Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 1961

Vol. 191 No. 8

Estimates for Public Services, 1961-62. - Vote No. 51 — Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. MacEntee)

I move: —

That a sum not exceeding £330,000 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, 1962, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.

It is customary to take the three Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare together. I propose, therefore, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle and of the House, to deal with the Estimates as a group. My statement will cover the three Votes which are: —

No. 51 — Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.

No. 52 — Social Insurance, and

No. 53 — Social Assistance.

It will be open to Deputies to raise points on any of the three Votes in the subsequent discussion.

The separate amounts being sought from the Exchequer for 1961-62 on the three Estimates are as follows: —

Vote 51—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare	£ 494,900
Vote 52—Social Insurance	£6,358,000
Vote 53—Social Assistance,	£18,926,000

The total of these is £25,778,900. I shall deal briefly with the three Estimates in sequence.

In the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare a net sum of £494,900 is provided to meet the salaries and other administration expenses borne on the Vote. The main variations, as compared with the previous year's Vote, are a decrease of £20,000 for salaries and wages under Subhead A, an increase of £48,340 for Insured Persons' Medical Certificates under Subhead C and an increase of £41,470 under the Appropriations in Aid Subhead.

The provision of £1,252,000 for salaries and wages under Subhead A shows a decrease of £20,000 on the previous year's provision. The total amount of the decrease on the Subhead would have been about £36,000 but for a new provision in this year's Estimate of £16,000 to cover the remuneration of staff for the Old Age (Contributory) Pensions Section.

The increase under Subhead C of £48,340 on last year's provision of £114,720 for Insured Persons' Medical Certificates is due to an increase in the fees payable to medical certifiers in respect of certificates issued on or after 1st October last.

As regards the Appropriations in Aid Subhead, as Deputies are aware all the expenses incurred by the Department in administering the scheme of social insurance are repayable by the Social Insurance Fund and are brought to credit of this Vote as Appropriations in Aid. The increase of £41,470 in the estimated receipts to the subhead is largely the result of the increased cost of insured persons' medical certificates already mentioned, which, as an expense of administration of the insurance scheme, is recoverable from the Social Insurance Fund.

The Estimate of £6,358,000 for Social Insurance for 1961-62 is £1,691,000 greater than the Vote for 1960-61 when the Supplementary Estimate of £412,000 in 1960-61 is taken into account. The increase of £2,103,000 shown in the Estimate Volume is not now correct. The Volume was printed before the Supplementary Estimate was passed.

The increase of £1,691,000 occurs on Subhead A of the Estimate. In that subhead provision is made for payment by the Exchequer into the Social Insurance Fund of the estimated amount by which the expenditure of the Fund will exceed its income in 1961-62. The estimated amount is £6,321,000.

The estimated expenditure of the Fund in 1961-62 is £17,336,000 made up as follows: —

	£
Old Age (Contributory) Pensions	4,660,000
Disability Benefit	4,746,000
Widows' and Orphans' (Contributory) Pensions	3,179,000
Unemployment Benefit	2,825,000
Treatment Benefit	334,000
Maternity Benefits	130,000
Marriage Grant	76,000
Administration	1,386,000
TOTAL	17,336,000

The estimated income of the Social Insurance Fund in 1961-62 is £11,015,000. It consists of £10,288,000 from employment contributions, £612,000 in income from investments of the Fund and £115,000 in receipts under Reciprocal Arrangements.

The Exchequer contribution to the Fund for 1961-62 under Subhead A is £1,691,000 more than the corresponding provision for 1960-61. This is the net result of variations in the items constituting the expenditure and income of the Fund.

On the expenditure side, the main increases are £3,620,000 on Old Age (Contributory) Pensions, £867,000 on Widows' and Orphans' (Contributory) Pensions, £337,000 on Disability Benefit, £142,000 on Unemployment Benefit and £58,000 on Administration Costs.

The main variation on the income side is an additional sum of £3,338,000 from employment contributions.

The increases on benefit expenditure in 1961-62, as compared with 1960-61, are almost entirely due to the new Old Age (Contributory) Pensions and the increased rates and improvements in the other benefits effected by the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1960, which became operative from 2nd January, 1961. The aggregate increases of approximately £5,000,000 under these heads in 1961-62, as compared with 1960-61, represent the difference in estimated cost for the whole of 1961-62 as compared with the provision for the March quarter of 1960-61.

The estimated total cost for 1961-62 of the Old Age (Contributory) Pensions and the increases in rates and improvements in the other benefits amounts to approximately £6,956,000, of which £4,660,000 is in respect of Old Age (Contributory) Pensions.

The estimated increase from employment contributions in 1961-62 due to the increases in the contribution rates which became effective on 2nd January, 1961 and to increased employment is £4,288,000.

As regards Social Assistance, the net provision of £18,926,000 for this Estimate in 1961-62 shows a decrease of £2,428,000 on the previous year's Vote of £21,354,000. Of this decrease, £2,300,000 arises on the Old Age Pensions Subhead and £115,000 on the provision for Unemployment Assistance.

