Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 May 1959

Vol. 175 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 61—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare (Resumed)

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £321,600 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, 1960, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare. —(Minister for Social Welfare.)

Mr. Moloney

When I reported progress last night, I was dealing with the general improvement in regard to the disposal of claims for unemployment benefit and disability benefit. I think I had indicated that the number of claims investigated in the year under review had fallen considerably and that these claims had been disposed of in the meantime. I am glad the Departmental organisation has been able to achieve that because in the previous year when we were dealing with this Estimate a number of Deputies complained particularly about the delay.

I think the Minister can now safely assume that, by and large, the measures which have been taken by his Department over the past two or three years have given claimants a proper realisation of what they may expect from the various sources of social assistance. It is generally accepted, particularly in rural areas, that an employed person may no longer have stamps affixed for spurious employment. It is a very good thing if we have succeeded in establishing that only employment that is properly insurable may be insured. Therefore I suggest to the Minister that he could now safely be content with investigating a fewer number of claims than in the past. I do not know why claims are referred for particular investigation; perhaps it is when the local Branch manager of the employment exchange, in the case of an employed person, believes there is reason to doubt the number of contributions coming to credit and refers a claim of that kind for investigation. In a case of social disability benefit I take it that these would be investigated on the initial representations of the local officer or agent of the Department.

I believe there is less reason for special investigation of claims under the social welfare disability code than there is under unemployment. I suggest the Minister should try to ease off in the general trend of investigation. I am sure he will find, having reviewed the position in recent times, that quite a large number of claims now referred for investigation come through successfully from the applicant's point of view. That being so, it is not unreasonable to expect that this investigation would not be carried out as thoroughly in the future as in the past.

A point I wish to put very strongly to the Minister concerns claims which are found on investigation to be improper and in which the Minister has to refuse benefit. The persons concerned have the right of appeal and that is advised to them in a circular letter indicating the Minister's decision in the case. In quite a large number of such cases it happens that the appeals officer at headquarters in Dublin will decide on the facts before him that the case is one which he may decide summarily and will not require a local hearing. There may be clear cases of that type but I have found that in quite a number of cases where the appeals officer decides not to give a local hearing, that decision is somewhat unreasonable from the facts known to me. In such cases I think the claimant should at all times be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Naturally the claimant, rightly or wrongly, feels aggrieved by an unfavourable decision and that being so I think the disappointment and resentment could be considerably eased if he were given an opportunity to have his case heard at a local hotel or clubroom.

Most people feel they can make their own case best and a local hearing gives them that opportunity. I regard the appeals officers who deal with such appeals as very efficient, independent men. There is a feeling abroad that these men are officers of the Department and that they have not the independence necessary to make a decision. I do not think that is right; I think they are selected from the point of view of suitability and that they are completely independent. I find that at all times their decisions are reasonable. If there is a doubt they are inclined to give the benefit of it to the applicant. That is as it should be. That being the case I feel the Minister could inspire more confidence in the appeals machinery if arrangements were made for as many appeals as possible to be heard locally and disposed of after hearing the local evidence of the parties concerned.

A large number of cases nowadays are appealed in connection with the question of insurability where the Department, after investigation, come to the decision that the employment is not insurable and disallows the contributions. The aggrieved parties are entitled to appeal to the Minister and in these cases particularly I think there should be a local hearing. If there is to be any conflict of evidence it is desirable that it should be in the open and that each party should know the statement of facts made at a hearing of that kind. I do not want to labour this point unduly but I have previously suggested that the Department's policy in that regard might be adjusted so that appeals of any kind should if possible be heard locally in a place convenient to the aggrieved parties. If that were done, everybody would get an opportunity of making his case and, whatever the decision, there would be a general degree of satisfaction.

One speaker yesterday pointed out that here we are dealing with one of the most important series of Estimates in the State. That is pretty obvious considering the size of the Vote. The Parliamentary Secretary, when introducing the Estimate, indicated that expenditure under all headings approximated to practically 25 per cent. of total State expenditure, outside of capital services. The organisation embraces a very wide field. One aspect that strikes me very forcibly is the fact that this is one Department which seems to do its work over a wide range of services quietly and unobtrusively.

The general attitude in the debate so far has been reasonable. There are, however, a few points with which I am not in accord. I should like to deal with one of those now. We know that the Minister has appointed two more representatives to the special commission set up to inquire into workmen's compensation. I was glad the Minister intervened last night to clear that matter up for the benefit of the House. He dealt with the point at issue very frankly and I, for one, am in entire agreement with his decision.

One speaker argued that the Minister has done something which more or less loads the dice. I do not think he has done anything of the kind. If anything, the dice were loaded under the original set-up against an interest very vitally interested. All the Minister has done is to even up the representation on the commission. I see nothing wrong in that. First of all, each interest is given an opportunity of making their case as effectively as they can from their own point of view. Secondly, when the report comes before the Government and the Minister, the Minister has pointed out quite rightly that he is under no obligation of any kind to accept the report. Naturally, he may be guided by certain recommendations; if the general picture, however, is not depicted in the best national interests the Minister is a free agent and is at liberty to decide the most practicable course to adopt in that set of circumstances.

I am one of those who have believed for many years that the system of one card and one stamp to cover all risks is a good principle. When I had the privilege of being an agent for the old National Health Insurance Society, I advocated the introduction of that principle. The policy at that time was most conservative and for years the decision to adopt a combined card for sickness, disability and unemployment benefits was delayed. Since 1953 we have had a combined card; not alone was one card introduced but that one card was made the sole card to cover the entire year. Prior to that, there was a half-yearly card collected at half-yearly intervals. Most of the risks involved in social welfare are covered now in the one contribution.

