When we discuss this Estimate, we must bear in mind we are dealing with the least privileged section of our people and, therefore, we must be more generous in dealing with this Estimate than any other. Unfortunately, the Minister views it from a different angle completely. In the last ten minutes, he displayed his generosity when faced with a situation that has never arisen before in this country when he was asked to make provision for that unfortunate man and woman in Limerick who have created history.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Social Welfare (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £23,672,000 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1966, 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.
Mr. Browne
You mean fortunate man and woman.
Unfortunate, as far as the Minister is concerned. He has no heart, good, bad or indifferent, when he has such a Cromwellian approach to this case. It is nothing short of that. However, we will hear more about it.
We are dealing with a section of the community, the majority of whom are not able to provide for themselves and quite unable to demand their due rights. I have in mind in particular old age pensioners and blind pensioners. These unfortunate people have made representations to every Deputy and to every local authority. When we make representations to the Minister, we get back a reply on a slip of paper in a language the unfortunate person to whom I must give it knows nothing of. I have repeatedly sent back those acknowledgments to the Department and demanded that never again was one of those to be sent to my address if it was not in the language of the original letter. But still they come. I am supposed to go down to these unfortunate people, who find it all they can do to read the daily paper, and produce this document in a language they know nothing about. This is the approach of the Minister to his Department. It is only typical of the Cromwellian manner in which the whole Department is handled.
I object again to delays in payment. Weeks and months go by and these unfortunate people, who have a legitimate case, are held up because some of these boys in Aras Mhic Dhiarmada find that it is 5 o'clock and they have to close their files until next morning. These people are coming to us in the local authorities and we have to bring them to the home assistance officer for home assistance which is paid from the ratepayers' pockets and try to get them enough to live on until the dilatory members of the Minister's Department will give them some semblance of consideration.
I brought a case to the Minister's notice last year. It was the case of a man who applied for old age pension in August, 1963, and the claim was not settled until October, 1964. We were told investigations were going on. The investigation was simple. The applicant's employer refused to keep his card up to date by stamping it. That unfortunate man had to wait until October, 1964, before he received his first old age pension allowance. The Minister sat idly by not knowing the conditions under which that unfortunate man had to survive; he did not care nor did his officials care, but for whatever an official does or does not do, and whenever an official is negligent, the Minister must stand responsible.
When the Minister was questioned here, he took an approach which was unheard of in the House, but it did not redound to the Minister's credit because my constituents know me and they know the workings of the Department of Social Welfare. It is high time now—and we hope on the eve of a general election—that the Minister was shaken into realising the responsibilities of the Department which he controls. He is as divorced from his Department as Satan is from Holy Water. That has been my experience.
Leaving aside this question of the delay from August, 1963, to October, 1964, because an employer for one reason or another refused to stamp his employee's card, I am faced with a problem in Limerick involving an employer who is not in a position to stamp the cards of his employees, some of whom are skilled and some unskilled. Because their cards are not stamped these men are deprived of social welfare benefits. This situation has arisen through no fault of the worker. His money was deducted each week from his pay packet and at the time the employer did not stamp his card and now he is not in a position to do it. Who is the sufferer? The wife and children of the worker. Where does the Minister or his Department come in? They stick their heads in the sand as the Minister has done in regard to the quads in County Limerick and as he did with the old age pensioner and the man in Castleconnell.
I cannot see that the Minister is displaying any sense of responsibility in the control of his Department. Does he know what is happening there at all? I will tell him a few more things about his Department. In Limerick city, and I am sure the same applies to every city and town where there is a port and where men are employed on a daily basis, either on the docks or elsewhere, and present themselves for work each morning, if there is no work, they make their claim at the local employment exchange. On the second morning the same position may arise but on the third morning there may be employment available. They are then faced with this position: they can go to work for the day and get 50/- or they may not go to work but sign on at the exchange for the third day. What is a man to do? If he has a wife and family, he will get more by going to the employment exchange. That is the ridiculous situation.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this—I suppose he is—but the result is that numerous prosecutions are pending because the Act lends itself to the situation and it is hard to blame any man who will come along and to keep his claim alive will sign on the third morning, although there is work to be got. According to the law, the man cannot do it. Now the law is set on these unfortunate workers. Some of them have already been fined £20 or £25. If the Minister were realistic and if he had any consideration for the people for whom the Department should cater, that position should be tackled and righted, and we would not have the situation that these people if they do not work get more money than if they do work.
Did anyone ever hear of such a ridiculous situation? The same thing has happened in Cork, Dublin, Sligo and Waterford. If my information is correct, instead of trying to rectify the position in the interests of honesty and of the worker and his family, the Minister set aside six inspectors, one of whom was to go to each of the ports, and indeed two to some of them. I know that one came to Limerick some time ago and checked up on every man's activities over a period. Instead of trying to help the people and to put things right he set about trapping them, bringing them to court involving them in severe fines. That is not the solution to the problem. It is an easy thing to trap anybody if you set about doing it. The Ministers' responsibility is not that of a trapper. It is his duty and his responsibility to help and he is not doing it.