The decrease of £2,300,000 on the Old Age Pensions Subhead is mainly due to a reduction of nearly 40,000 in the number of non-contributory old age pensioners because of their becoming eligible for contributory old age pensions or contributory widows' pensions under the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1960. The decrease would have been greater but for the cost of the increased rates of pension and other improvements under the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1960, which took effect from the beginning of August, 1960 and cost £489,000 and also a slight upward trend in the number of pensioners which accounted for £67,000.

The estimate for Unemployment Assistance for the current financial year is £115,000 lower than the vote for this service in 1960-61. The beneficiaries under this service also received increases in assistance rates and other improvements effected by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1960, estimated to cost £132,000 in the current year. Owing to the continued improvement in the unemployment position, however, the provision of £1,110,000 for the current year covers this extra cost of £132,000 as well as allowing for the decrease of £115,000 on the vote for this service last year.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister for Social Welfare in introducing his Estimate this year has not gone into the detail that one normally experiences in examining the annual provision for the Social Welfare Department. I suppose this is contributed to by the fact that during the current year there were a number of changes effected in the social welfare code and the House had more than one opportunity of examining the field of social welfare. But there is one thing clear from the introductory statement of the Minister to which the House has just listened and it is that the measures that were taken on an earlier occasion are beginning to take shape and that the savings that he reports clearly indicate that the prognostications of those who examined the situation when measures were brought in transferring charges from the normal old age pension fund on to the contributory side of it, are now being fulfilled.

The Minister, in his statement, said that the estimated income of the social insurance fund for 1961-62 is as high as £11,015,000. This, in comparison with what the State has been devoting to the assistance of these classes is a very formidable sum. It has been achieved by the fact that — the Minister I think referred to a figure of 40,000 — old age pensioners who formerly were a charge on the normal taxation of the State have now been transferred to the category where those in insurable employment and those who employ them are now being called upon each week for the increased contribution required for stamps to meet charges formerly borne by the central exchequer.

It is true, as Deputies realise, that the relief is not confined only to this Estimate but that the Estimate for Defence will also be able to show a considerable reduction in the amount of special allowances chargeable to that Estimate in consequence of the transfer of so many who were formerly receiving special allowances. They will also be transferred to the category now catered for under social insurance. The Minister, of course, even in the very short statement he made, could be expected to work in some window-dressing. He referred to the continued improvement in the employment position as being responsible for the fact that he was in a happier position than he might otherwise have been. That is the cuckoo in the nest attitude.

The Government have succeeded in disposing of many embarrassments to the Social Welfare Department by the development of emigration, by the fact that over the last four or five years so many thousands of people who would normally be a charge on social assistance or social insurance have fled the country. We all know of them in our home localities. Nowadays when a man or a woman is out of work they do not wait for any benefit from the Minister's Department; they go out of the country. The Minister has succeeded, like the cuckoo, in ridding himself of the weaklings. He cannot, therefore, take too much solace from the fact that he has been compelled to increase the benefits for those who are left.

It is true also that these benefits to which the Minister adverted have been minimised by the increased cost of living, particularly in the case of the male recipients of social welfare. Even the humble plug of tobacco gets frequent cracks and on the taxation side these people have been seriously affected by the Government's economic policy. The most serious aspect of it, however, is not in relation to those classes. It is unfortunate that the State has been relieved of the problem which it would otherwise have to face, because of the high level of emigration, which Ministers nowadays regard as something inevitable. They play it down. We heard the fumbling reply of the Minister for External Affairs when he dealt with the subject on the Estimate for his Department in relation to conditions in Britain. Emigration is now regarded as an malaise, something over which we cannot exercise control.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss emigration per se on this Estimate. He should relate his remarks to the Vote before the House.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The point I am making is that far from an improvement having taken place in the employment situation the fact is that people have just fled the country who would normally be a charge on this Estimate. Any improvements that have been made by way of increased payments are very long overdue.

On the last occasion on which we had an opportunity of criticising the Minister's handling of this Department we referred to the delay in the payment of these benefits. He alleged that the delay was inevitable, that administrative difficulties were such that arrangements had to be made which involved the passage of time and therefore payment could not be made until later in the year. A former Government, however, having decided to increase benefits, effected the increase in a much shorter time. We regard much of the content of the Minister's statement as not being in accordance with the facts as we see them. At this stage do we deal with the amendments?

Mr. MacEntee

No, I think the Bill must be taken separately.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Very good. It is possible that the brevity of the Minister's opening statement can be explained by the fact that we have had opportunities during the past year to discuss various aspects of social welfare. The confidence which the Minister seeks to exude does not bear much examination. We feel that if conditions were improved as much as the Government or the Minister would lead us to believe the provisions that are being made to look after the weaker sections of the people certainly do not indicate it. There is not much sincerity in the protestations about buoyancy in the economy and general well-being if this is the best that can be done.

