 1172. As I said, every Labour member present voted against it.

Mr. Davin

That was Tulyar money.

Dr. Ryan

Now they come along and ask me to give more money to the old age pensioners.

Mr. Desmond

Try it to-night.

Dr. Ryan

Let us come back to another calm subject.

Mr. O'Leary

More facts.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Murphy of Cork complained that Dáil Deputies had not the right of approach to the appeals officer in the case of old age pensions. I must say that I am against that. We should aim at seeing that every person in this country who is entitled to a benefit, whatever it may be, should get it without the intervention of a Deputy or anybody else. I hope we will be able to do that before long. That is why this Act was drawn up in that way so that there would be an appeals officer and so on. I can tell Deputies —they will be able to find out whether I am telling the truth or not—that I never interfered—I have not the power to interfere—with any decision made by the appeals officer. I often asked for a report. If a Deputy writes to me in connection with the case of some person, I ask for a report and I send the report on as I get it.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

You have no authority to interfere?

Dr. Ryan

None whatever.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Then would a litigant have any need to have counsel in court?

Captain Cowan

He will not see the judge in his chambers.

Dr. Ryan

The next point was one raised by Deputies Murphy and Flanagan in connection with a man working on the roads who has a wife older than himself. He is 67 years of age and the wife is 70. For half an hour Deputy Flanagan gave me a lecture on doles and charity. I cannot understand the plea on behalf of this man. Why does not the man support his wife when he is working? Why should he get an old age pension when he is working? Why should he not support his wife? I cannot see any case at all for an old age pension in that case.

Mr. O'Leary

When she comes to a certain age she is entitled to it.

Dr. Ryan

That is a different matter. We have not legislated for everybody to get a pension at 70 years of age. If we did that it would be all right. We have brought in old age pensions at 70 years of age for people who qualify and in order to qualify they must qualify on means. If the man is earning more than £4, then his wife cannot get the pension. In any event, I do not see the case because he is supporting his wife.

Mr. O. Flanagan

How could two people live on £4? Have sense, man.

Dr. Ryan

If he has more than £4 that is the law. If he had more than 30/- when the Coalition was in office his wife would not get it.

Mr. Dillon

People were not paying 4/2 for butter.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The people had not to pay 4/2 for butter.

Mr. Dillon

And 9d. for the loaf.

Dr. Ryan

I gave all the figures in respect of these things. Deputy Flanagan says the man could not live on £4. I say if he had 30/- in the time of the Coalition he could not get a pension for his wife.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The cost of living was lower.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You maintain that an old woman of 70 years, the wife of a worker——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Murphy has already spoken.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We would like to get clarification from the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

We have heard Deputies here from Fine Gael and Labour in the last two days making the allegation that Fianna Fáil did nothing for social services. As a matter of fact, if we took the global figure—I suppose it is the only figure we could take—of what we paid out through the Exchequer from 1932 we would find that it has increased by £16,000,000, and during the term of office of the Coalition Governmentit increased by a little less than £1,500,000. Therefore, if you take the years we were in office as against those in which the Coalition were in office, we could now sit down for 14 years. That is a long time.

Mr. O'Leary

Too long.

Dr. Ryan

We could sit down and do nothing and still have done more per year for the 14 years than the Coalition.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You will be sitting for 14 years after the next general election.

Mr. O'Leary

You are too long in office. You have gone stale.

Dr. Ryan

The point is that at the 1951 election we promised to do what we proposed to do. The Coalition promised to do what they had no intention of doing. The people believed us and did not believe the Coalition.

Mr. Dillon

Not at all. What about the bluebells?

Mr. Davin

What about the subsidies?

Mr. Everett

What about the 17 points?

