Vol. 168 No. 1
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £313,900 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.
Mar gheall ar an dlúthbhaint atá ag na Seirbhísí Árachais Shóisialta agus na Seirbhísí Cúnaimh Shóisialta le chéile, tá rún agam le cead an Chinn Chomhairle agus an Tí, deighleáil leis na trí Meastacháin don Roinn Leasa Shóisialaigh mar aon ghrúpa i dteannta a chéile. Dá bhrí sin clúdóigh mo ráiteas na trí Vótaí, mar atá Uimhir 61— Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh, Uimhir 62—Árachas Sóisialta, agus Uimhir 63—Cúnamh Sóisialta. Mar sin beidh sé de cheart ag na Teachtaí tagairt d'aon cheann de na trí Vótaí sin sa diospóireacht a leanfas, agus féachfadsa, im fhreagra, le réiteach a dhéanamh ar aon cheist a tógfar. An bhféadaim glacadh leis go n-aontaíonn an Dáil leis an socrú seo, i gcaoi nach mbeidh dispóireachtaí faoi leith ann ar Vótaí 62 agus 63?
It is agreed, then, to take the three Votes together.
Iarrtar san iomlán as an Státchiste don bhliain 1958-59 ar na trí Meastacháin seo breis agus £25,250,000. Is iad seo na suimeanna ar leith:
|
Uimhir 61, Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh |
£470,800 |
|
Uimhir 62, Árachas Sóisialta |
£4,251,000 |
|
Uimhir 63, Cúnamh Sóisialta |
£20,561,000 |
Is é iomlán cruinn na dtrí Vótaí, mar sin, £25,282,800. Is lú sin de £280,900 ná an méid iomlán (agus na Meastacháin Forlíontacha a chur san áireamh) a vótáileadh don bhliain 1957-58. Baineann an laghdú uilig, beagnach, leis an Meastachán don Árachas Sóisialta.
Teastaíonn £470,800 glan i gcóir tuarastail agus costaisí riaracháin eile na Roinne, mar a iompráitear iad ar an Vóta do Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh. Taispeánann fo-mhírcheann na dtuarstal laghdú de £13,500 ar fhorálacha na bliana anuraidh. Tá seacht bpoist fhochead níos lú san áireamh i mbliana ná a bhí í 1957-58. Is é is cúis leis an laghdú sin a theacht ar an bhfoirinn go bhfuil sé mar pholasaí ag an Roinn an oiread coigilte agus is féidir a dhéanamh ar a costaisí riaracháin.
Sa Meastachán í gcóir Árachais Shóisialta glactar leis go n-íocfair as an Státchiste isteach sa Chiste Árachais Shóisialta an méid de chaiteachas a bheas ar an gCiste, mar mheastar, de bhreis ar a theacht isteach le linn na bliana 1958-59.
The estimated expenditure of the Social Insurance Fund in the current financial year is £10,665,000 made up as follows:—
|
£ |
|
|
Disability Benefit |
3,926,000 |
|
Unemployment Benefit |
3,133,000 |
|
Widows' and Orphans' (Contributory) Pensions |
1,940,000 |
|
Treatment Benefit |
230,000 |
|
Maternity Benefits |
120,000 |
|
Marriage Grant |
76,000 |
|
Administration Costs and Depreciation |
1,240,000 |
|
TOTAL |
£10,665,000 |
The income of the Social Insurance Fund is estimated at £6,454,000, consisting of £5,886,000 from employment contributions and £568,000 in income from investments of the fund.
The difference between the expenditure of £10,665,000 and the income of £6,454,000, that is £4,211,000, is the amount that has to be made good by the Exchequer in respect of the deficit on the working of the fund for 1958-59. To this sum is added an adjustment of £2,000 due by the Exchequer in respect of late payments under the former national health insurance scheme. This brings the total to be provided in 1958-59, in accordance with Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, to £4,213,000, which is the amount of sub-head A of the Estimate.
The State subvention to the Social Insurance Fund of £4,213,000 for 1958-59 is £274,000 lower than the corresponding provision for 1957-58. This is mainly due to an anticipated decrease of £190,000 in benefit expenditure and to an anticipated increase of £100,000 in contribution income. The main variations giving rise to the net decrease of £190,000 in benefit expenditure are reductions of £150,000 and £117,000 in unemployment benefit and disability benefit respectively, offset by an increase of £69,000 in the provision for widows' and orphans' contributory pensions.
Both the reduction in the provision for unemployment benefit and the increase in the provision for contribution income are based on the expectation of an improved employment situation in 1958-59. The provision for disability benefit for 1957-58 was inflated by about £120,000 as a result of the influenza epidemic last year. It is not considered necessary to make provision for expenditure of a similar nature in the current financial year. The increase in the provision for widows' and orphans' contributory pensions is due to the normal increase in the number of pensions in operation.
As regards social assistance, the Estimate of £20,561,000 is £1,000 lower than the corresponding provision (including Supplementary Estimate) for the previous year. The reduction of £1,000 is the net result of increases and decreases in the provisions for the various assistance services.
The main increase is one of £275,000 under the children's allowances sub-head. This increase is principally attributable to the provision for a full year instead of ten and a half months of the increased rates of allowances which became effective last May and, to a lesser extent, to an upward trend in the number of children in respect of whom allowances are payable.
Decreases of £140,000 and £101,000 are shown in the provisions for old age pensions and unemployment assistance respectively. It is expected that the average numbers of old age pensioners during 1958-59 will be somewhat less than in the previous year, with a consequent reduction in expenditure under this head, which last year was estimated at £10,540,000. The decrease of £101,000 in the Estimate for unemployment assistance is due to an anticipated reduction in the numbers applying for assistance during the current year.
One other decrease which I should mention is a reduction of £17,000 in the provision for welfare of the blind. This is principally due to the fact that the provision for 1957-58 included a special grant of £15,000, payable in that year only, towards the initial working capital of the Board for the Employment of the Blind which was set up in April, 1957.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this is quite a formidable sum of money. Of course, it is true that it embraces three different Votes, but over all it means that, for what people generally classify as social welfare, this House is asked to provide the sum of £25,250,000. Recently, and even from some of the members of the Government, we have been getting the impression from some sources that so much of this money is wasted, there is a case for cutting down on social welfare. In recent years, we have had various accusations and generalisations about fraud in what is generally termed social welfare, even though it embraces social insurance and social assistance. The impression amongst certain people that everybody receiving money from any of these three Votes is a rogue or a robber should be knocked on the head. The persons who can knock it on the head are the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.
We spoke from these benches before about that type of allegation and we pointed out that if there were frauds —isolated cases—there were also isolated cases of fraud in respect of grants given or received through other Departments, through the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Local Government. I do not at all concede that there is any widespread abuse of social welfare which many people allege there is. These allegations come from people who do not want to pay anything by way of taxes or rates to help people who can ill afford to keep themselves and their families from week to week.
When the Minister for Finance spoke here last week in reply to the Budget debate, he challenged the Labour Party that they had not voted willingly for the moneys which he alleged he provided to increase social welfare benefits. It is true, of course, that social welfare benefits were increased by one shilling, or up to two, three and four shillings where there were big families. The Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party, however, have given the impression that out of the food subsidy money saved last year, approximately £2,000,000 has been devoted to social welfare, social insurance and social assistance. Such is not the case at all. The Fianna Fáil Government saved that £2,000,000. At least, if they did not save it, it was not devoted as a sum of money to the Vote for Social Insurance and Social Assistance because the figures the Minister has read out, as compared with the figures for last year in the Book of Estimates, show there is an amount of £289,900 less provided for these three social welfare Votes this year. I wonder why.
I know that, in framing this type of Estimate, it is extremely difficult to estimate accurately, especially for such Votes as social insurance. We know that, in theory, there is a legal obligation on the Minister for Social Welfare to pay out certain benefits, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit and allowances to widows and orphans. We know that if there is a big wave of unemployment, as we experienced in the last few years, or if there is a sickness epidemic, the Estimate, of necessity, will be far out. I believe that happened in the last year or two, but I believe there is a legal obligation on the Minister to make certain payments to people who are sick or unemployed. I suggest, however, that in an effort to keep within the Estimate other methods have been devised, other methods are in use and are practised to ensure that, under certain heads, the Estimate will not be over-expended.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a speech some six or nine months ago which got wide publicity, part of which speech he afterwards corrected. He spoke about frauds and abuse in respect of unemployment benefit. That, in my opinion, gave a lot of people the excuse to cry "fraud" and "robber", where such was not the case. I wonder if that speech by the Parliamentary Secretary, and speeches like it from other people outside the House, have built up the situation wherein the majority of the men applying for unemployment benefit are now suspect. As far as my experience has gone, over the past six or 12 months, an unusual number of cases have been held up and are being treated with suspicion. I know there is suspected fraud and proven fraud in some cases, but I do not believe there should be a generalisation, and I do not believe that an unusual number of cases should be regarded as suspect and held up for weeks on end to the detriment—and should I say it?—to the loss of the persons making the claims. If a claim is pending for three, five and even six weeks, we do not find the local authority very charitable to men who claim unemployment benefit and sickness benefit.
