The Minister, at least, is to be congratulated on making progress under the heading of social welfare since he took office. The fact that he has not made spectacular strides in that direction is proof that there are certain limitations to the rate at which social services may be expanded and I am sure the Minister now realises that the expansion of social services which he advocated when he was on this side of the House is not easy of accomplishment. In a country like this, which has a huge unemployment problem, an emigration problem, a declining population, we must of necessity set limits to the amount we put aside for those who are fortunate enough to be at present in employment. Other problems, such as the provision of employment for those who are unemployed, the creation of extra jobs per year, should take precedence over any social welfare scheme.
There are many things that remain to be done but, since 1932, the strides made in the field of social services are very creditable indeed. While I congratulate the Minister on any improvements which he has effected in his time, it is only right to point out, particularly in relation to a statement made by Deputy Murphy, that Fianna Fáil have to their credit the provision of the major portion of all the social benefits available to the people. If I understood Deputy Murphy correctly, he said that Fianna Fáil had done nothing in the way of social welfare. He probably did not mean it that way, but I think the statement, as recorded in the Official Report, will have that meaning. That was the only inference I could draw from it.
In reviewing the list of social services now available, it immediately occurs to me that Fianna Fáil were the sole architects of most of our important legislation in respect of social services. I have to name only a few: unemployment benefit, disability benefit, as recently included in the Health Act, widows' contributory pensions, widows' non-contributory pensions, orphans' contributory pensions and orphans' non-contributory pensions, not to talk of various expansions of existing services which were implemented by a paltry sum up to the time that the Fianna Fáil Government first set out to expand social services. The building trade workers' special insurance, the emergency fuel scheme and practically every worthwhile piece of social legislation that has been enacted in this country were brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government at some time or other.
In those days, members of the Labour Party accused us of not moving fast enough in that direction. I am sure the present Minister now realises that certain limitations must be set even to the very desirable work which remains to be done in the field of social services.
I want to get from the general to some particular points. I agree with the points made by Deputy Murphy in relation to difficulties placed in the way of people who seek these benefits. When civil servants are designing a questionnaire which must be filled in by applicants for any benefit, it seems to me they have in mind the biggest crooks that could be envisaged. That may be understandable if the idea is that the form will be foolproof, but it seems to me that the trouble involved in the unnecessary red tape could be obviated by having a little more laxity, even at the risk of exploitation by a few.
I do not know that I have ever met a person in this country who fully understands the qualifying conditions for unemployment benefit. The leaflets issued in respect of that matter are not very helpful. I suggest that the Department should issue a simple booklet in concise form explaining in simple terms the conditions and the qualifications for this benefit. There is the benefit year and there is the contribution year, and these vary. The contribution year and the benefit year in respect of females is different from the corresponding periods in respect of males, with the result that many people are not fully aware of when or how they may qualify for unemployment benefit. There are also exceptions with regard to new entrants and sometimes a new entrant qualifies with fewer contributions than an existing contributor, leaving people working in the same job not understanding why this should be because there are special conditions related to it. That time has been extended time and again, but I do not know if the Minister has sought to clarify the position with regard to new entrants.
I appeal to the Minister, if possible, to simplify the code in relation to unemployment benefit generally. If he does so it will be a great help to the people concerned. If it is not to be simplified, perhaps the qualifying conditions could be set out in simple form in an explanatory pamphlet. This would save Deputies a great deal of trouble in explaining what are the conditions prevailing in each case.
In the case of unemployment assistance, I am not going to accuse the Minister of taking any particular action, but the handling of cases at the moment would seem to indicate that there is a move on foot to completely cut out all unemployment assistance. Investigation officers sent out by the Minister's Department will come down on applicants time and again, reinvestigating cases without notice, and the result of the visit of the investigating officer inevitably is the discontinuation of the assistance, or a drastic reduction in the amount. I do not know if that is part of a campaign to put an end to unemployment assistance or to effect economies and save money at the expense of these unfortunate people who have to go on the dole.