Even though we have the best intentions when legislation is being introduced and when regulations are made, we find on experience—as we all do in business and everywhere else —that everything does not always turn out according to our plans and then we have to alter them. Any good businessman will do that. He will alter and tackle sales accordingly; but not so with the Minister and not so with his Department. Bring them to court and disgrace them: that is the approach. I suppose it is a case of briseann an duchais tré shúilibh an chait. These are serious matters as far as I am concerned and must be righted by the Department if the Minister wants to do his job properly. Up to now, he has not satisfied me on that.
Now we come to another situation with regard to his Department. What a history could be written about it. Laurel and Hardy and Hans Andersen would all be put in the ha'penny place, where suitability is concerned, in the operation of this Department. People make legitimate claims which are held up and then they approach a public representative to find out the cause of the delay. When we make inquiries at the employment exchange, we discover that particulars of the case were sent to Dublin four or five weeks earlier and they cannot say when they will have further information. If we go to Dublin and inquire about the delay there, the answer is: "We are investigating"—as if they could investigate anything from Dublin.
Take a man in an office in Dublin from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. with maybe an hour or two hours out of that for a chat, for coffee, for lunch and a smoke. What can he investigate in a back street in Limerick? Who is he to judge any case that comes from any place except his own locality? The local man is not consulted at all. He does the best he can, of course, and tries to be helpful—not like the buckos in Dublin. He knows everybody and all the local surroundings; he knows the claimants and their position. However, he has to send the case up to Dublin.
If it suits a higher civil servant at one minute to 5 p.m. to say: "We will leave that case on one side," little does he think of the inconvenience he is causing to that husband and that father or that family 100 or 200 miles away. Does the Minister care? "Everything is going grand," according to the Minister. Hardly a week goes by that I have not to report to the Department because of undue delays. They are investigating: certificates are forwarded as well as all other relevant information but yet there is a delay. The doctor says the claimant is unfit for work while somebody in Dublin says he is fit for work and everything is held up. The tragic part of all this is that, in the meantime and while the lad in Aras Mhic Dhiarmada is out in Woodbrook or wherever else he may be, these people must live and must be fed. Who has the responsibility for doing so—the local authority, the home assistance officer. I can substantiate everything I say and my record of complaints is there in the Department. It is about time the Minister shook himself and realised his responsibilities.
I am sure every local authority are in the same position with regard to the necessary increase in rates that they find that the demands made on people are beyond what they can carry. If we are serious about reducing the burden on the ratepayer, the Minister could make a better contribution to a reduction in the rates than we in public authorities can. Why does he not take the demand off the home assistance officer by being alert and attending to the duties of his Department and to the legitimate claims lodged with his Department every day in the week? If that were so and if the claims were met in a reasonable time and dealt with locally then, as far as the city and county of Limerick are concerned, there would be a substantial reduction in our rates and in the Rates Department this year and the same can be said of every year in the past.
The Minister does not seem to realise the responsibilities of his Department. Even at this late stage and even if we are on the eve of a general election, through desperation, through pressure brought to bear upon him and for the sake of trying to come back here into those same benches, which I doubt, he should now—for all these reasons and leaving aside the unfortunate children and the mother who have got to go down like paupers to the home assistance officer and beg an amount that will barely keep them in existence on bread and tea for the week—face up to his responsibilities.
That is the true picture, the true situation as far as Limerick is concerned and there is no man closer to the situation in Limerick than I am. I know them and they know me. What then is the use in our coming up here with an indelible blueprint representing a situation we know so well if all we are doing is talking to the stones in the quarry? I have said those things in the past; I have sent the same complaints to the Minister but I found I was only wasting my time. Nothing has been done. The same old ding dong continues day after day.
This morning before I left home I had a letter from a claimant in the town of Hospital in County Limerick. He had spent four weeks in hospital. He got his certificate and other documents and sent them to the Social Welfare officer in the town of Bruff. The man is home now. He has nothing to get. He is a single man luckily, and the neighbours are feeding him. When I complained to the Social Welfare officer I got a reply in the form of a letter telling me that the patient's claim had gone to Dublin, that he could do nothing about it but hoped to have the reply before long. The neighbours are feeding that boy in the village of Hospital today.
How do you account for a situation like that? There is no excuse for such things. Either we are indolent or we are adopting a do-not-care-less attitude. If we are indolent there is a solution: it is the boot and the door and a single ticket. If it is a do-not-care-less attitude, then the Minister must come in and act in a responsible manner as a man in charge of a Department should act. My experience is that he is as far removed from his Department as Satan is from holy water.