The Minister referred to the payment of disability benefits. There are institutions throughout the country that have grievous difficulties relating to overcrowding. We, on local authorities, know that much time will elapse before this serious overcrowding can be remedied. I suggest that immediate action by way of improvement in the payment of disability benefit could considerably ease the situation. Very few people occupy institutions by choice. It entails a cost of something between £6 or £9 a week to maintain such people in these institutions. They are severed from normal family ties. The situation could be considerably alleviated if the Government could see its way to increase disabled persons' allowances. Any such increase or anything of that kind which would ease pressure on these institutions would be very welcomed indeed.

Finally, may I emphasise once more that the Minister has improved the social insurance fund by the simple expedient of increasing stamp charges on both employer and employee and has thereby succeeded in relieving his Department of direct responsibility for so many thousands, estimated at 40,000, of non-contributory pensioners who have been transferred to the contributory side of insurance.

Mr. Corish

Like Deputy O'Sullivan, I feel that so far as social welfare is concerned I have said most of what I want to say on the Second Reading of the Bill, on the Budget, and on the Vote on Account. Deputies find that they have quite an amount of work to do so far as the Department of Social Welfare is concerned and I should like to take this opportunity to say that, as usual, I have received nothing but courtesy and help from the Minister and his officials. I know — I have had personal experience — that this is a very difficult Department to administer because the problems that arise are personal problems and not problems peculiar to particular sections. As far as the day-to-day administration goes, it can be said that the Minister and his officials afford Deputies nothing but courtesy and help.

As far as the general policy of the present Minister is concerned, I am not under any obligation to compliment him because he has demonstrated a pretty conservative attitude in relation to social welfare, the more so when one remembers what Government spokesmen have said about the increase in our prosperity. I want to make this point as against what is being said by the Minister and, in particular by his Parliamentary Secretary. It may be thought that the increases given over the last three or four years and in the last Budget have been generous. When one has regard to the figures given to demonstrate the buoyancy of our economy the increases are pretty meagre. We have always been led to believe that we can afford increases in social welfare only in proportion to the economic prosperity of the country as a whole.

According to the figures given by the Taoiseach's office tax revenue has increased pretty substantially since Fianna Fáil assumed office from 1957 to date. That increase in tax revenue has certainly not been reflected in the amount spent on social welfare. I want to quote again for the House figures I quoted recently because there are people who believe that we spend far too much on social welfare. There are people who believe we should not to any great extent give increased benefits to widows and orphans and to the unemployed, for example. In actual fact we have not spent as much as many people appear to believe in the last three or four years when one has regard to what the intake in taxation has been. The picture shows we spent a smaller percentage of tax revenue on social welfare and social assistance. Every time the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have been urged in recent years to grant increases in respect of various social welfare payments the plea has been that that just cannot be done until the country can afford it. The Taoiseach and Government Ministers have told us that we have ridden in on a boom of prosperity and all we have to do is to watch ourselves, keep on an even keel, and prosperity will be further increased in the immediate future.

Tax revenue in 1957-58 was £102.7 millions. Of that we spent £25.5 millions on social welfare. That represented 24.8 per cent. of tax revenue—a pretty substantial figure. In 1958-59 tax revenue was £104.1 millions. We spent £24.4 millions on social welfare, representing 24.4 per cent. of tax revenue, a reduction of .4 per cent. In 1959-60 tax revenue was £107.3 millions. Social welfare expenditure was £25.5 millions, representing 23.8 per cent, of tax revenue, a reduction of .6 per cent. In 1960-61 tax revenue stood at £114.9 millions. Social welfare expenditure amounted to £26.2 millions, representing 22.8 per cent. of tax revenue. In 1961-62 it is estimated tax revenue will be £118.3 millions. Out of that we propose to spend £26.4 millions on social welfare and social assistance. That will represent 22.3 per cent. of tax revenue. Whilst in 1957-58 expenditure on social welfare represented 24.8 per cent. of tax revenue in 1961-62 is it proposed to spend only 22.3 per cent. of tax revenue on social welfare, a reduction in the five years of 1.5 per cent. I think we could have afforded a little more in the Budget and in the Bill which the Minister will presumably deal with after his Estimate has finished.

It is also sought to create the impression that the Government have succeeded at some great sacrifice in giving 1/6d. per week to the old age pensioners, increases to widows and orphans, and to those dependent upon unemployment assistance. In the Budget the impression was quite clearly given that any increase in taxation was due to these increases to old age pensioners and others. There were many people in my own Party even who said: "Oh, one penny on the packet of cigarettes is worthwhile when one remembers our old age pensioners will get an extra 1/6 per week." But the penny on the packet of cigarettes does not go towards the old age pension. There have been certain manipulations to ensure that it will be possible to give this increase while, at the same time, reducing the overall expenditure on social welfare and social assistance. The penny on the packet of cigarettes is being used to offset the reduction in income tax.

The Minister's job in regard to old age pensioners has been made relatively simple by reason of the fact that he has introduced this scheme to ensure that there will be a 50 per cent. increase in contributions from both employers and employees during the present year. The three Estimates we are now discussing indicate that, whilst there is an increase in expenditure in relation to social insurance to the extent of something like £2,000,000, that is more than offset by a saving on social assistance to the extent of £2,400,000.