I have been in touch with the Department over the past few months about a case which I will refer to by way of example. There was a single man in receipt of 12/- a week unemployment assistance who lived in a labourer's cottage. He got married, but he had been employed as a fisherman for some time before he got married. When he got married, his unemployment assistance was increased to £1 per week, but after two weeks the invesigation officer came along and asked him how much he had earned for the time he was fishing salmon. The man replied that he had earned £30, but the investigation officer added £6 to that, making it £36, and the result was that his unemployment assistance was reduced to 7/- a week. This man is living in a rented house; he does not own a stick or stone, and yet he has to live on 7/- a week, just because this time last year he earned £30 in a small boat fishing salmon.
A county council worker who resumes work and is knocked off work intermittently has no reduction made in his unemployment assistance. Anybody who knows anything about the life of a fisherman on the Donegal coast knows that he goes out at five in the morning and works until six in the evening, and may have nothing for his week's work. He may earn a few pounds the next week. After working for three months, this man earned £36 and now he and his wife are expected to live on 7/- a week. I have taken this case up with the Department but the appeals officer has upheld the verdict of the investigation officer. I am sure that this is only one of hundreds of cases of the same kind of people who are being victimised completely by these investigations. I submit that that is part of a campaign to effect economies at the expense of the most deserving section of people in this country. If that is so, it is a shame.
In every debate on this Estimate, the same old plea is made in respect of pensions for the blind. I think it is no harm to make it again this year, in the hope that some time or other it will not fall on deaf ears. The general complaint which I am going to make is in regard to embroidery workers. I think the condition under which one may qualify for a blind pension is that one is unfit to carry on one's usual occupation by reason of impaired eyesight. Embroidery workers are not given the benefit of that regulation, despite the fact that, in many cottages in the congested districts, embroidery work is the main source of livelihood.
When the woman of the house is no longer able to carry on her embroidery work as a result of defective eyesight, she naturally makes application for the blind pension and inevitably she is turned down just because it is felt that her eyesight is sufficiently good to enable her to carry on her household duties. That means that some of her family, at an early age, have to set off for England to earn a livelihood and to keep the home. Embroidery workers should be accepted, as embroidery is their principal means of livelihood. The benefit of the doubt should be given in such cases.
I should like the Minister to devote some attention to the question of employment exchange offices. In many cases, the local offices are not suitable buildings. I understand that the onus is on the branch manager to secure suitable premises, but I think it is time the Department stepped in, because these offices have come to stay. They are no longer buildings which are in temporary use and which, one day, will not be required. These branch offices for the administration of unemployment assistance have come to stay, and in many cases they are not suitable. It is not fair to expect the branch manager, in a town where housing conditions are difficult, to be able to obtain suitable accommodation. The Minister should step in and give a helping hand. If suitable accommodation is not available, suitable buildings should be erected. Deputy Kennedy had in mind the Hotel de Ville type of building. He hoped to have erected in each town, where such offices were located a building which would cover all the different offices in relation to local administration in the area where he would house the assistant county surveyor, the superintendent of the Guards, the investigation officer attached to pensions investigations, the branch manager of the exchange and the agent of what used to be known as the national health insurance. Any such offices in relation to local administration could be housed in one suitable building where people could call and be attended to conveniently instead of having them scattered around the back streets in different parts of the town where they are sometimes not so easily accessible. It would be a grand scheme. It would also contribute its quota towards taking some of the people out of the queue outside the employment exchange.
Some speakers mentioned the question of increased remuneration for managers in branch offices. I did not think it would be necessary to stress that point to the present Minister because he is a sensible man and must realise that the branch managers on their present rate are unable to carry on. Sometimes the job is not worth the candle to the manager of a branch employment office. The rate is governed by the numbers registered as unemployed and certain offices may work out much more satisfactorily than others. I know that there are certain offices in which the job of branch manager is not worth bothering about at certain times of the year. I think it is only fair that the position should be examined with a view to bringing about the necessary adjustment.