I have always thought that that card should also take within its scope the risks attaching to workmen's compensation, risks at present administered by private undertakings. Undoubtedly part of the risk attaching to workmen's compensation carries a considerable liability and it would be impossible to measure out what that liability may be on State resources without a proper investigation into all aspects of the matter. For that reason, the previous Government decided, in their wisdom, to set up a commission of inquiry.

One speaker last evening said there was considerable profit to be made from workmen's compensation and that profit could very usefully be employed to supplement the existing sources of income to the social welfare fund generally, thereby leading to an increase in benefits generally. I do not agree with that point of view. If the State were to take over liability for workmen's compensation they should not take it over for the purpose of making a profit. The people who meet the charges for that liability are, generally speaking, the employers. The employed person makes no contribution. Why, then, should an employer be obliged to pay a premium greater than the actuarial determination of the position indicates? That would be quite wrong.

The first reason governing the undertaking of workmen's compensation by Social Welfare should be that of convenience. Secondly, it should be undertaken on the basis of making a normal profit only vis-á-vis the other activities in which the fund engages. A very competent body has been appointed to deal with this matter and there is, therefore, very little point in going too deeply into it now. In due course we shall have the report of the commission. No doubt some very interesting facts will be made known.

Unemployment generally and unemployment assistance have been adverted to in this debate. To what extent one can deal satisfactorily with the relevant figures of unemployment, it is very hard for me to say. We have heard different views in the matter. The actual experience is that, whilst large numbers are alleged to be unemployed, it is almost impossible to get anyone from the unemployed register to take on certain forms of work. Every Deputy knows the forcible complaints made in connection with unemployment in town, village and district. It is the general experience, too, that if an employment scheme offers, and the prospective employer approaches the local exchange, he will find a fair number of seemingly suitable men but a day or two later—this has happened on a number of occasions—these men are not available and are not forthcoming. It strikes me therefore that we have, among the number of people unemployed, a very large proportion of persons who are not suitable for work in the strict sense of the word.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that aspect of unemployment arises on this Vote.

Mr. Moloney

I was wondering if it did, but if you rule that it does not, I shall leave it and raise it again on a more suitable occasion.

I shall now deal with the Department's policy in connection with the suspension of the local agency posts in the Department of Social Welfare. I have some experience of the work those agents are doing as I did it myself for nine or ten years. I have always held the view that you cannot do very much about it and what can be done about it now I do not know but I have told the Parliamentary Secretary that by and large those agents are not paid an adequate wage, a wage which I would consider satisfactory for the work they do.

The point has been made on many occasions that most of them are part-time officers and that they have other sources of remuneration. There are certain side-lines they can carry on. We know that a number of them have small businesses of their own but so far as I know only certain types of businesses are permitted to them. The agent is not allowed to have a shop on his own premises or to operate a shop directly himself. Neither is he allowed to engage as an agent for a general insurance company. There may be other occupations which have been excluded in recent years—I do not know—but I have reason to know that any agent of the Department under whose charge there is a membership roll of around 3,000 has a full-time occupation. If he is to carry out his duties in accordance with the requirements of the Department, I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that that officer will be engaged full-time.

If the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am quite sure he has done so, looks at a list of the average salary paid to an agent with that membership roll, he will find that, generally speaking, it is less than £6 a week. These agents have to maintain an office in their own homes or elsewhere and until a few years ago they had to pay their own postage, as had members of this House. Since the Department of Social Welfare took over Cumann na nArachas Náisiúnta um Shláinte, I understand that the envelopes are franked. I am quite sure that is a relief to those people who are paid only a small wage because it involved an expenditure of 7/- or 8/- a week for a person who was paid only £5 or £6 a week.

I am labouring that aspect of the matter to show that the proposed suspension of those posts is, in my opinion, a good policy. I always felt it was like the one card and the one stamp and that the service organisation should be controlled at one central point. I hope I am correct in assuming that it is the Minister's intention, where the agency has been suspended, to have the work which was carried out by them now diverted to the local employment exchange. That would be a good arrangement.

I am glad that Deputy Corish, who is competent to speak with some authority on the matter, has agreed that it is at least worth a trial. The people as a whole will not be inconvenienced and with transport and communication as efficient as they are nowadays, in my opinion, the people will have a better service if the amalgamation proposed is possible, and it may be possible to give higher remuneration to whatever officer is then appointed in the local exchange. I take it there is no intention of terminating these posts except when they normally become vacant and that there is no question of possible complaints that people will be put out of employment by the arrangement.

In dealing with old age pensions, I make one point to the Parliamentary Secretary. By and large, the whole arrangement with regard to the investigation of means is satisfactory. There is, however, in the Department of Social Welfare what I might describe as an obsession as to the genuineness of transfers by farmers to members of their family. I must say the method by which some of these people dispose of their affairs piecemeal is not to be in any way recommended for general acceptance, but it seems to be a tradition and it is very hard to break it down. The farmer disposes of his property or his holding in the first instance to a son, or to a daughter, if he has not a son, and when there is something over for the other members of the family, he wants a breathing space before making the necessary arrangements.

That type of arrangement creates a suspicion in the Department of Social Welfare that the claimant is disposing of his money for the purpose of qualifying for a pension. They may be right in a number of cases but not in all. Unfortunately, the general attitude in the Department with regard to that matter is very conservative and I always found it difficult, when making representations, to break down what I regard as the very strong feeling that every one of those cases is wrong in the Department's view. I found that when a farmer disposed of his property and his money at the same time that arrangement commended itself very strongly to the Department, but if he does it piecemeal, it causes trouble eventually. There are quite a number of genuine claims in which the old age pension is not being paid because of that.