Apart from the money that was available, these increases should have been more, having regard to the cost of living index figure. In regard to these people, I am not concerned about the overall cost of living index figure, because there are many items in it which do not mean anything to old age pensioners and people dependent on sick benefit, unemployment assistance and so on. The one thing that strikes me is that between February, 1957, and February, 1961, there was an increase of 17.1 points in the food group in the cost of living index figure. It is true that, so far as the overall cost of living index figure is concerned, there was not the same substantial increase. But, because these people are dependent on such things as tea, bread, butter and sugar, the withdrawal of the food subsidies imposed much more of a burden on them than on ordinary people in good and remunerative employment.

I want to conclude by mentioning a group in whom I have always shown an interest, the blind workers. I am aware that at present the National League of the Blind have a claim on behalf of their members employed in the blind workshops at Baggot Street for parity with unskilled workers in the service of Dublin Corporation. Apart from its merits, that claim should and could have been dealt with much more expeditiously than it was. We have an obligation to these people. I thought the Minister was going to tell me it was a matter for the Board.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy knows that, so I do not have to tell him.

Mr. Corish

I do not want to place the responsibility on the Minister if he is not responsible.

Mr. MacEntee

I believe that at the moment it is also a matter for the Labour Court.

Mr. Corish

It may be. I am not aware that it is before the Labour Court.

Mr. MacEntee

It may be on its way there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was about to point out to the Deputy that, since the Minister has no responsibility, I cannot see the point of raising the matter on this Estimate.

Mr. Corish

I am afraid you will have to hear me out first, Sir, before you can decide that. I believe the blind workers in these workshops have not got a fair crack of the whip in the last 12 months and that their claim does not seem to have been treated properly by the Board controlling these workshops.

The claim was submitted to the Board in April, 1960. As a result of some discussion, it was left in abeyance on the assurance that the whole question of wages would be reviewed in the six months from April, 1960. Nothing was done after that period of six months and in November of that year their claim was renewed. Still nothing happened. Their claim was then submitted to the Labour Court in November or December of that year. It was referred to the Labour Court at conciliation level early in May, 1961. At that meeting, at which a conciliation officer of the Labour Court was present, the representatives of the Board undertook to resume the discussions not later than the 30th June, 1961, when they would present a new formula for the compilation of the wages for blind workers.

Both these promises were not fulfilled by the Board. They broke faith not alone with the blind workers but with the conciliation officer of the Labour Court as well. There was a further conciliation meeting to take place on the 5th July but that also was cancelled and the Board refused to fix any date for the further consideration of this matter. The Minister tells me now that the matter is before the Labour Court.

Mr. MacEntee

I thought it was going there.

Mr. Corish

It was referred to them at conciliation level early last year, but because the Board failed to live up to their promises the National League of the Blind, representing the workers, became very annoyed. I think they threatened and did actually serve strike notice. I do not know what the difficulties of the Board are. The Board has power to negotiate with these workers and may make an arrangement with them in regard to wages with the approval or otherwise of the Minister. I am not quite clear but, as far as I am aware, this Board is financed by local authorities who contribute a certain proportion to the funds of the Board. I should like to know from the Minister if all the local authorities of Ireland are contributing to the Board and whether that is voluntary on the part of the local authorities or not. If it is not voluntary the Minister should ensure by regulation, or, if not, by legislation, that local authorities make a fair contribution towards the employment and rehabilitation of these blind workers.

It is not sufficient to treat blind workers, and I am not suggesting the Minister does, as inferior workers. They are making an honest and sincere effort to occupy themselves in productive and gainful employment. They are married and have families to cater for. I do not think it is an unreasonable request to the Board that these workers should have parity, not with skilled workers, but merely with the unskilled workers of Dublin Corporation. Even if the Minister has no absolute function, I would urge him to use his good offices to see to it that this claim will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Mr. Jones

There are just a few points on which I should like some elucidation from the Minister and on which I should like to comment. The first concerns the payments from the social insurance fund to married workers who, because of illness, find themselves deprived of work for a long period. I am referring in particular to a person who may become afflicted by T.B. and finds himself in an institution for a long period. I know of a case where a working man was so affected. His wife and seven children became dependent on payments from the social insurance fund. These payments amount to £4 15s. a week. The family is committed to paying 7/6 a week rent for a council cottage which leaves the wife and seven dependent children with a net £4 7s. 6d. a week.

In cases like that where there is a large element of hardship and where the family circumstances are such, through incapacity of the bread earner, that it becomes impossible to provide sufficient food to enable growing children to become healthy adults, some exceptions should be made particularly in times like those when the purchasing power of money is so low and the cost of living so high. I suggest that a little higher benefit should be given in such cases. I appreciate that an insurance fund of any kind cannot hope to meet the demands of all sections but I think the case I have cited is a worthy example.

Secondly — I mentioned this previously—I should like to make a point in regard to the means test applicable to non-contributory old age pensioners. This is something I would urge the Minister to re-examine because I believe the means test as applied at the moment does not give recognition to the purchasing power of money and at the same time to the scale of allowances in respect of adult dependants living in such homes. I have in mind a case of where two grown members of a family live with the pensioner on a small farm. The allowance taken out of the earnings of that holding is something like £300 to £350 a year. Making allowances of that amount is not enough, particularly when we know that under the Agricultural Wages Act a certain minimum is laid down at the other end of the scale.