I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary can do to remedy this, unless he suggests to the deciding officers that they should be prepared to make decisions on their own, and not incur unreasonable delay in sending every application, or the bulk of applications, to head office. Sending applications to head office naturally entails delay. Delay is inevitable if head office is cluttered up with files which necessitate decisions.
The Minister is responsible for home assistance. I do not mean he is responsible for the money, but rather the administration of home assistance by the local authorities. Certainly, local authorities are not very generous when they come to the assistance of people who are deemed, and who are known, to be destitute. The experience of local authorities over the past few years, during which there has been so much talk about economies, is to cut down not so much on the things which can bear a cut but on such things as home assistance, or different other cash forms of assistance, administered by them.
There is a decrease in this Vote, Social Insurance, under the heading of unemployment benefit. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and the Government will be relieved to a certain extent if emigration continues at the same pace as last year. If that happens, there will be a saving in the Vote for Unemployment Benefit and in the Vote for Social Assistance. I must make some complaints in respect of sickness benefit. It is pathetic to see people approach their local T.D.s. or local representatives, asking why they were cut off from what they call national health insurance. Some of them have been in receipt of sickness benefit for two years and the very fact that they have received it for two years may have given some official the impression that they were malingerers.
The attitude is that it is impossible for anybody to be sick for such a length of time, impossible when the Department has to hand out money to them. There should be a relaxation of restrictions on those who examine these sick people. Every Deputy will agree that in some cases people have been struck off the sickness benefit list in recent months. I know that was done in the past, but it seems to me that many more are being struck off at present. Now, the health of the country has not improved so vastly in the past few years that we have to pay out less in sickness benefit in 1958.
I suggest that there should be a switch round of examining doctors. At the moment, a person is struck off the sickness benefit list and a medical referee is sent down. The person is examined and deemed fit for work. In three months, there is an appeal and the same medical referee is sent down. That happens time after time and year after year. These medical referees should be switched round from district to district. It is not abnormal in medical practice to have a second opinion, but, as far as the Department is concerned, a second opinion does not count. The person's own doctor may deem him or her to be incapable of working, suffering from this, that or the other. That is not accepted by the examining doctor sent down by the Department.
Are we trying to save money on this to the detriment and discomforture of sick people? You may call the inter-Party Government extravagant, inasmuch as there was not that same clamp down under them. When a Supplementary Estimate was required it was provided, and that was that. There is a legal obligation on the taxpayers, because of legislation passed here, to pay to people who are not capable of working and who have the necessary insurance qualifications a sum determined from time to time in relation to sickness or disability benefit.
The Parliamentary Secretary reports, and we can see in the Book of Estimates, that old age pensions are reduced. The reason given is: "It is expected that the average number of old age pensions during 1958-59 will be somewhat less than in the previous year." Is that a phenomenon? It seems to me that we should have more old age pensioners; at least, we should have more aged people. Whether or not they are pensioners is a matter for decision by the Minister. Despite the fact that expectancy of life has risen, and is still rising, we are told now that we will have fewer old age pensioners this year and we are saving £100,000 because of that allegation by the Parliamentary Secretary.
According to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, unemployment assistance has decreased by £101,000. I should like to make a special plea to the Parliamentary Secretary in respect of certain people who should be eligible, in my opinion, for unemployment assistance. This time last year, the Minister for Social Welfare—he is now Minister for Agriculture—very rudely misinterpreted, whether deliberately or not, I do not know—the point that we endeavoured to make from these benches. One problem with which I was confronted as Minister for Social Welfare and which I desired to see resolved was the question of the means test for self-employed people. I refer to the salmon fisherman who works for a season.
He starts in April and he becomes unemployed in September or October. By reason of the fact that he is self-employed and is deemed to have made so much money within the six months, he is automatically disqualified for unemployment assistance. If he were working in insurable employment and even if he did not qualify for unemployment benefit, he would still be eligible for and would receive unemployment assistance, and he could be a man earning £8, £9 or £10 per week. I know this is a problem. It has been a problem for various Ministers over the past 25 years, but I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to have that aspect of unemployment assistance considered, because it is, in my view, an injustice to those people who, like seasonal fishermen, become unemployed and do not qualify for unemployment assistance by reason of the fact that they are self-employed.
The Minister adverted to the reduction of £17,000 in the sub-head dealing with the welfare of the blind. Perhaps he would expand that a little further in his reply and say what progress has been made towards establishing a workshop for the blind. Members of all Parties, especially those on the Dublin Corporation, have interested themselves deeply in this problem, especially in view of the difficulties the various associations for the blind have run into in recent years. I know that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are sympathetic towards the proposed new projects. I should be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would say what progress, if any, has been made in the past 12 months.
The Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to the free fuel scheme. The amount provided for that scheme has been decreased by £17,750. That represents a reduction of approximately 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. Why there should be that reduction, I do not know. Whether the price of fuel has been reduced or whether other costs have been reduced, I do not know. There is one little problem I would ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to concern themselves with and that is the regulation —by whom imposed, I do not know— whereby two fuel vouchers are not given to the one householder. That presents a problem in the City of Dublin and I know cases down the country where two people, not tied by any relationship, live in different parts of the one house. The assistance officers have refused to give two vouchers in such cases. We know that it is not always easy, especially for old people, to live together in the one room and sit in front of the same fire and, where there are two unrelated people occupying different parts of the same house, the assistance officer should not be reluctant to provide each with a fuel voucher.
On the Estimate last year, I raised the question of the free footwear scheme. If I make any criticism of that scheme, I do not want to give offence to anybody—the Minister, local officials, home assistance officers, superintending assistance officers or anybody else. The plain blunt fact is that the administration of the scheme is not satisfactory. I suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary last year that he should ask the local authorities to name the latest date for receiving applications for vouchers for free footwear, and I think he did that. I know that some local authorities adopted that suggestion, but I am sorry to have to admit that that was not satisfactory either. I know it is difficult to please everybody, but there seems to be a fair amount of dissatisfaction about the distribution of these vouchers. I have come across people who did not get vouchers and who, in my opinion, were very deserving, as against others who got the vouchers and who were not so deserving.
I know that the Minister has a small amount of money to distribute, about £37,500, and that he cannot do a great deal with that, but perhaps he would consult with his officials and the officials of local authorities to see what method could be devised to ensure that the most necessitous children get vouchers. It is a very difficult problem. In the position which he now holds, with the advice of his officials and the local authorities, he may be able to devise a better scheme.
A sum of £25,250,000 is a formidable amount of money, but, in my opinion, every penny of it is well spent. It is given to people who spend the money in this country. It is not money that goes abroad; it is not money that goes to purchase a lot of—if any—foreign-made articles, clothing or food. It represents a circulation of money given by the taxpayers and ratepayers to help unfortunate people who cannot fend for themselves and, generally, it is money well spent.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, if there are frauds, there are not widespread frauds in social welfare schemes or in schemes administered by any other Department. My only grouse is that in respect of many of these benefits, such as old age pensions, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions and blind pensions, there is not more money provided in the Vote for Social Assistance.
Even though the total of the three Votes £25,262,600, shows a reduction of £280,900 on the Estimate for 1957-58, it is a colossal figure. It is almost one-fourth of the total sum required for the various services administered by all State Departments. While the cost of administration may be regarded as being high, it must be remembered that there is a sum of £25,000,000 to be dealt with and that thousands of cases must be investigated individually. I do not suppose that the cost of administration could be reduced to any greater extent than it has been reduced this year. It is well to see that there are 27 fewer posts. As time goes on, I take it that officers of the Department who retire on pension or on marriage and so forth, will not be replaced until there has been a considerable reduction in staff but that, at the same time, the efficiency of the Department will be fully maintained.
There is a reduction of £140,000 in the sum allocated for old age pensions. The Parliamentary Secretary has given the reason for that. I do not know how he has calculated it, but I take it that the Department has gone into the matter very minutely and that that reduction can be taken as being genuine.
The vexed question of old age pensions is spoken of at various times by Deputies and people throughout the country. It is a very popular thing to demand an increase in old age pensions, blind pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions. It would be a very good electioneering point to promise to increase these pensions, but people should seriously consider what an increase of 2/6 in old age pensions would cost. It would be in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000 per annum.
Something over that.
People must accept their responsibilities. If increases are given in social services, it means extra taxation on drink, cigarettes, petrol and so on. Old age pensioners and persons in receipt of social benefits should remember that if they get an increase of 2/6 per week, they would lose in other ways, in buying a few drinks or tobacco. Our social services compare very favourably with the social services in any other country that we know of, and we can claim that they are better in many cases.
Every Deputy knows that there are many special cases where an old age pensioner or blind pensioner may have no means but the pension. That applies also to certain widows and orphans. Some means should be devised whereby such persons could get something over and above the amounts given to persons living in their own homes who have members of the family or relatives to help them. In the cities and towns especially, there are such very needy cases. I know that there would be a difficulty in doing that. I am not sure if the local authority in such cases can provide extra benefits. That perhaps would be the only way in which something extra could be given, because the home assistance officers could investigate means and make the necessary recommendations. People should be very slow to ask for any increases in the social services as at present fixed, unless they are prepared to accept higher taxation, and saturation point has been reached in that regard.