Most of the anomalies that have existed have been cleared up and that is the one remaining obstacle of any importance which seems to be standing in the way of genuine applicants. It should be obvious to the officials of the Department who are dealing with the matter that the time has now come when farmers' families will not stay on the land without knowing exactly where they stand. There was a time when it was possible to keep them working day in and day out waiting for the day on which the father or the mother would be in a position to donate some money to them. They will not do that any longer. They are now prepared to seek alternative employment from other sources, if the position is not made clear.

In my experience of many cases in the past, if promised employment did not materialise, they insisted at the earliest possible moment that whatever measure of help they were to get from the parents should be forthcoming in a definite way. I do hope that the general over-all position with regard to the obtaining of old age pensions having improved, as it has in recent years, the Minister will see fit to relax and modify considerably this difficulty which, as I said already, seems to be the only one of any importance causing trouble to claimants for old age pensions at the present moment.

I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer. I have said quite a lot on the matter but finally I would like to mention a problem in connection with the verification of weekly claim dockets for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit in rural areas. I have made representations to the Minister in connection with this matter with a view to having more just alternative arrangements made in certain isolated districts surrounding a Garda station. I did suggest to the Minister that a Garda from a station in such a district might be asked to visit a suitable local point, a post office, a school or a community centre, one day a week, for the purpose of enabling local claimants to verify the dockets which they have to put forward in order to receive unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit.

I appreciate that the co-operation of the Garda authorities is necessary in that direction. I also know that in areas in part of the county I represent, and I suppose the same is applicable to other adjoining areas, there is an insufficiency of personnel in the Garda at the moment to deal with any extra duties. However, I do feel that a little push from the Minister might be helpful on this matter and the Garda authorities might agree to take special steps to co-operate. To put it plainly, the arrangement that has been suggested cannot be implemented except that the Garda authorities are in a position to make a man available for a few hours, one day a week, to do this work. They take up the attitude that they have not the necessary personnel to do that job but I feel that the Minister might make further representations in this matter.

I am also inclined to suggest to the Minister, though I am reluctant to do so and though I am quite sure that for obvious reasons the Minister will be reluctant to accept my suggestion, there might be a way of making alternative arrangements. I see no reason why officers of other Departments might not be used, if they are willing, to do the needful. The reason this arrangement is sought is that unfortunate people, particularly those on unemployment assistance, have to travel several miles once a week to attend the local Garda station.

Deputies living in rural areas see those people going along the roads every Tuesday or Wednesday, and it usually takes them the whole day. They have to leave their homes at 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning and quite a number of them have no way of travelling except on foot. They may get a seat on a passing cart, or in a motor car, and be able to return home in a few hours but quite often they have to walk the journey as many of the roads in these isolated districts carry very little motor traffic. It is a common thing for a man to walk five or six miles to a Garda station and the same distance back again. He comes home hungry and, though he might be in receipt of the maximum amount of assistance, he will have to spend an entire day walking for the good of his health to obtain that assistance. I think it is time some alternative arrangement should be considered and I would strongly urge on the Minister to endeavour to do something in that connection.

Mr. Norton

I want to avail of this Estimate to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any fresh thought has been given by himself and his Minister to the question of altering the basis on which old age pensions are at present paid. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that old age pensions are at present based on the social assistance concept that the entire sum is paid by the State, with the result that old age pensions have always been appallingly low and they are still appallingly low, especially in the light of present price levels. In fact, it has been established recently by statistics in this House that the purchasing power of the old age pension to-day is approximately the same as in 1938 and, perhaps, about the same as it was in 1908, so that though the standards of living of most sections of the community have increased that of the old age pensioner is lower. It is as bad to-day as it was when he was first awarded a pension of 5/- a week by the British administration in 1909.

I think it was a fatal mistake for the present Government to have dropped the retirement pension provision in the 1952 Social Welfare Act. It would be much better from the point of view of the State, of the State's finances and of making provision for elderly workers in retirement, if the State were to introduce the retirement pension ideal which was dropped, as I said, in 1952 because in that way— that is by the introduction of a retirement pension scheme—you can provide pensions for elderly workers who are compelled to cease employment for one reason or another. You cannot make that provision adequately for them by reliance on the payment of an attenuated old age pension payable only at 70 years of age, and then under an acute means test.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would require legislation.

Mr. Norton

I know that but I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary has he any ideas on this matter? I should like to find out what is running through the Parliamentary Secretary's mind.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then the Deputy seems to be advocating legislation.

Mr. Norton

I have always done that. I think, Sir, you were in company with me in this on many occasions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is advocating legislation.

Mr. Norton

I am trying to find out if the Parliamentary Secretary will come into the second part of the 20th Century and provide retirement pensions in this country instead of, or side by side with, old age pensions, because something obviously will have to be done to provide retirement pensions for workers. The State is obviously the best agency to initiate proposals in that connection. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us his views on the matter when he is replying, and I hope they will be progressive views, Retirement pensions must come and the sooner they come the better.

Deputy Moloney to-day, and the Minister for Health last night, indulged in some self-praise on adjustments which were made in the personnel of the commission dealing with workmen's compensation. The Minister for Social Welfare apparently thought he saw that there was a deeply hatched plot to secure from this commission a recommendation in favour of the taking over of workmen's compensation from private insurance companies and the administration of that scheme of compensation by the State.