I feel that a much lesser sum is sufficient for people working on the place. This is something which is operating against non-contributory pensions in some cases and it is, I think, something which the Minister for Social Welfare should examine as far as small holdings are concerned. It is the cause of great hardship and, if persisted in, would inevitably leave the old couple alone on the homestead.

The third point I want to make is in respect of the widow with a family. There again, the analogy is somewhat the same as in the case of the dependant wife and family of an incapacitated workman. As in that case, here again we ought to be as generous as we can, particularly where there are growing families dependent on this type of social benefit. I know the Minister can say in reply that this is something the State is looking after, something which is being provided by the generosity of the people, but if we examine it more closely we will see we are helping young people towards adult life who at a later stage will themselves be contributors to the social insurance fund.

Finally, I would say a word on behalf of disabled persons living at home. It is generally felt that many of these would be better treated at home instead of entering the institutions provided by the health authorities. I believe it is the Christian feeling that, wherever possible, they would be left in their homes rather than sent to be accommodated by the local authorities at a much higher cost than would be the case if they obtained a little more assistance from the State to stay at home among their neighbours who would be only too glad to help them.

Mr. Crotty

I shall begin by paying a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary and all the other officers of this Department. During the past year I had on many occasions to bring cases to the notice of the Department and on every occasion I was treated with courtesy and, as far as they could, the officials gave me every information they were allowed to give, often to my entire satisfaction. I feel the increases given in the old age pensions this year were very welcomed. The amount given in the contributory old age pensions was very much appreciated. Up to this people who had been stamping their cards for many years found that when they reached the age of 70 they were no better off than those who had never stamped a card. Now there is a matter of £2 a week in the difference. I think that was a very good development.

Those people now feel that a hand of help is being stretched out to them but there is this spate of inquisitions which were not there in previous years. Whether it is to recoup some of the increases or not I do not know. Whatever the cause, there has been much greater inquiry into people's means, into every little detail, even a few domestic fowl. I know the Minister will say that it is proper there should be a full inquiry and I agree, but I do not think that small details should be included. I have had cases this year in which the Department went back over 10 years and made out that a person in 1951 had drawn an old age pension to which she was not entitled. The person was 84 at the time and there was a dispute as to whether she or her brother was actually the owner of a shop. After long investigation, after the local papers had come into the fray as well as myself it was decided that arrears were not due by her. Meantime, that woman was practically driven to the county home over it. I believe she was fully entitled to what she got. I think that going back over a person's affairs for 10 years is not right. I do not blame the officials who must carry out Ministerial orders. The responsibility rests on the Minister. Even an ordinary debt due for over six years cannot be claimed but the Department go back——

Mr. MacEntee

This was not an ordinary debt. It was money obtained by fraud.

Mr. Crotty

It was not obtained by fraud. That was admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary. This woman was denied her pension for many weeks. There was no question of fraud but it just shows the policy of the Government of giving with one hand and taking back with the other.

The cutting off of the small turf supply when these people become contributory old age pensioners is another grievance. It is a small thing and the Government would be wiser if they had a decent heart and continued these insignificant allowances. I have also had several cases of old I.R.A. allowances being revised when the contributory pensions came. If we are going to give these pensions let us do it decently and not cut off other allowances.

If an anonymous letter arrives at a labour exchange about a person drawing either unemployment benefit or assistance that person is immediately cut off and an inquiry instituted. It may be six weeks before the case is heard by the Board. That is altogether wrong. If I have ill-will against a particular man — I know of cases of men with families of eight being cut off — I can write in about him. We all have "good" neighbours at times. A man may be cut off until brought before a referee to have the case decided. In the meantime that puts a burden on the local authority because if the man comes to me I advise him to go to the home assistance officer to get assistance while he is not drawing a pension. I do not mind anonymous letters being investigated but in the meantime the man concerned should be allowed to draw benefit until it is proved that he was not entitled to it for that period. It is wrong that a man with a family should be deprived of any pension because some enemy, someone not friendly to him, writes in suggesting that he has been working. In most of those cases I found it was not proved subsequently that the person concerned had been working but he and his family had to suffer hardship pending the investigation.

I raised a question today about a man debarred from social welfare benefit. The Minister said that the insured person had lost his employment under conditions which, under Section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, disqualified him from receiving benefits and he was so disqualified for six weeks from the 10th June, 1961. This man worked as a telephonist in the post office and had been doing so for 12 months. He had worked three hours daily from 8.30 to 11.30 and on Sunday, I think, from 8.30 to 11.30. To get a few extra shillings he also worked from 1.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. As a result, his total pay for 26 hours work per week was £3. In May he decided to take employment with the county council who apparently had work involving writing out rates notices. This enabled him to earn £7 or £8 a week as against the £3 from the post office. He gave notice to the post office that he was leaving to take up duty with the county council, duty he had taken up in previous years. He worked in the county council for five weeks up to Thursday, June 15th. On June 10th, knowing his work with the county council was finishing, he went to the post office and asked——

Mr. MacEntee

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I must point out to him that he did not quote my reply in full, that this matter is not decided by the Minister but by an Appeals Officer under statute. There is an appeal pending against the decision to be heard on the 25th July. Therefore, the matter is sub judice.

