Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 1965

Vol. 214 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

Tairgim:

Go ndeonófar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £1,136,000 chun íochta an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1965, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh, le haghaidh Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, le haghaidh íocaíochtaí leis an gCiste Árachais Shóisialaigh, agus le haghaidh Ildeontas.

'Sa Mheastachán Forlíontach seo táthar ar lorg suim bhreise de £1,136,000 in aghaidh na bliana 1964-65. Ceaptar go mbeidh breis caiteachais de £1,425,000 agus breis fáltaisí de £289,000, agus dá bhrí sin beidh suim ghlan de £1,136,000 ag teastáil chun fiacha na bliana seo a réiteach.

Tá gá le suimeanna breise le h-aghaigh costaisí riaracháin, FoMhírchínn A go C, de thoradh árduithe pá a deonadh i rith na bliana agus méadú i gcostaisí poist agus teileafóin. I gcás Árachais Shóisialaigh, Fo-Mhírcheann E, 'séard is cúis leis an méadú ná go bhfuil an caiteachas ar sochair áirithe, go mórmhór sochar míchumais agus sochar cóireála, ag dul i méad ó bhliain go bliain, agus ina theannta san tá méadú i gcostaisí riaracháin a íoctar as an gCiste Árachais Shóisialaigh. Meastar go mbeidh glan-mhéadú de £969,000 i gcaiteachas an Chiste ach táthar ag súil le breis fáltaisí agus mar sin 'sé £280,000 an tsuim ghlan atá de dhíth.

I gcás Cúnaimh Shóisialaigh 'sé is cúis leist an méadú ná na méadaithe i rátaí cúnaimh agus na feabhsanna eile ins na scéimeanna cúnaimh a tháinig i bhfeidhm i dtosach mí Lúnasa seo chaite. Beidh costas breise de £735,000 iníochtha sa bhliain seo de thoradh na leasuithe san. Tá spáráil beag, áfach, ar sheirbhísí áirithe agus dá bhrí sin 'sé £667,000 an máid atá ag teastáil anois.

The net additional sum required for Social Welfare in the current year is £1,136,000. This is the result of an estimated excess of £1,425,000 in gross expenditure offset by an estimated increase of £289,000 in Appropriations in Aid. The excess expenditure of £1,425,000 is apportioned between the main divisions of the Estimate as follows:—

Administration—Subheads A to C £478,000.

Social Insurance — Subhead E £280,000.

Social Assistance—Subheads G to J £667,000.

The increase in administration costs, £478,000, is due to factors such as salary increases awarded during the year, higher costs of travelling arising from increased mileage and subsistance rates, and increases in postal and telephone charges. The increased requirement under Social Insurance is attributable to a rising trend in the cost of certain benefits, in particular disability and treatment benefits, and to higher administration expenses. Total expenditure out of the Social Insurance Fund is estimated to show a net increase of £969,000 but, on the other hand, income to the Fund is expected to be £558,000 higher than was originally provided for. The Exchequer subvention required to meet the resultant addition to the Fund deficit of £411,000 is reduced to £280,000 because the Subhead E provision, as now revised, takes account of a sum of £131,000 due by the Fund to the Exchequer as at 31st March, 1964. The increase in receipts into the Social Insurance Fund is attributable to a continuing upward trend in the income from employment contributions and to an increase in receipts under Reciprocal Arrangements.

On the Social Assistance side the increased provision is required to meet the cost in the current year of the increased rates of payment and other improvements effected by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1964. The total cost of implementing the provisions of the Act as regards Social Assistance is estimated at £735,000 in 1964-65, made up of £502,000 for old age pensions, £130,000 for unemployment assistance and £103,000 for widows' and orphans' pensions. The estimate for children's allowances is expected to be exceeded by £50,000 so that the total gross excess will amount to £785,000. There are, however, offsetting features. If it were not for the increased expenditure arising from the Social Welfare Act there would have been net savings amounting to £118,000, mainly on unemployment assistance and widows' and orphans' pensions, and when these savings are taken into account the additional sum required for Social Assistance becomes £667,000.

The expected surplus of £289,000 on Appropriations in Aid—Subhead L— is a direct consequence of the increased expenditure on the administration Subheads. The cost to my Department of administering the social insurance and social assistance schemes is met from the Social Welfare Vote. The costs relating to Social Insurance are, however, a charge on the Social Insurance Fund and are recouped from the Fund and appropriated in aid of the Vote. Thus, when there is increased expenditure on the administration of the social insurance scheme, there will automatically be an increase in the amount appropriated in aid of the Social Welfare Vote.

These are the main features of the Supplementary Estimate, to which I would ask the agreement of the House.

General MacEoin

There are many comments one would like to make on this Supplementary Estimate but what I wish to emphasise, and get the Minister's explanation for, are the appropriations-in-aid. He said some savings had arisen on unemployment assistance and widows' and orphans' pensions. The truth is that all over the country widows' and orphans' pensions and unemployment assistance have been reduced or stopped for considerable periods and then restored at a lesser figure, although there was no change, as far as anybody could see, in the income of the recipients.