The Minister last night, and his colleague, Deputy Moloney, to-day, indulged in some sense of joy at what they called adjusting the dice which they felt were loaded against the insurance companies. There is no question of the dice being loaded against the insurance companies in this matter. In fact, the dice are loaded in favour of the insurance companies. Anybody who looks at the statistics, who can read English and understand figures, will see from the annual returns published by insurance companies how, out of every £ which an employer pays to provide workmen's compensation for his workers if they are injured in the course of their employment, about 10/- is gobbled up in administration, professional and legal charges by and on behalf of the insurance companies. The unfortunate injured workman gets, on an average, about 10/- out of every £1 that is paid. The insurance companies, by administrative charges, professional people and legal people all come in to gobble up the other 10/-.

In face of the fact that the employer has to pay £1 to these three segments of our workmen's compensation administration, namely, the insurance companies, the legal people and the professional people, it is a bit thick to talk about the dice being loaded against the initiator of that subtraction of 50 per cent of premium paid by the employer. The two parties primarily concerned in this matter are the employees and the employers required to pay workmen's compensation in order to cover their employees. That is a legal obligation on them. Their desire is, I take it, that when a workman is injured he should get the maximum value possible for the payments they make but the employer has the melancholy satisfaction of sitting down, looking at the returns of the insurance company and finding that out of every £1 he has paid to cover his workman for workmen's compensation, the workman gets 10/- and the collection of people who have nothing to do with the injured workman walk away with over 10/-. Loading the dice has a strange connotation when used by the Minister for Social Welfare and Deputy Moloney in that connection.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when we are likely to get this report from the Commission on Workmen's Compensation. They have sat long enough to produce it. The issues are simple and I think the Department of Social Welfare could have provided all the statistical data necessary. All that is needed on this matter is a decision as to the wisdom, the propriety and the social justice of administering a scheme of that kind by the State which is costing approximately 50 per cent. of the income to administer. I should imagine—this is a rough calculation—that the administrative charges of the Department of Social Welfare are not more than about 12 per cent while it costs the insurance company 50 per cent to administer workmen's compensation, which is about three or four times more than the cost to the Department of Social Welfare of administering the complicated code of Social Welfare services throughout the entire State.

In any case it is high time that the whole question of the payment of workmen's compensation was taken away from the courts and that some cheaper and much more expeditious method of paying that compensation was provided for the injured workman. The court is only a clog so far as the injured workman is concerned. The insurance companies and employers who can carry their own insurance can simply break the heart of the worker when he comes to make a claim for workmen's compensation by resorting to all the legal devices available to them in an effort either to dodge the payment of the compensation or to force the worker back into employment before he is able to go back to such employment.

There are a few administrative matters I should like to raise in connection with this Estimate. One is the question of payment of benefits to insured persons whilst in hospital. The present position is that, if an insured person is ill and has to go to hospital, the benefit is withheld whilst he is there but may be paid to him in full when he is discharged from the hospital, or he may on application be able to get portion of the benefit which is used to provide some little comfort to the person whilst he is in hospital.

I can quite easily see the necessity for proceeding prudently in a matter of this kind. The workman may want to have something available when he comes out of hospital in order to meet problems which have arisen while he was there but I do think the Department of Social Welfare use the microscope too closely and too frequently in ascertaining how much they will give the workman for the provision of additional comforts while in hospital. The most they are prepared to give is a few shillings per week and one would need to make representations to them a few times to get an adequate sum from his accumulating social disability benefit. That is even so where the insured person himself is prepared to collaborate in the assignment of portion of his benefit to his next-of-kin at home, perhaps to his widow, perhaps to his wife or other members of his family for their benefit or for his own benefit.

I came across a case recently in my own constituency where an aged woman, about 80 years of age, was living on an old age pension and had a son in a mental hospital. The son's benefit was being held up. As a result of representations I think 10/- was granted to this boy's mother to help provide additional comforts for him. It was increased to about 15/- and then the Department said, after one or two representations, it could not go further. They finally gave £1 to this person but the position now is that the son is detained in a mental home with as bleak a physical outlook as anybody could have. His mother is 80 years of age and, on my reckoning, the son has about £300 to his credit in the Department of Social Welfare from accumulated benefits which have not been paid to him. The Department cannot give the mother more than £1. His mother is likely to die one of these days and will get no benefit out of the £300 but will die in penury, and if the son is never cured, his £300 is gone as far as he is concerned. I do not know who the next-of-kin are.

What is the purpose of the Department of Social Welfare making itself such a Shylock banker as in this case? Why do they not give something to this unfortunate woman who is living in penury, as can be seen by any Social Welfare officer who visits her and do something perhaps to brighten in some way the life of the unfortunate person who is a patient in a mental hospital, who has been there for years and may be there for the rest of his life, whether that life be long or short?

The Parliamentary Secretary ought to examine this case sympathetically. I do not want to make any positive recommendation in the matter. I want to see the mother dealt with in a balanced and sympathetic way by people who know human problems. If something is done in that case, the Department will not be a banker with £300 while the insured person is suffering all the austerity of detention in a mental home and the mother living in a dilapidated cottage at 80 years of age assisted only by an old age pension in these days of high living costs.

Another question I wish to raise is in relation to what is described as the second doctor. Cases come to my notice where a person submits medical certificates. After a while that person is examined by a medical referee. The medical referee recommends the person as not unfit for work, and therefore benefit is stopped. Notwithstanding that, the injured person continues to go to the local doctor whose medical qualifications are probably as good as the medical referee's, except that the medical referee is on the payroll of the State. The local doctor continues to furnish evidence that the person is ill and unable to work. In that case the appeal of the person in the form of the continued submission of the certificate is sent back to the medical officer and in cases which have come to my notice have been sent back to the same doctor. How does that constitute an appeal when the person who gives the decision in the first instance is again consulted as to the reasonableness or justification of his first decision?