As regards the unemployed and unemployment assistance, we have often heard people state that perhaps a quarter of those on the register as unemployed would be unemployable and nobody would give them work. I do not know how far that is true, but certainly there must be a fairly large number. If they are unemployable or incapable of work they must get some benefits and the benefits that such people receive by way of unemployment assistance are not sufficient to keep body and soul together. However, there are, I am sure, a number of people in receipt of unemployment assistance who are not really deserving of it. People who are pretty well off have been knows to draw unemployment assistance, commonly called the dole. That may be regarded as one of the frauds referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary and, if such frauds exist, it is only right that these cases should be not strictly examined. If such people were not drawing benefits of that kind to which they are not legally entitled, there would perhaps be such a sum left over as could be devoted to increasing the benefits for those who are genuinely unemployed and genuinely looking for work. If anybody is entitled to generous benefits, it is those who, through no fault of their own, cannot find employment in this country and who are genuinely seeking it.
As Deputy Corish stated, a vast sum of money is being provided under this Vote, but I am sure it is all quite necessary. Even if there are some people receiving benefits to which they are not entitled under the three sections of this Vote, I am sure the amount would not be very much when compared with the total of over £25,000,000. Still it is only right that the Department should so carry out the administration that there will be no frauds. Let us hope that when the financial situation allows, this House will make even better provision for those who are entitled to those benefits.
Increases have been given during the past eight or ten years, but they are not at all sufficient to keep up with the increase in the cost of living. I suppose we have to understand that the benefits given through these social services were never meant to enable people to live in any kind of comfort, but only as a help. Even at that, let us hope that at some future time we shall be in the happy position of being able to increase the benefits to those who deserve them.
This is one occassion on which we can congratulate the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and also the ex-Minister on the improvement that has been effected in the administration of the Department during the past couple of years. There is little or no delay now in the investigation of claims for old age pensions or qualification certificates. The payments of national health and unemployment insurance are made promptly and inquiries to the Department are dealt with with every degree of courtesy.
Two years ago when this Estimate was before the House, I raised the question of the recruitment of home assistance officers. The Minister at the time, Deputy Corish, was quite sympathetic to the views I expressed on that occasion and I hope to get the sympathetic ear of the Minister now. The time has long passed when the methods of recruitment should be changed. We have set up in our universities courses of study in social science and we have qualified for these diplomas emigrating and taking up remunerative posts in England and the Colonies.
The post of home assistance officer is one that requires a specialised knowledge of social welfare and the Health Acts and, more than anything else, a fund of sympathy and tact. I hope the Minister will in his replay give us some form of assurance that in the near future such appointments will be made by the Local appointments commission rather than by those selection committees of the boards of health or boards of assistance.
I should like to take the opportunity of drawing attention to some administrative difficulties which have arisen in the City of Dublin under the 1929 Public Assistance Act. When the Act was brought into force, the regulations that were framed were framed to cover the needs of the whole country. For years, those regulations, as far as Dublin was concerned, were more honoured in the breach than in the observance. They prescribed the conditions under which home assistance should be administered and issued, that assistance should not be issued to an able-bodied persons for a period of more than four weeks and to any sick or disable person for more than three months.
Those regulations were left in abeyance by the boards of assistance up to recently, but I understand that they are being put into force again. The public assistance authority in Dublin, I understand, has made many requests to the Department for a revision of the regulations without any satisfaction and I would urge on the Minister that it should not be left on the long finger any further. For years, it has been admitted that a person who was disabled and unable to support himself, but who was living with relatives who supported him was eligible for home assistance under Section 18 of the Public Assistance Act. I regret that lately there has been a tendency to discharge from home assistance that type of case and to throw the complete onus of supporting such a person on relatives who should not have to do so. I would ask the Minister to give some ruling or instruction to the authorities as to what exactly is the definition of a poor person under Section 18 of the Act.
There is another problem which none of the Ministers for Social Welfare has tackled. That is the question of a person who is 60 years old, or ever, and who is no longer able to work, but who still continues to draw unemployment assistance. I know of a typical case of a man who has been certified as suffering from chronic bronchitis and myocardities and who still draws his 19/- unemployment assistance. By no stretch of imagination can you imagine such a man being available for work. Might I suggest to the Minister that the regulations might be framed to enable that man to continue to draw his unemployment assistance, until such time as he is transferred to the disability allowances group?
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the geriatric section of the Irish Red Cross for the work they have done to alleviate the position of old age pensioners in Dublin, by organising parties, concerts and outings. The Minister should make some contribution to that section of the Red Cross to enable them to carry on their good work. I trust that as the Minister is able to tell us here now that there has been a saving on old age pensions, the position will be kept under constant review and if there is any opportunity, even during the year, of increasing old age pensions, it will be done at the first opportunity.
I do not propose to hold up the House for very long, but I feel constrained to say that from some of the statements which are made from time to time by Deputies and by people outside the House, one would think that social welfare benefits of every description were a necessary evil, were benefits that the State should face up to paying only when there was no other way out. The idea created by statements by Deputies, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to that effect, is that people who are drawing social welfare benefits of any description are in the nature of some kind of parasites and are battering on the community generally.
The atmosphere has been created in which very many people forget the fact that a large proportion of our people who draw social welfare benefits are contributors towards that scheme. They forget that the word "insurance" comes into it and that the whole cost of paying unemployment benefit and disablement benefit does not fall on the Exchequer solely, does not fall solely on the taxpayer. Both the employer and the employed person have to pay contributions towards that funds and they have, in fact, insured themselves against the ordinary hazards of illness and unemployment.
It is no harm to bring our minds back on to the rails in that connection and to get rid of this false impression which is being fostered, apparently, in many places that the taxpayer has to finance the whole scheme of things from start to finish. It will be readily agreed that in so far as organised workers have, from time to time, advocated an increase in social welfare benefits they have said on many occasions that they are prepared to pay the increased cost. Nobody should endeavour to create the impression, as one previous speaker did, that people were shouting for more, so long as they could get somebody else to pay for it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, since he has assumed office, has not been helpful in this respect. He gives the impression from his public utterances that he is obsessed with this idea that there is wholesale malingering, wholesale fraud and wholesale irregularities in the matter of claims for benefits of one kind or another. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Parliamentary Secretary deliberately set out on a campaign with that idea in view, but he does appear to have become obsessed with that idea, if we are to judge from the number of occasions on which he referred to it and the manner in which he has referred to it.
I do not think there is any Deputy who would not give the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister, every possible assistance in eradicating any fraud or any false claims. We would all be at one in such a campaign, but I do think the Parliamentary Secretary has overstepped in this connection and has again created that atmosphere whereby people, even genuine claimants for one type of benefit or another have apparently been branded as at least suspect. A claimant is regarded with suspicion the moment he goes in to claim the benefit to which he is entitled and for which he insures himself. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to have a look at the situation again and see if he has not done more harm than good in the campaign he has pursued since assuming office.
A point which I made in previous years and which I will repeat now is that there is still too much centralisation in the administration of the Department. I readily agree that it would not be possible in small centres to deal with all aspects of insured persons' claims and thereby do away with the delays we sometimes experience. I suggest that in large centres like Cork, Limerick and Waterford, and the bigger centres generally, more authority could be given to the local office of the Department and that claims should be handled almost in toto in these centres. I cannot see why claims from a large area where you have so many insured persons, such as Cork, must be shuttled up to Dublin for consideration with consequent, and in many cases quite unnecessary, even if sometimes unavoidable, delays.
I do not know whether there are very grave difficulties in this but I think that, if there was a will to tackle the problem, some advance could be made. We are not advocating wholesale change overnight but we should aim at decentralising the administrative end of the Department and endeavour to give provincial centres greater autonomy to the benefit of insured persons and, I suggest, eventually, to the benefit of the Department and the taxpayers, if costs can be reduced in that way.
I have some complaints to make regarding delays in the payment of disability benefit but I must say they are not very widespread in my area. It appears they cannot be regarded, however, as isolated cases in which there was certainly undue delay. From inquiries I have made, I have convinced myself that the delay was in no way attributable to the local offices. I inquired about a particular case at one period where people claiming disability benefit were waiting for six weeks before they received the first payment.
The thing that mystifies me about this was that when I eventually asked the Parliamentary Secretary the cause of the delay—and I did not make any inquiry until the first payment had been made, the six weeks had elapsed and everything was righted because I wanted to assist the Parliamentary Secretary in pinpointing this sort of thing—it took the Parliamentary Secretary four weeks more to reply to me. After taking four weeks to investigate the matter he came back with a reply such as: "Certain inquiries were necessary." I knew that must be the case if it took six weeks, but the object of my question was to ascertain the real cause of the delay. The reply I got in another case was that there was difficulty in tracing the insurance number. Five weeks to trace an insurance number and three weeks for the Parliamentary Secretary to find out that that was the cause of the delay!
Eventually I had to put down a Parliamentary Question in an effort to get some satisfaction. I did not enjoy doing that and certainly I did not do it to embarrass the Minister or anybody else but I suggest that while delays, so far as my area is concerned, are not widespread and while I feel that the local offices act as one would expect them to act, there are still delays in very many cases which I regard as unreasonable and which could be avoided if we had further examination and tightening up of the system.