It appears to me that the increase in the appropriations-in-aid has been at the expense of the weakest section of the community. The same applies to old age pensions. I am aware of cases in which old age pensions have been held up or withdrawn and in some cases have not yet been paid after a lapse of several months. It is a very grave hardship and I should like the Minister to tell the House how, if a small farmer gets an additional heifer under the heifer scheme, that is automatically regarded as an increase in means. That has happened in a number of cases, to my knowledge. While there may have been payment of subsidy under the heifer scheme, the income of the old age pensioner or widow cannot be said to have increased to any extent. Yet, questions have been raised with recipients by social welfare officers.

The increase in respect of old age pensions is £502,000. Is that not a small sum in these days when we talk so glibly in millions? I have heard Ministers describing a sum coming up to that figure as being "only small beer". If recipients of social welfare payments could get any increase they would not regard it as small beer. The fact that the increase in old age pensions costs only £502,000 would suggest the pensions should be increased considerably.

Irrespective of what any Government may do, there will be cases of hardship in regard to social welfare recipients. The Government and the Department of Social Welfare should err on the side of the recipient. It would be preferable that four people should get a widow's pension or old age pension to which they were not entitled than that one qualified person should be disqualified. If the operation of a rule means that one person would be disqualified, it would be preferable that two or three people not so entitled should get a pension rather than that person would be disqualified in whose case disqualification would constitute grave hardship.

I submit that the whole question of social welfare payments requires reexamination and a more liberal method should be adopted towards meeting the increased costs of living and all the difficulties that the old age pensioner and the widow and orphan are now facing.

The Minister tells us that the higher costs of administration arise from increased mileage and subsistence rates and postal and telegraph charges. The increases in the postal and telegraph charges were imposed by the Government. The Government forget that such increases are reflected in this Vote and they also forget that the recipients of these pensions have to bear proportionately the same increases but that there is no corresponding increase in their pensions to meet them. As I mentioned on the Army Vote, these matters must be taken into consideration.

Mr. Tully

As this Supplementary Estimate is being taken immediately before the main Estimate, I do not intend to elaborate on it but there are two points to which I should like to refer.

The first is the question of the extreme delays which still occur in relation to appeals. We have discussed this matter with the Minister on the main Estimate and by way of Parliamentary Question on a number of occasions but I am afraid the situation has not improved. If people who have been ill and who are examined by a Departmental referee and declared fit for work, appeal, as many of them do, months elapse before a decision is given.

General MacEoin

They can starve.

Mr. Tully

The Minister knows that I have the greatest respect for him and his Department, and no matter where this matter is mentioned, I say that I have always found him most courteous and obliging in every way, but, for some extraordinary reason, this is one of the things on which I can get no action at all. Not alone do these people not get a quick decision but in some cases where shortly after the referee's decision has been taken that they are fit for work, the persons concerned were sent to a TB hospital and were very seriously ill. I know at least two such cases that occurred in my area. Despite that, the best the Department could do was to resume payments from the date on which the person was sent to hospital and the question as to payment in respect of the interim period had to be submitted to a referee. That suggests that somebody is trying to justify a wrong turn he took. The Minister has cleared up a good number of anomalies and I would ask him to do something about this anomaly as it is causing untold hardship.

The Minister may not be aware but it is true to say that before Christmas of last year, for some extraordinary reason, the referees went all over the place and left a great many people without their Christmas dinner. The fact that a number of cases were subbod sequently reviewed and the persons found unfit for work and were paid benefit did not excuse the action taken by the Department.

There must be somebody who is responsible for this. Such action is not typical of the Minister or of his officials. There must be some reason why this should happen in a particular section. I would like the Minister to take sufficient interest in this matter to find out who is responsible and see that it does not happen again.

The second matter to which I should like to refer is the question of the non-contributory old age pension. Non-contributory pensioners are in a deplorable condition. There is no use in saying that the State is doing what it can and cannot afford more. The State can afford more and must afford more. These people are really the destitute poor of the present generation and I would appeal to the Minister to do something about them. Now is the time because the Minister is getting an opportunity which he may not get again.

Mr. Boland

I thank the House for dealing so expeditiously with this Supplementary Estimate. As Deputy Tully says, the main Estimate, on which we can have fuller discussion, will be before the House shortly.

I think I can contradict what Deputy MacEoin said in regard to there being wholesale savings on unemployment assistance, widows' pensions, and so on, throughout the country. There has certainly been no special campaign to reduce or to stop these payments but it is laid down in the law as passed by this House that changes in income must be taken into account in regard to social assistance services and I am quite satisfied that the social welfare officers and the officials of my Department who are charged with the duty of administering these laws do not adopt an over-zealous attitude in regard to them, as has been alleged here. It is, of course, their duty when there is an increase in income to investigate that and to report it and an increase in income involves either a reduction or a cessation of the assistance payment.