If there is an appeal by way of the continued submission of evidence that the insured person is not able to work, it is unfair to send that appeal to the first doctor. It should be sent to some other doctor. It is quite natural that the first doctor will say that he believes he was right in his first opinion. I should like to see the statistics of cases in which they change their opinion between the first and second decision. It is obviously wrong that, where there is an appeal against a first doctor's decision, the case should go back to that first doctor again. A second doctor should be found on the panel of referees to deal with the case in which an appeal has been made in the first instance.

I want to call attention to a difficulty I have experienced. I make representations about a case to the Department of Social Welfare. The ones in relation to which I make representations to the Parliamentary Secretary seem to take longer to get a reply than the ones I send to the Department in the ordinary way. Cases have come to my notice in which, having made representations to the Parliamentary Secretary, having after lots of reasonable time, called for a reply, I finally get a notification from the insured person concerned that he has been paid benefit and probably, a few weeks after he has been told about it, I get a letter from the Department saying that the matter has been adjusted.

It looks stupid that a situation should arise in which I call for a reply to the Department at a time when, in fact, but unknown to me, the insured person concerned has already got a decision. It is also stupid that the Department should have the file on hands and not finalise at the stage at which the person has got the decision. Is there any reason why, when a case has been cleared in the Department of Social Welfare—it does not matter who makes representations or what Party he belongs to—a decision is taken not merely to pay benefit or refuse benefit, as the case may be, but to communicate with whomever made representations in the matter? It seems to me that there are nuts loose somewhere in the Department if you have a situation in which, so far as the claim is concerned, it has been paid and, so far as the Department is concerned, it is a current file still because no reply has been sent to the person who made representations in the matter. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that matter and take steps to avoid that kind of administrative sluggishness which does not accord with efficiency.

I should like to know whether we have not reached the stage at which it would be possible to give the local agents and the local employment exchanges much more authority than they have at present. One finds from time to time that there is a good deal of delay in sending cases to Dublin for decision. I appreciate the necessity for the co-ordination of decisions and to ensure that whatever the case law is in particular cases should be the same all over the country, but there seems to me to be a considerable amount of remitting of cases to Dublin for decision where they get into the maelstrom of administrative work there and then the problem is to get the decision out and back to the people.

I wonder if we have not reached a stage at which some consideration should be given to the possibility of further decentralisation, at least on a zone basis, so that, for example, cases in the Cork region need not necessarily come to Dublin? I wonder if it is not possible to give the local manager power to deal with the matter himself? Could it be dealt with on a local zone basis where there would be some administrative officer to take these cases and so remove them from the bottleneck of the administrative machine in Dublin? I agree that there should be co-ordination in the matter of decisions but the Department of Social Welfare is now old enough to have worked out its own code of case law. I imagine it should be possible at this stage to provide for greater decentralisation and instead of sending cases to Dublin, to have them dealt with at local level. However, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into these matters.

Last night, in a flight of customary fancy, the Minister for Social Welfare came in here and made a speech. I do not know where he got the brief to tell us what he thought about the number of people in employment and the number of people out of employment and the number of people emigrating. He slung statistics around here last night which had that basis only in his own imagination. The fact of the matter is that, contrary to what the Minister said last night, there are fewer people insured today and in employment today than in 1956 and 1955 and 1954. That fact has been published in an official publication released recently with the authority of the Taoiseach by the Central Statistics Office. There is no purpose in trying to gainsay that fact.

There are fewer people in employment today than there were in those days. One of the reasons for that is that there are fewer jobs available today due to a considerable mechanisation of agricultural work. There are fewer people in agricultural today and the cities and towns are not able to provide alternative employment for those displaced from the land. There are fewer people in employment today because of the recession in industry and the general mechanisation which is constantly in operation in farms up and down the country. The Minister had to take some satisfaction in the fact that there are fewer people registered as unemployed today than last year. That is so and it is probably so in respect of the year before.

There are more people registered as unemployed today than there were in 1955. There are more people registered as unemployed today, I think, than there were in 1954. The outstanding fact is that there are far too many people registered as unemployed in each of these years. The number would be still greater, were it not that there is always the chance of getting a job in Birmingham, London and Bristol. But the statistics of unemployment afford no grounds for consolation or complacency for anybody. They are disturbing. They remain so. You may use them as political weapons to throw across the floor of this House. Today, per head of the population, we have a larger number of persons unemployed than any of the free democracies in Europe. I think the Minister for Social Welfare misconceives his whole function and misconceives an adequate approach to this problem when he finds satisfaction in the fact that there are a couple of thousand fewer persons unemployed today than there were last year and ignores the fact that there are well over 60,000 persons unemployed today in an underdeveloped country like this and that that is a much higher rate per head of the population than it is in Britain or even in the Six Counties.

Liam Mac Cuinneagáin

Tá cúpla poinntí go mba mhaith liom a phlé ar an Meastacháin seo a bhaineann le gnéithe éagsula de'n gcód soisialach. The first point I want to deal with concerns delays in coming to a decision where a person has a certain number of contributions and claims unemployment benefit. It is very important that decisions should be given quickly in rural areas in such cases. It is very unfair to have delays for as long as three months. Not all people who have employment contributions are aware that when they apply for unemployment benefit, it would be wise at the same time to apply for unemployment assistance, lest, after a delay of three months, their application for unemployment benefit should be turned down.