I should like to congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on the general improvement that has taken place in the past few years in our social service code and particularly on the increased efficiency achieved in the Minister's Department in Dublin and in the various branches offices in the country in handling the matters that come within the scope of the Department. That is very satisfactory and we welcome it from the point of view of public relations.
I have noticed that the Minister very wisely suggested that the House should allow him to take the three Votes together, Votes 61, 62 and 63. That arrangement simplifies the general discussion that may take place on the Estimate, which deals mainly with the Social Welfare Act of 1952 and any amendments that may have taken place in that Act since. That was a very fine piece of legislation and a very comprehensive measure. So far as the administrative machinery was concerned it repealed all the former Acts covering unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, national health benefit, old age pensions and all other benefits under the social code. To a great extent it simplified the legislation and amalgamated the various Acts more or less into one. I am sure it also simplified the administration of the Acts.
A noticeable feature of the Act in question was that the number of contributions necessary for an insured person to qualify for benefit was reduced to a minimum of 26. That was a definite advance in social legislation and I am sure everybody associated with it felt very happy that the Minister was able to limit the qualifying contributions to that figure. Unfortunnately, it has gone a little bit in the opposite direction since and we now find, having heard the Parliamentary Secretary's speech this evening and also having listened to him introducing certain Supplementary Votes, that he complains of widespread fraud, particularly in connection with unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and national health benefits.
No doubt there are good grounds for such complaints but I do not think fraud is as widespread as the Parliamentaray Secretary believes. One Deputy said that the Department of Social Welfare was rather obsessed with the idea of the existence of wholesale fraud. I think that, however, would be a slight exaggeration.
About three years ago the Department, in the light of its experience at the time, noted that claims for unemployment benefit particularly showed an upward trend. It was right that the officials of the Department should investigate to find what were the special circumstances responsible for such a situation. It would appear that during that preliminary investigations they discovered a number of people in various counties—apparently more in some than in others—were getting benefit, particularly unemployment benefit, for which they were not qalified.
The main trouble evidently arose after the recipient had first exhausted the initial right to unemployment benefit. He then proceeded to qualify for continuation benefit. One of the requirements of the Act is that he would need to have a further 13 weeks' insurable contributions to his credit before he could go back on continuation benefit in the case of unemployment benefit, and sickness benefit, or disablement benefit as it is described, in the case of national health. The Department state that, as a result of investigation, it has come to light now that quite a a large number of people took the liberty of affixing stamps for employment that was not insurable or that did not exist. The Department deal with those claims by refusing benefit, and rightly so.
I have some personal experience of the administration of this social welfare service and I know that always there has been a suspicion that the current claims were not 100 per cent. genuine. There was always a rather watchful eye kept on the payment of benefit, particularly by the former Unified National Health Society when they had separate control of that part of the organisation. After some years of investigations and special inquiry into the incidence of sickness benefit claims, the situation was largely cleaned up. There was quite a lot of hard work put into the special investigation made at that time—about ten years ago—and certainly up to the passing of the Social Welfare Act of 1952 I would be rather surprised if the national health part of the organisation had not put their house very well in order.
The 1952 Act certainly made it somewhat easier for a person who did not qualify under the old Act to come into the line of benefit. Like all good things, which are abused, we can assume that a number of people took advantage of the situation. I have no objection to having claims that are under suspicion investigated. I do, however, suggest to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that the time spent on investigation is far too long. I mean that the time which elapses from the date the claimant lodges his claim for benefit, whether that be unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance or national health benefit, until the claim is cleared is far too long. Evidently, when the claim is listed for investigation, it is sent to the local social welfare officer, through the usual channels. As far as I can understand, these officers are more or less obliged—certainly encouraged—not to go out on a claim or two in a particular district. Evidently, they wait for a week or two, or perhaps for three weeks, until sufficient claims accumulate for the particular district. I think the idea is to keep down travelling expenses; and that is all very well in its own way.
An overriding consideration should be the financial circumstances of the particular applicant. The people who normally claim unemployment benefit are ordinary working people. They must be such, as otherwise they would not be eligible, since they would not have cards stamped. When they have to go on unemployment benefit, particularly, they are on rather bare boards. They are unemployed and quite a large percentage have no other means of support. Probably they are mainly, if not entirely, dependent on the benefit from the stamps—to which they themselves have contributed, as well as their employers and, of course, the State. I seriously suggest to the Minister that some arrangement should be made whereby claims listed for special investigation would get priority and be dealt with within a few days from the time they are sent to the local officer. If the investigation is carried out promptly, the decision follows very quickly, as a rule, and the claimant knows where he stands in a short space of time. That would remove some of the present hardship attached to a situation of that kind.
Another aspect which must be looked into sooner or later is that the officers who investigate these claims, whilst they want to be perfectly fair to the claimants, are nevertheless inclined not to give the benefit of the doubt where doubt exists. It appears to me that the natural slant for an official in a matter of that kind is to report that there is more than a doubt. I have seen cases where there was certainly a very strong doubt and the report given was unfavourable to the claimant. That report goes to the central authority here, where a deciding officer deals with it and makes his decision. The decision is then conveyed to the person concerned and he gets the right to appeal. That right of appeal is a very treasured right of every person who is aggrieved, but I have noticed that there is also a tendency in the Department to have the appeal disposed of summarily by the appeals officer, without giving the appellant the right to go before an oral hearing at a local centre. That is very wrong.
I ask the Minister very specially to look into that point. Those affected are inclined to complain a good deal and, indeed, they are inclined to exaggerate what they term as the unfairness of the decision. There is probably a good deal in what they say. After all, in the normal course of events, there are appeals taking place in various provincial centres every other month and I see no reason why all those cases of appeals for special investigation should not be referred to a local and oral hearing. At that session, the appellant could bring his witnesses and make his case as best he could. An appeals officer, no doubt, will give the decision in the light of the facts as explained to him. I must say that my experience is that, where there are doubts, these appeal officers seem inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the applicant. The point I want to emphasise is that a local hearing is not only desirable but necessary to satisfy the aggrieved person that he has got every opportunity of making his case and, if possible, winning it.
Another Deputy said that a certain allowance, so to speak, has to be made for the making of claims that are not quite correct. I suppose the explanation is that employed people contribute their share to this fund, and if it appears to them that their claim is in order, they have no apology to make for lodging it. Employers contribute and the State contributes, but I think we should at least make a certain allowance where claims, which are described as being fraudulent, are coming along and you will find it hard to credit that.
There is one thing which might help partly to eliminate that practice, that is, the co-operation of all Parties. It is the duty of all Members of this House to tell any people who come to them with representations that, if their claims are wrong, the practice is dishonest and immoral. We should set our faces against this thing. I feel, at the same time, that it would be wrong for Deputies to act in any way as judge and jury in this matter. Once I find that the ordinary avenues of appeal are fully explored by an aggrieved party, I am perfectly satisfied from that forward.
I have a word to say to the Minister in regard to unemployment. A piece-meal investigation seems to have started in recent months in regard to the recipients of unemployment assistance. The first category of recipients attacked seem to be people who have not engaged in any insurable employment for years. Naturally, one of the conditions of the payment of unemployment assistance is that the recipient has to be capable of and available for work. It is only proper, when the local branch manager finds some person on his register has not, in fact, committed himself to any insurable employment for a number of years, that he should queer the pitch.
I find that during the course of investigations into a matter of this kind, the tendency seems to be to suspend benefit. I found that taking place in a number of cases. It is wrong. Though those people have been paid benefits probably for many years, the fact that the local officers feel that the position should be checked up on now is not a good reason why benefits should be discontinued at the moment. It is more serious to discontinue the benefit in that case than it is to discontinue benefit in the case of unemployment benefit. After all, the people on unemployment assistance are certainly worse off as far as circumstances are concerned than people on other benefits. The vast majority of that type of people have probably no other source, of income, good, bad or indifferent; they are trying to manage from week to week with whatever unemployment assistance they get, supplemented probably by certain help in the form of assistance they may get from their holdings if they have any, and from the neighbours, if they have not got holdings. It is a step in the right direction, I will admit, that recipients of that nature should be questioned as to why they have not worked over a certain number of years, but there, again, no hardships should be imposed, because it is quite possible that, when the investigation into that matter concludes, the officers will be satisfied there was no case for a withdrawal of benefit. I think we might ask the Minister to ensure that, where such investigations take place in the future, benefit will be continued.
In the case of old age pensions, I notice from a return which I obtained some time ago that the percentage has gone up considerably since 1922, when the State was first formed. Nowadays, the percentage of old age pensions as against the total population over 70 years of age seems to be up almost to 80 per cent. One might truthfully say that 80 per cent. of the people over 70 are in receipt of old age pensions. Nevertheless, I think there are still cases of hardship. Whilst I accept the views given here by a previous speaker —I think the Minister referred to the matter also—regarding the cost, it would be a pity that there should be any small number of individual cases lagging behind of which we are not able to dispose.