I listened to Deputy Murphy, and while nobody in this House would like to prevent the people who are already in permanent employment getting all the benefits to which they are entitled as Christians and workers, at the same time the Department of Social Welfare should not be lopsided in so far as city employment is concerned. There is a great deal of talk in this country at the moment regarding the lack of amenities and attractions for the people who live in the rural areas. The depopulation of these areas, as a result very often of social as well as economic conditions, is one of the major problems confronting the country at the present time. It is one that has been accelerated, unfortunately, in the past few years.
If the Department of Social Welfare are going to have a bias towards the city worker, I think that is not a move in the right direction. We are not spending all the money we would like to spend on social welfare. There must be certain limitations in a country where the resources are meagre and unemployment is rife, but if we are to lean in a particular direction we should lean towards the worker in the rural areas.
Time and again I hear people say that unemployment assistance was the curse of this country because it created lazy men, corner boys and what not, but at the same time I have seen many families who could not have existed were it not for that particular social benefit. Until we are in a position to say to each person: "There is a job available for you within reasonable distance of your own home," the onus is upon us to provide for those people the necessary pittance. There are people who abuse the scheme but then what scheme is not abused in this country or in any other country for that matter? It is not the great drain on the resources of this country which some people think it is.
Immediately the people get that money it goes in to the grocer, the butcher and the baker before Saturday night and helps to stimulate the circulation and distribution of goods. It is one of the principal things which keep a few shillings circulating in some of the rural towns. The money is not quite so ill-spent as some people would like to indicate it is. There are occasions when people could not exist were it not for the fact that that pittance is available to them. I think those people should not be treated in the way they are very often treated. They are useful members of the community who would, if work were available to them, contribute their quote to production in the country. That is proved by the fact that whenever any bit of employment becomes available you have literally hundreds of them looking for the few jobs that may be vacant.
So far as Donegal and other congested counties are concerned, the Department has got sufficient easing off in these payments by the increased emigration over the past two years. That may not be relevant under this Estimate but suffice it to say that until something is done and done quickly there will not be many signing for unemployment assistance in some of the western counties in the course of the year. The Minister for Social Welfare cannot do much in that direction. Our primary task should be to improve the conditions under which the people live, give them employment and endeavour to create the necessary work. Then social conditions would be improved much more easily and in those circumstances much more money would be placed at the Minister's disposal in order to carry out the work.
I should like the Minister to pay attention to the few things I mentioned, particularly my reference to unemployment assistance and to embroidery workers who apply for a blind pension. I support Deputy Murphy in his reference to old age pension applicants. We all know the case made so frequently in this House where the old man, who has been a hard worker all his life, fails to qualify for an old age pension because he has been a thrifty, hard-working and generally useful citizen but the man who has not been just so thrifty, the improvident type, who did not work so hard and did not accumulate any of the world's comforts or wealth, finds it very simple to qualify for a pension when he reaches the age.
So far as the means test operates in regard to old age pensions, it sets a premium on improvidence. It might not be fair to describe it that way but when any of us sit down on a subcommittee of an old age pension body he realises the difficulty in getting certain people qualified for that weekly payment, people who all their lives have devoted their best years, in toil and sweat, to producing for this country.
I refer to the farmer who manages to build a reasonably good home and brings up a family who may support him and give him reasonable comfort in later years. That is held against him in the means test when he applies for the few shillings in respect of the old age pension. It is not right but I suppose the statutory limit must be drawn somewhere. We may go on raising it time after time but there is a lot to be said in regard to advocating the complete abolition of the means test for, while you would give pensions to a number of people who could reasonably do without them, at the same time you would cut out all the inequity which results from the present system of means test. You would also save the cost. We would be saving the cost of a very big staff of investigation officers. I wonder if the means test were abolished whether the Exchequer would stand to lose anything in the end?
We have a happy knack in this country of recruiting a few thousand civil servants and we hardly ever get rid of any of them again. We never hear of a pay-off in that quarter although we hear of pays-off in every other direction. It might be possible if we did cut out the means test in regard to old age pensions so to arrange matters that, as the existing staff reached retiring age and no other men were taken in, the young men would find work replacing those now down in "the glass house" and we would have effected sufficient economy to offset any extra expense which might be incurred as a result of the abolition of the means test. I would be all for that.