I am aware of very long delays in quite a number of cases. I would not mind so much if it were something unusual or something that happens very infrequently, but many of my constituents have approached me about the matter in the past six months. Their general complaint is that they made application three or four months earlier, that the case was sent to Dublin, that a decision has not been reached and that a very long delay has taken place. There is no good reason for that state of affairs and it is something which should be remedied, especially in the rural areas because the people there cannot be running to the social welfare offices every day of the week annoying the people there until some decision is taken.

The second point I want to deal with is the investigation, or the re-investigation, of the means of applicants for unemployment assistance. I think that the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, would De very wise to standardise this whole thing because there seem to be many discrepancies or unevenness in the application of the means test throughout the country. I have in mind one case where the alleged income from a small farm of £12 valuation was, in the eyes of the Department of Social Welfare, equal to the income which a person who had £7,000 invested in the National Loan would get. I do not think there is any farm of £12 valuation in Donegal, or anywhere else for that matter, that can provide an income equal to the income from £7,000 invested in the National Loan. In particular, I do not think that, when a person in that category also, applies for an old age pension such an income should be attributed to him.

Our county council has a standard whereby they say that every pound of valuation equals an annual income of £12. In that way a farm of £12 valuation would give roughly £144 per year. In that case, where a married applicant, an old age pensioner, applied, the income was divided between himself and his wife and a substantial amount would be granted. The same standard does not apply where the Department of Social Welfare is concerned and it is due I think to the lack of uniformity in reports of social welfare officers. It is something which should be adjusted and instructions should be given to these people as to what figure they should place on valuation, on conacre, or cattle values.

Recently, in my area—that is over the last four or five years—a large number of re-investigations of unemployment assistance cases has taken place. Heretofore, when an application was made by a married son living on his father's farm, or his widowed mother's farm, where the farm was owned by somebody else other than the applicant, he received unemployment assistance. The same applied to a son-in-law. Now in the case of all married applicants for unemployment assistance, if they live on a farm—it does not matter how many other persons are living on that farm of £2, £3 or £4 valuation; it does not matter who owns that farm or how many own it. The total income plus the valuation of the farm is, as they say, "put against" those applicants irrespective of whether the father, mother, brothers or sisters live on the farm or whether or not they are getting anything from that farm. The applicant who is married and living there has the whole means and the whole income in that farm—and in cases as I have mentioned an exaggerated income— put against him.

The result is that we have, in parts of Inishowen especially, wholesale reductions in the number of people who, on and off, have been getting the full amount of unemployment assistance for a number of years. In very many cases, indeed, we have had names wiped off and no benefit at all granted, although these people are people who are genuinely seeking work. While it is true to say that the unemployment figure has been reduced, if over the last three or four years this has been one of the means of reducing it then I feel that the reduction is one which is not to be welcomed as gladly as it would have been otherwise. I would advise the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that no outlandish income should be placed against a farm of £3 valuation amongst the hills of Donegal, at least no income such as that in the specific case I have mentioned.

The third point I should like to deal with is that of branch managers in sub-employment exchange offices. I shall mention a case in point. This person receives something like £700 a year. Out of that he must have a suitably furnished office of adequate size with counter shelves and so on. He must have the service of a deputy branch manager. He must provide any clerical assistance considered essential for the efficient performance of the work of the Department, and all that must be provided out of something over £700 a year. He is paid on the basis of cases, that is, 437 per week, but it so happens that this man has 1,500 per week. In order to deal with 1,500 per week, he must employ a good number of clerical assistants.

I understand that some minor revision of the ordinary cost-of-living bonus was granted recently. I should say that many of the delays in investigation and payment of unemployment benefit and assistance complained of are due to the fact that no man with an income of £700 a year, and having to have a sub-manager and other assistants, can afford to do the work efficiently on that scale of salary. Down through the years I have heard Deputies advocate that the salaries of these people should be increased. If a good case could be made for it four or five years ago, the case is stronger still today and should merit the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Carroll

The statement of the Minister for Social Welfare last night that the lot of our people, in particular, their salaries, has improved might be true of a certain section, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a group of our people who can be classified as destitute. As one who has given service as the Minister's representative on the Appeals Board for over 20 years, I can speak with some degree of accuracy on these matters.

The question of the powers of appeals officers has been mentioned. My experience of the appeals officers has been that they endeavour to do their job, not only efficiently but in as kindly a manner as possible. However, they are governed at all times by the provisions of the Act. There is the matter of people who are indirectly affected by a strike. When a strike takes places on the quays, for instance, those employed in firms other than the affected firms, are disemployed and not eligible for any benefits. That matter merits consideration. During the war years, up to five hours a day were sometimes spent dealing with these cases.

The question of the local officers getting more power was raised by Deputy Norton. I think some of our local agents are inclined to use their powers in a manner which no Deputy or Parliamentary Secretary would approve. Deputy Norton quoted a case and I should like to quote a case also. I was pleased by the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance recently that if a Deputy contacted him in regard to cases of difficulty or delay, he would deal with the matter. That has been my experience. But, before quoting the case, I should like to say as an employer here for a number of years, that Dublin cases have no relation whatever to the cases submitted by Deputies from the provinces.

I want to deal particularly with the building industry. Take the case of a person unemployed and on assistance. There is the deduction; he makes an appeal and comes before the appeals officer. He is expected to have written proof of the employers he has approached to secure employment. But you can appreciate the position of a builder's foreman endeavouring to get a large housing scheme or hospital job completed when someone comes along asking him to confirm that this person was there seeking work as a labourer. It is possible that because of circumstances, physique, general health and disposition, the applicant might not be suitable for the foreman, even if he had employment to give. However, the appeals officer must find out what endeavours the applicant has made.