Mr. Crotty

The point I am making and which I think the Minister cannot deny is that this man finished work on June 15th. On June 10th he went to the post office to know if his job was available at £3 a week and was told there would be a letter in the post. The letter arrived on the following Monday morning telling him he was dismissed from June 10th. He had left work a month earlier, and got no dismissal notice and had worked with the county council. After getting the dismissal notice he worked in the county council until the following Thursday which meant that the county council were his last employers and the post office had no right whatever, nor had the Department any right whatever——

Mr. MacEntee

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy or appear unreasonable, but this is quite unfair. Section 42 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, lays it down that these matters are to be decided by a deciding officer appointed under statute. The Deputy is taking a line which is designed to intimidate the deciding officer — perhaps not designed to intimidate, but may have the effect of intimidating the deciding officer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Minister states that he has no responsibility, then the Deputy must desist.

Mr. Crotty

I agree that the Minister would have no responsibility if this was a normal case going to the deciding officer. The man had not left his work—

Mr. MacEntee

The person to decide that is the deciding officer.

Mr. Crotty

He was dismissed on June 10th and he worked after that. I feel that it was from his last employer — who had no more work for him — that he was entitled to get a certificate to that effect. This man has been treated most unfairly.

Mr. MacEntee

I must protest. This matter will be heard on appeal at Kilkenny on oral hearing on July 25th. This is an attempt to pre-judge that hearing. I suggest it is not fair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since the matter is before an appeals officer——

Mr. Crotty

I do not like to cross swords with the Minister, but this was a straightforward case which should never have been sent back to the appeals officer. A man who applies for unemployment benefit when there is no more work for him to do is fully justified in getting that benefit. I do not want to have any argument with the Minister if he disclaims responsibility, but I do not think he should disclaim responsibility.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since the Minister has disclaimed responsibility there is no point in arguing the case further at this stage.

Mr. Crotty

I do not think the Minister is entitled to——

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy was a Parliamentary Secretary and he knows that a statute is binding upon a Minister and upon a Parliamentary Secretary. The Social Welfare Act of 1952 takes this matter out of the hands of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary and vests the question of entitlement in a deciding officer.

Mr. Crotty

The Minister did not say in reply to my question to-day that he had no responsibility. He said that the person had lost his employment through conduct which disqualified him.

Mr. MacEntee

I can give that information, but I cannot argue the case as to whether or not a person is entitled to benefit. I have no function.

Mr. Crotty

Is not the law there?

Mr. MacEntee

It is. That is precisely the law.

Mr. Crotty

The man is entitled to get benefit if he is available for work and his employer has no more work for him.

Mr. MacEntee

The law is very clearcut. There is a deciding officer to determine these questions and he is the only person who has responsibility.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since the Minister disclaims responsibility the matter cannot be argued any further.

Mr. Corish

The real difficulty is that these cases are sent up to Dublin.

Mr. Crotty

I do not think I have got a fair deal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has pointed out that he has no responsibility and the Chair has, therefore, no option.

Mr. MacEntee

I hope Deputy Crotty is not annoyed. I am not responsible for the Social Welfare Act of 1952. The Oireachtas is responsible for that. One of the reasons why these provisions were written into that Act was because there were numerous allegations made by all Parties in this House that political influence was being used to determine issues of this sort. It was accordingly decided by the Oireachtas that this matter should be taken out of the hands of the political head of the Department concerned and vested in a civil servant. That is the position and the Minister is bound by that situation and can do nothing about it.

Mr. Crotty

I do not agree with the Minister's interpretation.

Mr. MacEntee

Not merely is that the situation but, if there is an appeal from the deciding officer, it is decided by an appeals officer. The political head of the Department can do nothing. I have had to write to hundreds of people who have come to me, believing they were friends of mine, and inform them that I could do nothing, this matter was decided outside the office altogether. I hope the Deputy will be satisfied with that and allow this case to be determined on appeal in Kilkenny on July 25th. I have certain information but I do not want to have the case tried across the floor of this House. The Deputy has made certain allegations. I do not propose to controvert them. If I did, I should be making allegations possibly against the person concerned. Let the matter drop now.

I am indebted to the House for the manner in which this Estimate has been discussed. Naturally I did not expect I would get many bouquets, and I did not get many bouquets so far as the generosity of the provisions we are making is concerned. I would be less than human if I were not grateful for the tributes paid to the officers of my Department and to the Parliamentary Secretary. He is unfortunately not able to be here today. From my personal experience I can support everything that has been said as to the courtesy and consideration shown to the general public from the point of view of the administration of the various Acts. I am, I think, a rather exacting Minister and sometimes very exigent in my demands upon my staff. I have always found them not merely meeting my exactions but, at the same time, careful not to permit those exactions to militate in any way against their dealings with the general public. The general public do not suffer because the Minister may sometimes impose an undue burden upon his officers.