Some years ago, the then Minister introduced a concession which was undoubtedly very welcome at the time so far as landowners were concerned, whereby a holding with a poor law valuation of £30 or less could be handed over to a son or daughter, without a marriage, and the former owner would qualify so far as the holding is concerned for an old age pension. That was a very valuable concession. It is one which, I am sure, is appreciated.
It does not extend to people in certain other occupations, small shopkeepers and business people. If they have a concern or a business equal in income to or even less than a holding of £30 (in so far as its return is concerned) they are out, for the purposes of an old age pension. I have come across a couple of cases where shopkeepers carrying on a small line of business, which might not make £3 per week, were unable to get the pension, whereas a farmer with a holding of a valuation under £30 was able to qualify. There is some inconsistency there.
I think a Deputy would be entitled to suggest to the Minister that he might review that matter and see what could be done to meet the requirements of that very small category of people. The number, I would say, would be one in 1,000 of the land-owning category.
There is also, in my opinion, too conservative an attitude on the part of the Department in accepting some claimants for old age pensions, if they have disposed of certain moneys. That situation mainly arises with the land owner who gets a fortune on the disposal of his land or with the claimant who, because of hard work and thrift, has accumulated a certain amount of money prior to the disposal of the holding. He may have a family. The case I refer to is where money is handed over to members of the family. The transfer is looked upon usually with a lot of suspicion. The ground that seems to be put forward by the Department is that the money was handed over for the purpose of qualifying the applicant for a pension. That may be as broad as it is long.
Country people, undoubtedly, when handing over their properties would be well-advised to dispose of their entire financial affairs together. They are inclined, however, to be rather conservative in that connection. There are, probably, other reasons for it. It has been put up to me on many occasions that they do not like doing the whole job together. They want to look about. They have only a limited amount of money. They just want to see how things will go with a view to disposing of that amount of money in the most equitable form possible to the other members of the family. Either way, the transfer of money takes place to a member of the family. It is quite wrong for the Department to take the attitude that it has been done to enable the claimant to be excluded from the value of that money.
We all know that members of families in rural areas work many years on their parents' holding without getting anything in the line of a direct wage. We further more know that if they happen to be lucky enough to get some allocation of money from their parents, it would be a very hard job to divert that money back again to the parents. Quite a lot of hardship has been caused to claimants in that connection. Whilst I appreciate that the investigation officers have to be careful and probably have to be very conservative, too, in accepting statements from claimants in that connection, I think they are inclined to carry the official attitude a bit too far. These people are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Where there is any reasonable ground for believing that the money was transferred, it is no longer in the person's name—he cannot get it back—I do not see why it should be debited against the claimant of an old age pension.
I want to make a very special appeal with regard to the insurability and also with regard to the assessment of means for outworkers, particularly fishermen. I am sure every Deputy is seriously concerned about this question. Probably the best contribution a Deputy can make is to deal with the aspect of the matter as it applies to his own constituency. In my constituency, the main people affected are inland fishermen. There are a few deep-sea fishermen also. The normal period of occupation in the inland fishing business is from April to about August. There is no commercial interest available locally to exploit the fishing potentialities of the area and to take people into employment. The only way they can secure employment is more or less to employ themselves.
A number of these people come together, select one as the head—he is called the skipper of the boat—then proceed to buy a boat or, if they have one, to repair it, or to renew one, as the case may be, take out the licence and buy the net. In nine out of ten cases, they are not in a financial position either to take out the licence or to buy the net. They have to depend on the help and co-operation of the local fish vendor, who usually advances the money. From their catches, he collects each week what he is entitled to. After paying off for the nets, contributing to the licence fee, and so on, the money is divided equally between them.
In the first instance, I understand the skipper is obliged to have the members of his team covered by social insurance. There is a special contribution rate of 3/- a week. This is 2/6 less than the ordinary rate of contribution, but the contribution that is affixed excludes the right to the holder of the card the draw unemployment benefit when he is unable—in other words, when the fishing season is finished—to obtain employment. The holder of this card does not qualify for unemployment benefit.
Can the Minister change that by an act of his own or does the Deputy want legislation?
I am not clear about it. It is a very burning question. Whatever way he has to do it, I sincerely hope some steps will be taken to right this matter at the earliest possible moment.
There is another reason why this present situation imposes undue hardship: I emphasise "undue." The people who work in that way are at a complete disadvantage when their means are being assessed for the purpose of unemployment assistance. Evidently, they are treated the same as all outworkers, in so far as they are debited with income which, in practice, is no other than wages except that it is received in another form. In my opinion, the greatest hardship is imposed in that direction. I have a particular fishing centre in mind where 30 or 40 fishermen are employed: it is a tradition with them to fish as they have been doing it for centuries. They have little or no land. They try to carry on by going into debt for six months, thanks to the generosity of the local shopkeepers. They work hard at the fishing trade for the next six months and pay off, sometimes not in full, the amount of debt that has accrued. Those people—particularly since the 1952 Act was passed—have been dealt with, in the matter of unemployment assistance, in a manner that is very unsatisfactory and certainly in a manner that puts them at a complete disadvantage.
I should like the Minister to refer to that point when he is replying and to say if he can hold out any hope that some amendment will be made in the existing code, whereby these people who are working in the ordinary way —I submit they are no different from a person who is employed—will receive more, satisfactory treatment. After all, they are only making a living wage, if they are in fact making it. Their position should be considered with a view to having them assessed, so far as means are concerned, in the ordinary manner as a road-worker is assessed, for example, or, for that matter, in the manner in which a person getting £10 a week is assessed.
The fishing industry is very important. However, it does not leave a sufficient margin of profit to any of those people to enable them to accumulate something for the rainy day. They are very lucky if they break even and pay some of the debt—possibly all of it, if they can—that has accrued against them during the previous year. I have tried to indicate how they are affected in both ways—in unemployment benefit and in the assessment of means for unemployment assistance.
The people I have in mind were all subjected to a special inquiry some months ago. I thought on that occasion that the calculation which seemed to have been adopted was entirely out of order. I approached the Minister and asked for a reinvestigation of the whole question. The Minister very kindly granted a reinvestigation but I am sorry to say when it ended the position was worse than when I reported it. Not alone did the reinvestigation establish the means which were heretofore assessed against the particular parties, but it increased the means with the result that the rate of unemployment assistance is being reduced and in some cases completely cut out.
I would like to appeal to the Minister in connection with the establishment of the local agents of the social welfare insurance, formerly the national health agents. According to the Book of Estimates the number of officials in that category is 266. It appears that 43 of that number are pensionable, due to the fact that they were employed in a pensionable capacity by the former National Health Insurance Society. But we still have 266 hanging on. Those people are neither here nor there. They are not established and they are not civil servants. The whole position of their unemployment is very precarious.
There is also the question of remuneration. In the days when they were working under the National Health Insurance Society their remuneration was fixed annually and related to their live membership. For obvious reasons that arrangements has been departed from. Under the 1952 Social Welfare Act it would not be practicable for the Department, or fair to expect them, to have the same system of calculation. Under the new Act, once a person becomes insured generally speaking that person continues for a very indefinite period. Under the former Act they only continued to get free membership for a year.
These particular officials have been employed in the national health insurance section since 1934. The vast majority of the number I referred to have been there since the unified society started operations in 1933 or 1934. Their position is no more definite now than it was then. It was shelved from year to year waiting for this and that development. The 43 people selected originally for pension are happy enough. At least 50 per cent., of the 266 left are employed in a full-time capacity. They have no other occupation and are depending mainly on this work for their livelihood. Some of them are getting on now and the position should be settled as far as superannuation is concerned. It will have to be faced sooner or later and I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that he might be able to do something about it during the current financial year.
This Estimate is undoubtedly a large one. It deals with a very complicated Department and a very close scrutiny is needed when dealing with such a vast amount of money. Most of that money is well spent and must be spent to provide for our old age pensioners, the infirm and the destitute. In regard to old age and widows' pensions, I believe the State is doing reasonably well. If we were better off, we would be able to do a little more. The pension officers throughout the country, however, always allow a pension if they can; if there is a doubt they hold up the case for a while to see if that doubt can be resolved. On the whole I think they are doing their best.
In regard to home assistance, I believe there is a class in this State who are in a very bad position and something should be done for them by the State and the county councils. They are almost in a semi-hungry condition. They are living on home assistance, and I believe they are not getting enough. One can almost see the hunger in their faces. Were it not that charitable societies like the Saint Vincent de Paul Society, and some decent neighbours come to their aid, they would be hungry and almost ragged. We do not want that in a Christian country such as ours. They are the most deserving people we have. They are unable to help themselves. They have to fall back on the State, and I believe the State could have come to their assistance to a greater extent.
I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the bold and manly statement he made in the country—a statement long overdue. I give him every credit for it. I refer to the statement in which he said that he knew there were grave abuses in connection with unemployment and the dole. There is not the slightest doubt about it. Since then there has been a good deal of tightening up. I have seen where many of those people drawing money, who should not have been drawing it, got a tap on the shoulders from the Guards and were told, "If you go any further we will prosecute you." People were drawing the dole who never should, people who had comfortable farms of land. Instead of trying to work them, they set them and tried to get work under the State. When they did not get the work, they got the dole.