Mr. Dillon

And the four bluebells?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister might be allowed to conclude.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Including the bluebell from Strasbourg.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Dr. Ryan

Some of the Deputies said you could give old age pensions to everybody and save it on administration. That claim was made by Deputy Palmer and we all know that he is a man who has some knowledge of figures. Can Deputy Palmer do a sum like this—can he subtract £8,000,000 from £2,000,000? If he cannot do that, what he suggests is impossible.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The Taoiseach could do that.

Dr. Ryan

He said we could double the pension for everybody and save iton administration, in other words subtract £9.5 million from £2,000,000!

Mr. Palmer

I simply gave that as an example of where some portion would be saved.

Dr. Ryan

You did not make that clear.

Mr. Dillon

You should have got the British Encyclopaedia or the Oxford English dictionary. They would have cleared it up.

A Deputy

That would be your dish.

Mr. Dillon

That is the Taoiseach's dish. When is a Republic not a Republic?

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the motion.

Dr. Ryan

Another proposal was to abolish the means test.

(Interruptions).

Captain Giles

Will some of you shut up?

Mr. O. Flanagan

I think you ought to put the motion, sir. We have listened to enough of this nonsense.

A Deputy

You cannot take it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the interruptions would cease the Minister could conclude.

Dr. Ryan

I am going to finish now.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

Dr. Ryan

I am glad the Opposition have applauded that. We are asked to vote for a certain motion here put down by the Labour Party and I have not the slightest doubt that Fine Gael will vote with them. I have not the slightest doubt also that if Fine Gael came in to-morrow they would have no notion of implementing it because the Fine Gael Party are always ready to vote for a thing, always ready to support something but never to do it. The only promise they ever carried out was to take the 1/- off the old age pensions in 1929. They never did anything else for social welfare but theywill vote for this, they will vote to have contributions increased all round——

Mr. O'Leary

There would be no need if you brought back the £70,000,000 from England.

Dr. Ryan

——and the Labour Party are foolish enough to rely on that support. We will not support this motion because we do not promise anything we do not give.

Mr. Everett

What about the 17 points?

Dr. Ryan

If I am in order I will deal with the 17 points.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They do not arise.

Mr. Dillon

Give us the 17 points. We would like to hear them.

Dr. Ryan

We will deal with them on the Taoiseach's Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

I move to suspend Standing Orders so that the Minister can give us the 17 points. Will you take a motion so that the Minister can deal with them?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair cannot accept such a motion.

Mr. Dillon

I am sorry for that because we would love to hear the Minister dealing with the question of the 17 points. They have a fine fruity flavour.

Dr. Ryan

They compare very favourably with the ten points of the Coalition. We are not going to vote for this motion. We will make no promises unless we are going to carry them out. We brought in increased benefits on 1st July, last year, which is only a little over a year ago, and I think it is unreasonable that the Opposition should seek to have them revised so quickly. I think the Parties opposite realise that, and I think the Labour Party know very well it is only a motion of this kind——

Mr. O'Leary

That annoys you.

Dr. Ryan

——that could get thesupport of unscrupulous Deputies in Fine Gael, and other Parties. That is why they put it down, to get the biggest vote they could against the Government, but everybody in the country will have contempt for it. Everybody will ask why they did not do something for three and a half years.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

They did. I heard the Minister admit the last time he spoke that there had been the same increase when Deputy Norton was Minister for Social Welfare as his previous three years.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, you brought in £1,500,000.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

It is as good as your three years.

Dr. Ryan

But that was not very much. Since that £1,500,000 was brought in, in less than three years we brought in £7,500,000.

Mr. Dillon

And put up the cost of living 22 points.

Dr. Ryan

We got the money in spite of you and in spite of the Labour Party, and we had to do it in spite of you. If we were to agree to this motion now and give increased benefits to all these various classes I have not the slightest doubt we would have to go then and, in spite of the Labour Party and in spite of the Fine Gael Party, get the money to do it. Is that not insincerity at its worst?

Mr. O'Leary

There is no bother in getting the money.

Dr. Ryan

You are welcome now to your insincerity and your support for this motion.

Estimate put and declared carried.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.