Then there is the particular case I want to quote. This is the case of a person who has been unable to get employment for a number of years because of physique and general disability. He was hospitalised, but, having been discharged as unfit for work, he returned and was met by the local agent. That agent, without recourse to doctor or anyone else, told him that in his opinion he was fit for work and to report to the labour exchange. I hope we shall be able to find out the details of this. The man signed three times a week for weeks and weeks and eventually received the large sum of 1/- a week. I think there is need for revision in regard to both these matters.

I want to refer now, again speaking of Dublin, to the moneys allocated to those on unemployment assistance or who get work under that heading. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that applies only to married men? The result is that we are forcing the unmarried man out of the country. He has no alternative. As well as being married, those entitled to benefit must have four or five children. Is that not ridiculous when you consider the number of married people who in the dispensation of Providence, may not have five children or any children? It is a matter I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take note of. It is criminal that the unmarried men of Dublin are not given an opportunity of working on these schemes.

I am not anxious to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on effecting reductions in social welfare benefits. The idea should be to alleviate poverty and unemployment. Increases in remuneration have been given to those engaged in productive employment. The Minister has never questioned any demand for an increase in their case, whether approved by the Labour Court or otherwise. In the case of old age pensions, the ceiling was fixed in 1952. In Britain, the ceiling was raised recently to meet the increased cost of living. It is proposed to increase the pensions in this country as from August next. In 1952, a figure was laid down as the maximum income of an old age pensioner. If the pensioner gets an increase of pension seven years later, of what good is it if the cost of living has also increased?

There is need for revision in the case of appeals by persons whose applications are disallowed because of a dispute or strike, not in the firm in which he is employed or even in the particular trade in which he is engaged. It means that a good craftsman who can get employment will go to England because he fears the strike may last a month or two months. He should not have to go to England. I am not suggesting that he could live on what he would get.

If the matter of the ceiling fixed under the Act of 1952 in relation to old age pensions and the other matters to which I have referred were considered favourably, I should be perfectly satisfied with the Estimate and with the Department generally.

Mr. Geoghegan

I wish to protest against the delay in investigating applications for old age pensions in the country generally and especially in my constituency. Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent stating that he applied for an old age pension on 10th March last and that the pensions officer has not investigated the claim, although he resides within 12 or 14 miles of the applicant. The applicant has written to the Department and received an acknowledgment stating that the pensions officer will arrive in due course. That applicant has been waiting since 10th March for the pensions officer to arrive. I consider that that is too long for any applicant to be kept waiting.

Reports sent anonymously to the office of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister regarding recipients of unemployment assistance or old age pensions should be thrown into the wastepaper basket without being read. I feel that anonymous reports that are sent to the office are investigated. In my opinion, such reports should not be dealt with.

I agree with Deputy Norton that more power should be given to local exchange managers. That is long overdue. A section of men may get cards to report for work. One or two are found unsuitable and get a discharge paper from the ganger, supervisor or engineer in charge. When they report back to the labour exchange, they are further questioned. That should not be the case. In several cases the matter is referred to the Department and the appeals officer has to investigate. That should not be. The person concerned should be paid unemployment assistance or whatever social welfare benefit he is entitled to without delay.

Mr. Sherwin

Last year, we were very agitated because there was a motion on the Order Paper by the then Deputy Murphy who, I believe, is now in Canada. Perhaps one of the reasons why there is less unemployment is that large numbers of people were, like Deputy Murphy, forced to go to Canada and elsewhere for a livelihood. The Parliamentary Secretary says that there is a saving of £139,000. That is effected at the expense of widows on non-contributory pensions and persons in receipt of unemployment assistance. It is stated here that the fact that they had secured significant reductions in the Estimates was a sign that the country was improving both as regards employment and the economy as a whole.

During the past year there was a regular inquisition throughout the country. Every case was reopened and every excuse was made either to reduce a person's income or refuse him. I dealt with numerous cases of that kind. One man came to me and told me he was signing three days a week for a shilling. He said his wife had a small job and, because of that her small pay was taken into account and he was signing for one shilling. Another man whom I know and who sells newspapers on a Sunday was completely cut off. Perhaps those facts and the fact that there has been wholesale emigration account for the saving. The saving is not due to any improvement. Yesterday I met a friend who, I knew, had three of his children in England. I asked him how he was. He said he was O.K. and that all the children were in England, meaning his whole family of six. That accounts for the decrease in respect of those in receipt of unemployment assistance.

I do not want to dig up the past—I have referred to this matter before— but the Taoiseach once said that he did not see why 20,000,000 people could not be maintained in this country. That appeared in the Irish Press of the 5th February, 1932. It is a sad reflection that after all that length of time we can be cynical in regard to improvements as evidenced by the fact that people are still being driven to England.

In regard to the extra 2/6 granted to certain classes. I think that these people should have obtained this 2/6 right away without having to wait until August. I argued the case before the Board of Assistance last Monday as to what the withdrawal of the food subsidies cost each individual. It was generally admitted that what I said was correct. It cost each individual at least 2/9. It was worked out that an unemployed man or an old age pensioner buys at least six loaves of bread per week. Most poor people consume bread and tea four times a day. There is a cheap loaf and a dear loaf.

On the basis of the cheap loaf, if a man ate six loaves there was an increase of 1/6 in regard to bread alone as a result of the withdrawal of the food subsidies. It cannot be denied that it would take at least a pound of butter to cover the six loaves and the increase there was 9d. The price of tea was increased. Here again there are various classes of tea. There is a cheap tea which can be bought for 9d. a quarter. You could get it even cheaper but there would be no colour in the tea. A man would buy at least a quarter of tea and the price of that was increased.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be discussing the price of tea, bread and butter—matters which do not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Sherwin

Perhaps not, Sir, but the Minister congratulated himself upon the benefits provided. In any event, it cost those people at east 2/9 and they received 1/- so that the recently granted addition of 2/6 was merely something which covered what those people lost two years ago. They should not have to wait until August for the 2/6. They are entitled to something restrospectively.