Deputy O'Sullivan alleged that the cost of the old age pensions had been transferred to the social insurance fund. That is not so. The gross cost of the new benefits amounts to £6,960,000. I am not segregating the contributory old age pensions from the other benefits granted by the Act passed last year. I am taking the benefits as a whole. The increase in the contribution income was £4,075,000. The excess of benefits over contribution income was £2,885,000. It is quite clearly established on those figures that the contribution income has not met the increased cost of the new benefits. It is true that by reason of the introduction of the scheme of contributory old age pensions a number of persons——

Mr. O'Sullivan

40,000.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not 40,000. The number of persons who are likely to receive contributory old age pensions will be of the order of 36,000.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Nearly 40,000.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, but all of those were not in receipt of non-contributory old age pensions. A large number were in receipt of non-contributory old age pensions to the value in the aggregate of £2,550,000. Even allowing for that £2,550,000 there is still an excess expenditure of £335,000 which is being met from the Exchequer. I am sure Deputy O'Sullivan does not contend that we are not entitled to take that £2,550,000 and set it off against the cost of the contributory pensions which have replaced the non-contributory pensions. He would not want us surely to give it with both hands—to allow the people who are getting the contributory old age pension to draw the non-contributory old age pension they formerly had as well and, if he does not argue that, then I cannot see what grievance he has. I cannot see how he can make the case he did because the case he made can only be made on the assumption that those who were formerly in receipt of non-contributory old age pensions and became entitled under the Act to contributory old age pensions should be permitted to draw both pensions. I understand the Deputy is not making that case.

Mr. O'Sullivan

No.

Mr. MacEntee

Indeed, I do not believe it ever entered his head to make that case, but it is only on the basis of a case of that sort that he could make the allegation which he made that the cost of the old age pensions had been transferred to the Social Insurance Fund. In fact it has not been transferred. We are still carrying the full cost of the non-contributory old-age pensions. On the social insurance fund — we are contributing £22,885,000 to cover not merely the cost of those former non-contributory old age pensions but also an excess expenditure, over and above all that, of £335,000.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is not the complete picture. There is a saving in the Department of Defence.

Mr. MacEntee

That is of no consequence whatsoever. I assume the Deputy is referring to the military service pension allowance paid to those who are in grave need.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The special allowance.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, the special allowance paid to those who are in grave need. The amount of the special allowance is £80. The contributory old age pension represents in most cases 40/- a week or up to 70/- if one takes into consideration the allowance made to an adult dependant spouse. Therefore, one can make a calculation very quickly and see that the increase which the military service pensioner may draw under the contributory scheme far exceeds the special allowance which could be granted by the Minister for Defence.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I know that.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely the Deputy will not say again that people must have it on the double.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am making the point there is a saving.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy, I am sure, will agree with me you do not save money when you spend more.

Mr. O'Sullivan

But you get others to pay for it.

Mr. MacEntee

You do not save money when you spend more.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is easy to spend when you can get others to pay.

Mr. MacEntee

I have just shown the Deputy we are not getting others to pay for it. I tried to show that, insofar as figures can convey anything, in a simple calculation which I put before him. Deputy Corish complained that the percentage of social welfare to tax revenue has decreased. If our community is more prosperous, if more of our people are self-supporting, if more of them do not require social assistance, then surely social welfare as a percentage of State expenditure, whether it is financed from tax revenue or from any other source, must go down. I am glad to hear Deputy Corish admitting that the expenditure on social welfare has decreased in proportion to our tax revenue because it is an admission that, by and large, there are fewer people in need of social assistance than there were in the year 1956-57.

Mr. Corish

What about social insurance in relation to social assistance?

Mr. MacEntee

Take the financial consequences of the change in the unemployment situation this year as compared with last year. I am just taking that as an example. The draw on the social insurance fund for this year in respect of unemployment benefit claims is estimated to be £595,000 less than last year, an indication that there is less unemployment among insured persons. That cannot be contradicted.

Mr. Corish

And you save money.

Mr. MacEntee

On the other side of the account, there is an estimated increase in contributions for this year of £213,000 so that in the social insurance fund which we were told was carrying everything, there has been a financial improvement to the extent of £808,000 due to an improvement in the employment position.

Again take the social assistance side of the account. We estimate that by a reduction in the number of persons who would have been claiming unemployment assistance, at the old rates there would have been a saving this year of £247,000, so that if there had not been any change in the rates the total amount which would have been saved to the Exchequer in this year as compared with last year on the social assistance side and the social insurance side would have been £1,055,000 for one year only. The position of this year as compared with last year is not unique. Last year was very much better than the year before. Of course 1958 was very much better than 1957 and 1957 was better than 1956 because in 1956 the employment register at its peak amounted to 100,000. The number of persons on the unemployment register at its peak in the year 1956-57 when the Coalition Government was in office——

Mr. O'Sullivan

That was not the peak. The Minister knows it.

Mr. MacEntee

No. That was not the peak, it may be more than 100,000, but it was at its peak when the Coalition Government left office and we took over from them and far from being at its peak so far as the live register is concerned we are now deep in the valley.