I would be glad to see the dole doubled to those people who need it, but these abuses must be wiped out. Many people throughout the country see these abuses and know what is going on. In some cases they report them but nothing is done. I know a man myself who got a splendid farm of land with outoffices and appurtenances worth £2,000 or £3,000. Those people are permanently working with the State. When the work is knocked off, they go on the dole. I want to know how they get on the dole. You have these farmers drawing State money for nothing, yet for genuine cases our doles are very small and meagre. They could be far bigger, if it were possible to have some tightening up. The genuine claimant, who is unemployed and cannot get work, should be helped in every possible way until he does get work.
I know men who could get work but who will not work. They are proud to say in their public-houses that between the dole and other State services they are far better off. When the rabbit plague was here, they would not work at all. All they wanted was the dole and State assistance; then they went out with snares and traps and they were well off. It is only right we should have a tightening-up and that justice should be done. People who are in genuine need should get these benefits and get them in abundance so far as the State can give them. When I see what the poor unfortunates on home assistance are getting and what the loafers who should not be getting it at all are getting, I almost cry. Big bounders who could work but will not work are drawing doles, setting their farms to their nearest neighbours and having a royal time, while people in their vicinity are hungry. No wonder people cry out about heavy taxation. I would ask the Minister to tighten matters up.
There is more abuse in regard to the social welfare scheme—not the real scheme but the dole side of it—than there should be. We have too many loafers trying to get easy money and get away with it. Very few of them are brought before the courts. They should be brought to court, prosecuted and, if not able to pay in cash, they should be made to pay in jail. Those in genuine distress should get home assistance. That is why I stood up here, boldly and openly, to tell the House that there is great abuse. The Parliamentary Secretary is doing his best to stop abuses; when they are stopped tens of thousands of pounds will be saved. I do not want the money thus saved to go to the Exchequer; I want it to go to those genuinely in need. Let us do something for families who really need assistance. Let us do something in a practical way.
It is a poor state of affairs when you see a man who travels in a high powered car signing for the dole, when you know that man has 20 acres of land set. If he is hard up let him sell the car. Whom do you see first when you go into a public-house at night? Is that not the type of man? Whom do you first see when you go to dances, carnivals and that sort of thing? It is time we put a stop to all this. I am not saying that this is widespread throughout the country, but it has been widespread in the midlands and I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on making that statement. We should see that those who need money get it. This is a small, poor State, badly run. Run properly, as a Christian people we would be able to do far more for those people who are old, sick and infirm. Those are the people whom the State should aid.
I should like to see a circular sent to the Garda barracks, and to other people in charge of these services, to ensure that the dole is paid only to those entitled to it and to see that the malingerers will not get it. These are honest, straightforward words and the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure, will support me. There is too much easy money got by the wrong type of people in this country. If we could prevent their getting it, we could give more money to the genuine cases. I have known of men who left decent, good jobs because they were the lazy type and they wanted to live on the dole and on children's allowances. They left good jobs after three or four months knowing full well that the jobs would have lasted had they stayed in them. Those people are no credit to the country. Between them and the gangs of hookers going around the country at night time, this is quickly becoming a sorry State. I want to see a consciousness of Christian duty brought back into this House. I want to see that money is spent only on those who need it and who should get it. I am satisfied that if that were done tens of thousands of pounds would be saved. I do not want to cut down on anybody entitled to it, on the widow, the orphan, the infirm, or any genuine applicant, but we must cut out the malingerers. There are too many of them.
I wish to make only a few points with reference to social welfare generally. One relates to a matter to which Deputy Moloney has already referred, the question of share fishermen on inshore craft. I shall not cover the ground he has covered with regard to unemployment benefit, and the obligations on the skippers of those small craft to have contributions paid weekly. I want to deal with the question of assessing the fisherman with the full amount of his earnings when he comes to apply for unemployment assistance later on.
A man who works for the county council resumes his application for unemployment assistance immediately his work terminates. If, however, an applicant is a fisherman, his earnings for the period during which he fishes are assessed in toto against him when he renews his claim for unemployment assistance. I never could quite see where is the equity in that. A salmon fisherman, who fishes from May to July, usually finds himself unemployed in the following winter. He has a right to apply for unemployment assistance but he finds that his total earnings during the period in which he fished for salmon are assessed as part of his annual income. By the time he has received the last payment he has not saved 1d. to make allowance for the gear and necessary fittings required for fishing for the season.
I should like the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to examine that position to see, whether or not, within existing legislation it would be possible to amend the system of investigation whereby that fisherman's allowance for the seasonal fishing would not be assessed against him in toto during the year, but that he would be treated as a man who works as a labourer for a county council.
A question has been raised regarding the investigation that is being conducted at present. It has been mentioned that a great deal of fraud has been disclosed. Everybody will be at one in complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary in so far as he has been able to detect genuine fraud and put an end to it, but what we all feel is the case of the honest man who pays the penalty for the man who is malingering, who is dishonestly applying for and receiving unemployment benefit. One of the things that may have caused a good deal of alarm on this question of unemployment benefit was the increased number of claimants since the introduction of the last Social Welfare (Amending) Act of 1956 which increased benefits. Since then I think the number of claimants and the number of contributors must have increased considerably. The intention to defraud the State of funds is not entirely the underlying reason for that.
Heretofore, when a man worked casually as a labourer he did not put his employer or himself to the trouble of affixing stamps to his cards for the sake of one or two days a week but, when he found stamps had a certain value, the casual employer insisted, whenever he got employment, that his first employer during the week had the obligation to have the stamps affixed to his card. That arose as a result of the change in the system arising out of the 1956 Act. The number of contributors must have considerably increased and it is probably assumed in official quarters that the increase in numbers is due to a desire to defraud the State of the funds available for unemployment benefit.
I am not making a case for those who may have been detected—as a previous speaker said—as malingerers, but I do know of genuine cases being victimised as a result of the investigation conducted at present. I think there are a number of ways in which a better approach might be made to alleviate the distress arising out of this investigation. One way would be—it is done, it is to the credit of the Parliamentary Secretary—to have unemployment assistance paid in the meantime until a case is duly investigated. All of us know cases of people who, so far back as November, had their claims subjected to investigation and have not had decisions yet. Meantime, no money has been paid and that has created a rather serious problem.
There have been instances where men who worked for farmers and who had contributions to their credit over a number of weeks have had their cases investigated. The investigation officer called and, after giving the necessary caution, questioned the farmers as to the validity of these contributions and subjected them to an interrogation with regard to the days on which these men were employed and the type of work they did. In some cases, that employment took place two years before and it is not very easy for a farmer to remember what days a casual labourer was in his employment back in 1956. Yet, the farmer is asked to make a statement which may be used in evidence subsequently, and that has created a serious situation.
The result is that in many cases farmers are reluctant to take back these men into their employment because they regard them as a source of trouble and annoyance. I have had the experience of a farmer coming to me and asking me, if he employed so-and-so, would he get into any trouble; he had had the investigation officer asking him where the man worked, what he did, and the number of days he worked. Such a farmer does not keep a set of books setting out the date on which a man worked with him on the bog, cutting seaweed, stacking hay, or anything else. While it may not be easy to separate the wheat from the chaff, this type of investigation has gone on sufficiently long now to enable the officials to have arrived at some system or rule whereby they will create the minimum hardship to those who are subjected to this interrogation during an investigation.
With regard to the payment of widows' pensions, I want to draw attention to the position in which a widow finds herself when her husband is drowned and the body is not recovered. A death certificate is necessary to qualify for pensions. In drowning tragedies, the widow has to wait seven years, if the body is not found. Some shorter period should be fixed, at the end of which a certificate might be issued, presuming death, so that the widow may benefit. It is a great hardship and we all know cases where public charity has had to come to the aid of dependents, following drowning tragedies. I suggest the State might be a little more lenient in presuming death and not insist on a certificate. I should like to have some comment from the Parliamentary Secretary on that when he is replying.
Recently I came across another problem. I came across an individual in receipt of two pensions—a widow's pension and a blind pension. When she reached 70 years, the blind pension and the widow's pension ceases and she is compelled to take the old age pension. Now, this woman was in receipt of £1 5s. blind pension and £1 3s. 6d. widow's pension. At 70 years of age, she was obliged to drop both and draw the old age pension of 25/-. She lost £1 3s. 6d. per-week. It is, to say the least of it, a little difficult to adjust one's economy to a drop of 23/6 per week at 70 years of age. It is a rather unusual type of case but I had personal experience of it this week. Possibly it is a matter which might be adjusted without the need to resort to amending legislation.
I emphasise again the position of the share fishermen. If that could be adjusted, we would like unemployment assistance to be paid on an equitable basis. This is one case in which a great deal of inequity exists—the inshore share fisherman who fishes for a short season has the full amount of his earnings assessed against him as means when the claims unemployment assistance.
I am sorry that there is one man can not here to-night. I refer to ex-Deputy Murphy. I am sure he would have been present in the House and not absent, like 130 other Deputies who do not seem to have much interest in a matter involving probably 250,000 people. Obviously ex-Deputy Murphy lost faith. I have not a great deal of faith either, but I am not going to resign.