There are a few other points I should like to mention. One is in connection with complaints in regard to widows' non-contributory pensions. An old age pensioner is allowed to earn approximately £52 per year and get his pension but if he earns more he gets less. If he has £104 a year he gets nothing. Old age pensioners complain that because they have a small pension of £2 per week they get nothing. They state that the amount allowed to qualify for a pension should be increased.

The case is similar in respect of a widow. A person told me that she offered to work for 22/6 a week although she could get twice that amount but if she got twice that amount she got no non-contributory widow's pension. Quite a number of widows do slave work to make up enough to live because they could not live on 22/6 a week. The problem is one which is not the fault of the Minister. There are widows working as slaves for a small amount just to get enough to live. They know that if they earn more than a certain amount their application for a non-contributory widow's pension will be refused.

At least 30,000 people in this country are in receipt of home assistance. That is in addition to the State assistance. They get it by reason of the fact that they have to pay a substantial rent. It is towards the rent they get this assistance. I thrashed the matter out with the home assistance authorities in Dublin. They said they were prepared to consider the matter. In other words, it was the intention of the home assistance. people to reduce whatever assistance they granted by 2/6.

There are 3,000 persons likely to be affected in Dublin and 30,000 people in the country as a whole. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should indicate it is not his desire that the home assistance authorities should take that 2/6 into account. If he gave some indication of his wishes in this connection, I am sure no action would be taken. The assistance given is only in relation to the rent.

There are two classes of people. You have the person residing with his family and the person who has to keep a home himself. It is only for the purpose of helping towards the rent that this assistance is given but there is a danger that the assistance authorities may deduct the 2/6 from the small amount granted in home assistance. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to keep that in mind. I should like him to indicate that it is not his desire that that 2/6 should be deducted.

Mr. Tierney

For many years I have been interested in cases of people receiving mental hospital treatment prior to reaching 70 years of age and people who have reached that age and are maintained in mental hospitals. This matter I think was raised some years ago in Clonmel Mental Hospital and we found it involved great hardship on the persons concerned and also on the ratepayers. The old age pension is not stopped in the case of a man or woman in a county home or a hospital. The health authorities treat them decently generally and a certain amount of old age pension is allocated for maintenance and a certain amount is returned to the person concerned to buy extra comforts. But in the case of a patient in a mental hospital, under legislation which, of course, goes back many years, such persons do not qualify for an old age pension at all. The county ratepayers must meet the full cost of treatment and the individual patient gets no benefit from the old age pension.

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it would be a very good thing if such patients could qualify for old age pensions. It may be said that mental hospital patients have not their full faculties but the same case can be made in regard to patients in other hospitals. It would be of great help to mental hospital patients and to the ratepayers if the present situation could be changed as I have suggested.

Other speakers have pointed out the delay in dealing with old age pension claims. Much of this arises when old age pension committees in various counties must wait a certain length of time until a certain number of claims come before them. I do not know if they are obliged to have a certain number of claims before they meet or whether they make those rules themselves. It happens frequently that old age pension committees wait three or four months before a claim is considered by them and sent back to the authorities. There should be no hard and fast rule about this and, if there is a regulation preventing the holding of a pension meeting until a certain number of claims come forward, I think that should be changed so that even if there is only one claim within a certain time the pension committee should meet and deal with that case. The pensions officer would then be able to investigate the case sooner. I would say that 90 per cent. of the pensions officers treat every case with consideration and in making the point about delay I do not lay any blame on these officers. I find they treat people fairly but, while they are inclined to do so, they discover snags.

I want to quote the case of old county council workers. I had a case quite recently of a county council worker who had reached 70. For a long time prior to that he had not been employed by North Tipperary County Council and he had no means whatever. When he came to 70 he claimed an old age pension and to everyone's amazement he was granted 10/- a week. We could not understand how any pensions officer could grant a retired county council worker in very poor circumstances 10/- a week. Investigating the matter with the Department, I discovered that, since the Superannuation Act was introduced, until county council workers get some sort of agreement or statement signed by the county manager or county secretary that they are not entitled to any superannuation, the pensions officer has to play safe and will not give the full pension.

This man has no pension but my word or the word of any other Deputy or the man's own word will not be sufficient. I think that is completely wrong. If a county council worker makes a claim and states that he does not expect to receive any pension, the pensions officer concerned should take the man's word. A pension cannot be hidden and if it is discovered, as would easily be the case, that a man is getting a pension from a county council the State has the means to get back any money paid or to make an example of the individual concerned. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has far more experience of county councils than I have and that he realises how slow councils are in allowing pensions under the Superannuation Act when they must check back possibly to 1925 to find out where the man worked and whether he worked a full 200 days per year. That takes a long time. Meantime, the man concerned is not getting his full pension. In the case I have in mind the man is in very poor circumstances and is getting no pension from the county council. There is certainly room for improvement in that system.

There is another point I want to make in regard to a person who is drawing the old age pension and also drawing an Army pension or some other small pension from a former employer. If the former employer, in his generosity, increases the pension, whether the employer is the Irish Government or the British Government in the case of ex-servicemen, the pensions officer will reduce the old age pension by the same amount. About 12 months ago a number of British ex-Army men who were each receiving £1 a week here from the British Government got a 5/- increase, but within a few weeks their old age pension was reduced by the same amount.

Debate on Vote postponed.