Mr. O'Sullivan

What a valley. It is the Rhonda Valley.

Mr. MacEntee

The figures on the unemployment register are at the lowest they have been since 1933. In the light of this what does Deputy Corish complain of except the fact that people are now so much better off that we have not to spend as much on relieving their destitution and poverty as the State had to expend when the last Coalition Government was in office?

Mr. Corish

If that is your yard stick you are spending more than they spent in 1958-1959. You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. MacEntee

Of course we are spending more because the rates of benefit have gone up very considerably. I heard Deputy O'Sullivan say how little we had done for the persons who are in receipt of social assistance. During the four years——

Mr. O'Sullivan

I did not say that at all.

Mr. MacEntee

During the three years that Deputy O'Sullivan served this country as Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Corish was Minister for Social Welfare, the old age pensioners got an increase of 2/6.

Mr. Corish

And they had their bread at the right price.

Mr. MacEntee

This year I hope, with the indulgence and consideration of the House, we shall be able to say that in the four years we have been in office the old age pension has been increased by 6/- per week. Not only that but very considerable increases have been given to other classes of social beneficiaries as well. I am not going to take all the credit for that sort of achievement. I do not take an undue pride in it.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Humility personified.

Mr. MacEntee

—because when I say that, I merely find myself in a positon in which every Minister in a Fianna Fáil Government found himself from year to year, where the economic position of the country justified it, in being able to say that he had done more to relieve want and undeserved poverty in this country than had ever been done by any other Party that ever held the reins of the government here.

Mr. Corish

May I ask a question? Perhaps you would comment on it. I raised the question of the blind workers—

Mr. MacEntee

I am sorry.

Mr. O'Sullivan

He was too busy talking to the electorate.

Mr. MacEntee

The position is, I have not any power to interfere with the Board. The Board for the Employment of the Blind was set up originally—I think my predecessor, Deputy Corish, took a leading part in forming the Board—but he knows it is only one of a number of organisations which look after the welfare of the blind and he also knows that it receives subventions from certain of the local authorities. I am not certain whether they all contribute now or not. Deputy Corish when he was Minister had some difficulty in persuading them to contribute, but I think the number contributing is increasing. I forget the exact amount of the rate they contribute but there is a statutory limitation as to the amount which the Board may receive. Over and above that, the State pays a certain capitation rate in respect of each worker employed. It is £40 in the case of any person employed in a workshop and, of course, that £40 per employee is paid to the Board.

Over and above that the position is this: notwithstanding the grant made to the Board by the local authorities under the Blind Persons Act, notwithstanding the capitation rate, the position is that the Board last year and the year before lost £23,000 and they are naturally concerned to try to keep that institution open. I think that is a fact that we have to recognise. Not only that, but all the directors of this Board who give a great deal of their time to it are giving voluntary service. This is not a commercial concern and I shall not go any further than to say that because, as I have stated, this matter may go before the Labour Court and I do not want to say anything here which might be thought to prejudice the approach of the Court to the workers' claim. But these are facts which we have to take into consideration.

Again, as I said, Sir, very heavily subsidised as it is already and notwithstanding these subventions, it has lost very substantial sums in the two years' working and naturally people who have accepted the responsibility for managing and administering the concern are very perturbed about that. They feel that they have certain other obligations and I am not going to try to weaken their sense of responsibility for the management of the workshop.

Mr. Corish

I thank the Minister for his comments. It may not be regarded by some people as a commercial concern, but I think the Minister would also appreciate that the ultimate object was the rehabilitation of people who had not the use of their eyes. If they lost £23,000 last year and if they are all business men, they may consider it to be a commercial venture that has not succeeded. I do not think that it should be looked on in that way. I asked the Minister if he would consider further consultations with the local authorities to see whether or not they could put the Board in a better financial position if they are restricted by lack of funds.

I am not certain whether or not the Minister says that this is going before the Labour Court but even in the Labour Court they will be restricted in the negotiation of the claims made by the National League of the Blind if they feel that they just will not have the money to pay the increase and bring these workers on to parity with unskilled workers in Dublin. I would like the Minister to get away from the phrase if he would, this idea of its being a commercial venture. Rehabilitation is very important for many people. The National League of the Blind are very sincere in their efforts to rehabilitate people and I think consultations between the Minister or his officials and the Board might bring the matter to a reasonable conclusion.

Mr. MacEntee

Once I entrust responsibility to any person I try to restrain myself from interfering with the discretion which naturally he must exercise in the discharge of the responsibility. But let us not forget one thing. Deputy Corish has said that his institution has as its main purpose the rehabilitation of certain persons and you want to be very careful, when dealing with the question of rehabilitation, to make sure that it does not degenerate into demoralisation. I think that is one of the matters that the people managing this institution are concerned about. They cannot regard it as a charity. If it is going to fulfil its function at all, there must be some advertence to ordinary commercial principles in its operation. I do not say that the commercial element should predominate but it cannot be lost sight of, otherwise the Board will not be able to put through its proper function, that of rehabilitation.

Vote put and agreed to.