Can we expect to see the Deputy again?
I will fight to the finish. There will be another day. What I say may be as useless as what ex-Deputy Murphy said. Perhaps what I say now may be as useless as what he would have said had he been with us here to-night because there is a Government in power with a big majority. It does not expect a general election for four years and one cannot, therefore, expect very much. But they will play safe in the fourth year and give a few "bob" then all right. When the people were asked to vote for independence, many promises were made to them. They were told of the golden opportunity they were getting. They were told the people would be, brought back and everyone would have work. The people were deceived.
Deputies talk about frauds drawing social assistance. We cannot pat ourselves on the back. We told the people they would be better off if they voted for independence. Had they remained under the British—I am not advocating it—they would now have the same benefits as obtain for the people in the North. Ours have lost considerably on the transaction.
Every time I think of ex-Deputy Murphy, I wonder if there will be many here who will follow suit, because I am quite certain his resignation must prick the consciences of all those people who never seem to trouble this House or talk on any matter. When it comes to drawing money to which people are not entitled, a good many Deputies here draw money to which they are not entitled.
The Deputy may not pursue that subject.
It is all very fine, but the simple, forgotten people are being accused. I can make references, too. People are elected to this House to do something, but they do not do it.
The matter does not arise on this Estimate. The Deputy may raise it on another Estimate.
Practically one-third of those who are drawing wages or salaries have got an increase because of strike action or threatened strike action. Another one-third who are not members of trade unions have been granted the 10/-. Yet another one-third will receive nothing. Speaking of the unemployed, I want to remind the House that there are about 50,000 between the ages of 14 and 18 who do not appear on the register and who are not working. They are running around the streets and standing in groups at every corner. Add that 50,000 to the 75,000 unemployed when considering the state of the country.
Some time ago the Taoiseach stated that we could not afford to grant additional social benefits. At that time no promise had been made to give additional money to civil servants. Yet, that money was founds. It is surprising how, when people have to do a thing, they are able to do it. Those other unfortunates, of course, are not organised. They cannot strike. They are a minority, a kind of forgotten, unwanted people. It amazed me that the Labour Party gave them such little assistance, beyond pious resolutions and remarks. They could have had a general strike on their behalf and make the Government sit up and realise that these people were entitled to some consideration.
Is it the trade union movement the Deputy means or the Labour Party?
They are all the same. One runs the other. What is the difference?
It would be a happy position if they were. There would be many more than two Deputies sitting on these benches if that were correct.
These people are human beings and, whether we like it or not, they will be always with us. They always have been. Even before there was freedom here, they were here. They may not have received social benefits. They were satisfied with potatoes and salt. As far as I can see, they always will be here. This country seems to be so situated that there will be always a substantial number of unemployed. It is a remarkable thing that we are depending on the people we have abused so much to relieve us of our problems, the British. We are doing everything we can to encourage these people to emigrate.
The Deputy might get back to the Estimates. There are three Estimates before the House.
He is referring to emigration.
Emigration may not be discussed on these Estimates.
He is also wanting us to go back under the British, like Deputy O'Higgins.
The Minister estimates that there will be fever persons drawing assistance this year. Therefore, he must assume that so many more thousands will emigrate. I hope he includes the former Deputy Murphy's assistance because he is on the dole now.
That was his own choice.
What brought him back from a job?
You have to be very thick and tough to be a politician. You have to learn to be both. I have learned it. He did not. He was an innocent here.
What brought him back from a good job and who brought him back?
I ask the Minister, seeing that his mind is made up, not to condemn the innocent as well as the guilty. There have been allegations that numbers are drawing assistance to which they are not entitled. He should agree to give an increase pending an inquiry in each case. Could he not save money in that way and perhaps it would not cost the State so much in the end? In that way he would do justice. I ask him to consider that aspect, to inquire into every case that he wants to inquire into. I am not here to support fraud. Let him inquire into every case and let him agree to be generous with home assistance where there is evidence that the case is an upright case.
There is a large number of old age pensioners who have no other means. There are others who have incomes of some sort. An old age pensioner is entitled to an income up to £2 a week, that is to say, he is entitled to draw full pension and 15/-. What about all those old age pensioners who have no other income? Surely we can be a little generous towards them.
With regard to unemployment assistance, I can understand the Minister's attitude towards single men who, perhaps, could emigrate if they wanted to, but I cannot understand his attitude towards married men. It is not easy for a married men to emigrate. In order to keep the two homes he has to slave in England, to work overtime. He cannot keep two homes on an ordinary eight-hour a day job. That has been explained to me. These people are expected to emigrate. That is what they are being asked to do.
We should be a little generous to old age pensioners who have no other means and to married men on unemployment assistance who have families. These people could be segregated from single men or old age pensioners who have other means. We should help the people who are on the floor. That is why I suggested to the Minister that he should have granted somethings extra pending inquiry in each case. I do not like segregation but, as the Minister has made up his mind that he is giving nothing, I come back to it and ask him to be generous in all cases where home assistance is applied for by married men with families. A man and his wife cannot be expected to live on 30/-. If there is a family, they get an extra 11/- or they may get 5/- or 10/-. Even if they get the maximum, how can a family be expected to live on a total income of £2 10s. a week? We could be a little generous with families.
All the increased costs will have to be met by these people. It is estimated that the additional bus fares will cost families living out of town as much as 10/- a week. If an unemployed person has to come into town to draw the dole, it is 7d. a trip. We could have been a little generous in some cases.
To the extent of £25,000,000 a year.
All right. Let us do away with the Presidency and the headquarters staff of the Army and Commissioners. The manager of C.I.E. gets £4,000 and it is a bankrupt concern. Let us start at the top; I am certain we could save a couple of million insted of segregating and inquiring into the cases of these simple people. I shall say no more. I know it is waste of time. I feel like my friend Jack Murphy. I would ask the Minister, again, to consider the case of old age pensioners who have no other income and the case of married men with families who cannot go to England because they cannot keep two homes unless they slave and work overtime and that should not be expected of them.
I would ask the Minister to remember all the mighty promises that were made to the people as to what freedom would mean to them. I do not think I will bother saying any more, as I do not think it worth while.
The three Votes for Social Welfare, Social Assistance and Social Insurance indicate an expenditure of a fairly considerable amount of money, £25,000,000. Deputy Loughman, in an interjection, indicated that he felt somebody was being generous.
Plus £15,000,000 for health services.
Whatever one may think of the financial difficulties, I do not think we should try to delude anybody by saying that recipients of social welfare benefits or social assistance are being generously treated. If any Deputy were to suggest that the level of benefits and assistance could be taken as an indication of generosity, the citizens would come to the conclusion that we did not know what we were taking about. It may be a figure which is difficult to surpass in the present economic circumstances but that has nothing to do with generosity. I would commend Deputy Loughman, when referring in future to this matter, not to think that 30/- to a man and his wife, with which they are required to provide themselves with all the necessaries of life, is generous under present cost-of-living conditions.
Apart from having to provide shelter, heat, food and clothing for themselves, we hope that as human beings, they are entitled, even though they are in receipt of assistance, to something more than animals. Certainly the scale of assistance granted to human beings in this country is something less than the amount expended on animals about which we think so much. One would not willingly see a dog or a cat, much less a horse or a cow, go really short of food; the farming community would think it a very serious offence if animals were not provided with a stable and straw or a byre and some bedding. The main criticism of this Estimate is a criticism that can be levelled against all the Estimates for social assistance for many years—that successive Governments alleviate only in a small way the hardships to which a, very considerable proportion of our citizens are exposed.
On this subject, as on a number of other subjects on which I venture to raise my voice in this House, I do not pretend to speak with any personal knowledge of conditions in rural areas. Many Deputies can tell us of the struggles that old age pensioners, widows and orphans and those in receipt of insurance benefits and social assistance have in meeting the living expenses which they cannot avoid in those areas. However, I do know that it is a heart-breaking thing to see the extremities to which the same type of citizens in the urban areas are driven because of economic circumstances.
The question I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer in replying to this debate is whether these hardships are or are not intensified by this Government-blessed drive for economy, by an intensification of means investigation, by either direct instruction or suggestion to local authorities and to all those who deal immediately with those in the social assistance classes, with all those who apply for the various grants covered in this Estimate, that every possible avenue should be explored with a view, if possible, to depriving those people of assistance.
Actually the reverse is the case.
I had a lady coming to see me about two weeks ago. She had a husband unemployed and one daughter employed. Two other daughters, one 29 years of age and another 30—who were still children in mind, never having developed from childhood—had been in receipt of a 10/- grant because of a certain medical disability. Without any warning whatsoever, they were advised they would no longer qualify under this heading. When the mother applied to have the case examined with a view to receiving assistance the most rigorous means test was imposed.
This lady was the mother of ten children, of whom these girls were the eldest. The mother had to mind them as she would mind an infant of two or three years. She was unable to go out anywhere in the evening. The other members of the family had married and gone away and set up their own families. Therefore, the mother had to stay at home with these girls or accompany them wherever they went. A sum of money going into the family to help to provide for them was struck off and the mother had to fall back again on public assistance and had to undergo a most rigorous means test. At this stage, she came to me. She had been refused the assistance she had previously enjoyed, before the bringing in of the Act under which these girls got the particular grants.