I think a means test in regard to assistance payments is an essential feature, as anybody who examines the question closely will agree. If there has to be a means test, it must be enforced. I certainly have no reason to believe that there is any over-zealousness on the part of the officials. I have always tried to impress upon them that it is as much part of their duty and equally, if not more important, for them to ensure that claimants for any of these services get what they were intended by this House to get as it is for them to ensure that payments are not obtained in contravention of the intention of the House.

With regard to Deputy Tully's complaint about what he described as extreme delays in cases of appeal, I think there is a great amount of exaggeration in what he said. I take it that he is referring to appeals in regard to disability benefit only. He certainly directed his remarks practically entirely to disability benefit. My attitude is that these appeals should be decided as speedily as possible. I am not aware that there are very long delays in these cases. In other cases of appeals where it is a question of a person being entitled to payment or not, sometimes there are long delays. However, it is usually found, on investigation of the cause of the delay, that the decision on the appeal is being held up in order to try to establish if there is any way in which the person concerned could qualify for the benefit he or she is claiming. One usually finds, on the basis of the evidence the appeals officer has been able to obtain, that if a decision were made earlier the decision would have to be adverse to the applicant. The delay in those cases is usually caused by the desire of the appeals officer to be completely certain that he has all the facts.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is aware that is all cod. They do not even see the person and then they do not know.

Mr. Boland

It might not be necessary to see the person but where there is an inordinate delay you will usually find, on investigation, that the appeals officer is trying to establish something which will enable the applicant to qualify. I admit I am not referring to the disability benefit type of case with which Deputy Tully seems to be dealing, but mainly with old age pension cases.

Mr. Tully

I am not talking about that at all.

Mr. Boland

However, in cases where there are long delays in having a medical examination carried out I shall certainly try to speed them up where possible, even if it is necessary to appoint additional personnel to do it.

Mr. Tully

Is that not what is wrong? The personnel are not there.

Mr. Boland

No.

Mr. Tully

I understand that is the difficulty.

Mr. Boland

I do not think so. We have appointed an extra appeals officer lately. According to what Deputy Tully is saying it is on the medical side that these delays occur. We should remember these are cases in which it has already been decided by the medical referee that the person concerned does not qualify for disability benefit.

Mr. Tully

Very often wrongly.

Mr. Boland

I would not say very often wrongly.

Mr. Tully

Sometimes.

Mr. Boland

Occasionally the result of the appeal is to change an original decision but, on the whole, there are very few cases in which it is found a mistake has been made or in which it is found that the benefit should have been awarded. However, I certainly will do all I can and am doing all I can to ensure there will not be excessive delays in dealing with these cases.

Mr. Dillon

I wish to ask the Minister a question in regard to this Supplementary Estimate. It relates to the case of people whose employers should have stamped cards and where it has been established by an officer of the Minister's Department that the employee is being deprived of benefit as a result of the failure of the employer to stamp cards whereupon a right arises in the employee to sue for what he has lost. In such cases the Minister should exercise discretion to act on his behalf.

I had a case recently in which, after very long inquiry where the employer manifestly was not co-operative, it was established that the employer had failed to stamp the cards as was his duty. I asked the Minister to exercise discretion to sue in the name of the employee, who is a countryman, and after long consideration the Minister refused. Might I put it to the Minister that ordinarily, where you are dealing with a man who is not a member of a trade union and who has no support of that kind to assist him in such proceedings, the Minister ought, as a general rule, to act on his behalf?

Mr. Boland

I do not think it is desirable for the Minister to do these things as a general rule. There is a legal obligation on the employer to stamp the cards and my Department's interest in the matter would be to ensure that he complies with the law. Where an employee loses benefit as a result of his employer's failure to carry out his legal obligation, he has the right to sue the employer for the loss of benefit and my Department will give him every assistance in establishing his case. In cases of particular hardship the Department can act on his behalf but it would be a very wrong thing to expect the Department to take up all these civil actions themselves. I cannot remember the particular case to which Deputy Dillon is referring but I am quite sure that, if the facts are as clear as he says, a solicitor would take the matter up for the person who has been wronged.

Mr. Dillon

I recognise that the law ordinarily provides a remedy for the employee. If the employee is a member of a trade union or has some sophisticated advice at his disposal, it is reasonable enough to tell him to go to his trade union and ask them to help him to start proceedings but if you are dealing with a chap who is not organised at all and who is a countryman to whom the business of going to a solicitor is formidable, it is a different matter. Most solicitors would require such a person to put down some sum to cover the costs of initiating proceedings. I cannot see why the Minister should have any objection to acting on behalf of such a person once it has been determined that there has been a failure by the employer to comply with the law and that the Minister has so found as a matter of fact. It is merely a matter of using the machinery of the court to get for the employee that to which he is entitled, and it would relieve the employee in rural Ireland of a great burden of anxiety. Perhaps the Minister would consider——

Mr. Boland

I shall consider the particular case to which the Deputy refers.

Mr. Dillon

I would ask the Minister to compare the case of a man who has a trade union behind him with that of a man who has not.

Vote put and agreed to.