I have no doubt that officers immediately dealing with this type of case had not changed their mentality and had not, overnight, become inhuman machines whose sole purpose was to find some loophole by which to deprive those who applied for public assistance, or for any benefit under these Acts, or to grant them as little assistance as they possibly could. I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to state whether or not that that is, in effect, what is happening. I do not know what is occurring in the rural areas, but I know that the number of complaints being received by Deputies from the urban areas, and particularly from the city, and by public representatives in other walks of life, is growing considerably and that the efforts that have to be made to ensure that the recipients of this public assistance at least get the miserable sums to which they are entitled, are becoming more difficult every day.
Twenty-five million pounds is a very substantial sum of money. I wonder what the cost to the State would be if the very substantial number of persons of the type I have just mentioned were left entirely to the State to look after. I wonder what the cost to the State would be if those fathers and mothers and those married sons and daughters —and there are hundreds and hundreds of them—who are, depriving themselves of legitimate amusements and of small luxuries, and in many cases depriving their children of some of the necessaries of life in order to care for a members of the family——
That is just a duty.
——who is unable to provide for himself, adopted the attitude, that fortunately is rare, of letting the helpless ones go to the State. Deputy Loughman again interrupts. He is getting good at that and I hope he keeps on interrupting. These people do not to it just for Christian duty. They do it because they love their children, they love their parents, but the State should not go out of its way, or the minions of the State or of the local authorities should not go out of their way, because of a sense of false economy, to make that situation much worse than it is.
Any member of this House who has even the least connection with or the least knowledge of the Public Assistance and Welfare Acts of recent years knows that a gradual tightening up is taking place. If it was good enough four or five years ago to recognise the difficulties of our citizens, and to recognise the difficulties of families, and to be human in our approach by permitting a reasonable assistance to be given from public funds, surely it is equally good enough to-day when the economic situation of the majority of our citizens has worsened. If this Government, and this Dáil, by deliberate action impose hardships on the general citizen, at least they should see that those who are helpless get a little better protection.
Twenty-five million pounds, as I say, is a lot of money, but for the average individual and the average family affected by many of these Votes to-day it is not a question of £25,000,000. It is not a question of £25,000, or of £2,500. It is a question of where and how they can get sufficient to provide themselves with the barest necessaries of life. It is easy to talk here in terms of millions —sometimes I get confused when we get into the rarefied atmosphere of millions—but when we go out of this House and meet the type of family Deputy Sherwin has referred to, and when they tell us they have only the 30/-, or only the old age pension, and that the outdoor assistance has been cut off, and ask if we can do anything about it, it is not in terms of £25,000,000 we are talking then.
My main appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary under this heading is to endeavour to ensure, in the name of the Government which he is now representing, in the name of this Dáil, that if there has been a decision to intensify the means investigation to the extent that severe hardship has been caused to those whose only means of keeping the breath of life in their bodies and shelter over their heads are these miserable sums they receive, that decision will be reversed.
These people cannot purchase clothing. I have never known of a case where a family with an income of 30/- a week could buy clothing. If they get it at all, it means that they have got a voucher from the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Therefore, if there has been this decision as to intensification of means investigation, let the Parliamentary Secretary, in the name of this Assembly, do what is proper and have that decision reversed. Where appropriate, let him issue directions and where directions are not appropriate, let him give a gentle hint, indicating that, whatever our financial difficulties may be, human beings are entitled to be treated as such.
I believe, in speaking on this Vote, we are not allowed to refer to the fact that the economic situation of many families has been worsened by emigration.
The Deputy may refer to it. The Chair has not ruled it out of order, but we cannot have a general debate on it.
The only point I wish to make is that in circumstances of continued unemployment, where the wage earners of a family are compelled to leave the country, the situation of those whom they leave behind is bound to become worse, particularly amongst the assistance classes. That happens because all those who emigrate are not fathers of families concerned and responsible for the people at home. Even in the case of fathers, the difficulties are great because when they emigrate, they must maintain two homes, and it is clear that people forced to tolerate this unnatural division of their families, in the main, carry out their responsibilities. Many youths emigrate, however, and I am afraid it must be admitted that too high a proportion of these boys and girls find that they have little left, after providing for their lodgings and expenses, and are unable to send very much, if anything, home.
Will the Deputy make an effort to come to the Estimates before the House?
If those members of the family were not forced to emigrate and were employed at home, they would be contributing to the support of the family in the normal way. They would be contributing to the support of members of the family affected by this Estimate. Consequently, those relying on public assistance are affected by three factors, the increased cost of living, for which workers have obtained some compensation; the intensification of the scrutiny——
The Deputy has gone over this ground at least twice.
——and the change in the family circumstances. I regret that I have repeated myself, but I have made a point which I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with. I may have repeated myself, but people affected by these Votes have to face these problems 52 times in the year and that repetition is much worse.
Having regard to the fact I periodically complain about the high administration cost of Government Departments, I think the Department of Social Welfare is to be complimented on its internal organisation resulting in an administration cost that does bear a reasonable relationship to the Vote as a whole.
Complaints have been made here about investigation of the various aspects of State assistance. I would have no complaint whatever in this respect if the investigations were universal and if the desired objective were to give more to the needy and less or nothing to those who do not deserve it but I am afraid that the investigation, while the various officers are doing their very best, is having a somewhat disastrous effect on the morale of the people. There is a feeling abroad, which should be corrected forthwith, that this investigation is directed only against particular persons in particular areas, from information supplied from sources which leave nobody in any doubt as to where they come from.
I should like if there were, both in the Department and in that portion of it administered by local authorities, some common standard of means test. There are various paradoxes which come to light from time to time, where people have the same valuation, the same number of animals, the same amount of poultry, the same amount of commonage attached to their holding and the same opportunities existing for each, yet the amount of State assistance obtainable by one is not so readily obtainable by another.
The departmental officials throughout the country have their difficulties. I know how they are pulled and dragged this way and that way from time to time, but I must say that it is my experience, with one exception, in my constituency that the officers of this Department do their work extremely impartially and extremely well. That one exception is known to the Department as a result of complaints directly made by me.
It is a matter of regret that the Old Age Pensions Vote has been reduced on this occasion. I regard those elements in our community made up of old age pensioners, widows and orphans and the blind as those really deserving of the State's assistance. During the course of the speech I made here on the Budget, I referred to the depreciation in the value of money and perhaps it would be no harm to refer to it here again on this Vote, with particular reference to old age pension allowances.
In reply to a question put by Deputy Michael O'Higgins some time ago, in relation to the present purchasing power of the £ vis-a-vis its purchasing power in 1938, the answer was that the present purchasing power of the £ is 7/4. In 1938 the old age pensioner had a maximum of 10/- a week, for which he purchased 10/- worth of goods by the standards of that time. Now, as a result of the efforts of all of us —and in my experience, the increases were more substantial under the two régimes headed by Deputy J.A. Costello than under any other régime— he has now got 25/- maximum per week. Anyone who works it out on the basis of the £ now will find, taking the purchasing power of 7/4 and the 25/- which is paid at present, it produces 9/2 worth of goods; so he has gone back 10d. in purchasing power over 20 years.
That is something which should be taken into account, because these are the people in our community who have no other way of supplementing it. Either through old age, through infirmity or blindness, or through the general helplessness attaching to a widow and children, there is no other way of supplementing this allowance. It is for that reason I regret any decrease in any of those allowances. Even though money might be tight and scarce, it is to that section of the community that people should direct their attention first in largesse, before any effort is made at paring down. There is nothing further I would care to add on this Vote except to emphasise the points I have made, not by repeating them but by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to take particular cognisance of them.
There is a duty on an employer, when he employs an employee, to ask that employee for his insurance card; and it is the duty of the employes to yield up the insurance card. When the work ceases, be it for a day, a week, a month or six months, it is the duty of the employer to hand the card back to the employee and it is the duty of the employee to see that he gets his card so that he can lodge it in the labour exchange or the nearest branch employment office. If that were fully understood and done, all these matters complained of by Deputy Brennan would not occur. There is an admission in the Deputy's contribution to the debate that men were employed on a contract of work, that the law was evaded and there was no stamping of cards.
We want the full national co-operation in working out the Social Welfare Acts. If we had that, a number of the abuses complained of and delays in investigation would not occur. We are gradually getting that co-operation, but we would like it to be greater and more full. Therefore, I appeal for everybody's co-operation—that of employers and employees—in this matter. We do not regard social insurance as an evil or a necessary evil. We regard it as one of the social benefits of the modern State and we want to see it administered properly. What we are against is abuse and fraud.
Deputy Corish made political play with figures in his contribution to the debate when he said the Vote was less than last year. The Estimate for last year for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare was £474,700; for Social Insurance it was £3,655,000; and for Social Assistance is was £18,539,000. The comparable figures this year are £470,800; £4,251,000; and £20,561,000; a total of £25,282,800, as compared with £22,668,700. He bunched in the Supplementary Estimates which came in during the financial year, to prove his contention. That did not prove anything.