I am making such complaints to the Department daily. Every day of the week I make them without result. When will the Minister realise that people cannot live on the wind? When will he realise that people are entitled immediately to their legitimate wants? When will he realise that the 10 to 5 approach in Aras Mhic Dhiarmada is not as important as the round of golf at Woodbrook? When will be realise that because of all those things, because of the delays, the ineptitudes, the indolence, unfortunate people are inconvenienced to the brink of starvation throughout the country?
I speak with a full sense of the responsibility of my position; I speak from my experience in 15 years of public life; I speak on behalf of a rural area which is controlled from O'Connell Street, Dublin, by a person who, I feel sure, would find it difficult to pick out Limerick on the map of Ireland. I want to impress, if impression is possible, on the Minister that this will have to stop. I give him a concluding warning now that before many moons and when I am finished with the position in regard to the quads and the provision for them in Limerick the Minister will realise his responsibility.
If I have to go from door to door, if I have to hold flag days and rag days, if I have to raise the wind so that that unfortunate family in Pallas will have their position brought home to the Minister—seven children, including twins and now four more—I shall do all those things. What has the Minister done about it? He has thrown it over to the county council saying it is their responsibility. I raised that matter at a meeting of the health authority in Limerick last Friday. The manager, as amenable and co-operative a gentleman as there is in the land, is prepared to go as far as he is allowed to by regulation. But what is that? It is home assistance. If those children are reared on home assistance the finger of scorn can be pointed at them and it can be said: "You were reared like orphans on home assistance. That is how you lived, were fed and clothed." Is that the type of situation that should be allowed to arise in 1965? If that does happen it can be said of this family that the charity of the parish fed them, that the charity of the parish clothed them, that the charity of the parish educated them.
Is that what the Minister wants to see happen in Limerick? I have news for him. The shillings we raise—and we shall raise them, do you not worry about it—will bring forcibly to his attention his lack of charity and humanity. The wound which I have opened now will have salt rubbed into it. It will be kept open. However, I give the Minister one more chance to reconsider the matter in the light of justice, fair play, decency and humanity. This family created history. The quads will be kept in the maternity hospital in Limerick until they are able to leave it. When they come out they will do so as independent citizens. We shall provide for them without the Minister or his Department. Those children will be fed, clothed, educated. I do ask, however, is there any sense of decency or humanity in a person who can act as the Minister is now acting in respect of four young children and of the seven already on the floor?
The county council will go as far as they can. They are providing an extension to the house; they are installing hot water and a bathroom but that is the extent to which they can go. Everybody has gone to the limit on this issue but the Minister will not make a move at all. I shall close with the warning that every day I am alive, wherever I may be and wherever the Minister for Social Welfare may be, he will be reminded of the Cromwellian approach to the situation.
Nuair a bhí an Teachta Tully ag caint ar maidin, rinne sé comhgháirdeachas leis an Aire agus le h-oifigí na Roinne as ucht a laghachaí a bhíodar leis agus le gach éinne roimhe seo nuair a bhí eolas nó cúnamh ag teastáil uathu. Is aoibhinn liom a rá gur mar sin a bhí an scéal agam féin agus ag na Teachtaí eile murab ionann is a comh-Teachta a labhair ó chianaibhín. Ní lía tír ná tuairim adeir an seanfhocal agus dar ndóigh fíoraíodh an seanfhocal céanna inniu.
Ba mhaith liom tréaslú don Aire toisc gur labhair sé i nGaeilge nuair do chuir sé an Meastachán ós cóir an Tí. Dúirt an Teachta Coughlan cúpla nóimeat ó shoin go mbriseann an dúchas tré shúilibh an chait. Is dual don Aire bheith Gaelach. Is dual dó gean agus grá a bheith aige don Ghaeilge agus do leas na tíre. Más dúchas den chineál sin a bhí i gceist ag an Teachta Coughlan réitím leis, ach is eagal liom go raibh níos mó spéis ag an dTeachta in asachán agus cáineadh, ná mar a bhí aige sa bfhírinne. Ar aon chuma, ní maith liomsa bheith ag tromaíocht ar éinne agus fágfad an scéal mar sin.
Bhí áthas orm a chlos go raibh méadú ar an airgead a cuireadh ar fáil i mbliana dóibh siúd a bhí ag brath ar chúnamh ón Rialtas. Tá súil agam go leanfaidh an méadú sin ó bhliain go chéile i dtreo ná beidh ganntanas orthu siúd atá ar an gcaol-chuid.
Nuair a bhí Teachtaí áirithe ag caint ar maidin, dúradar gur beag le rá an méid airgid a chaitear ar na seirbhísí i láthair na h-uaire i gcomparáid leis an gcostas beatha. Ní dóigh liom go raibh an ceart acu. Fuaradar féin caoi faoi dhó feabhas do chur ar an scéal agus is beag a rinneadar.
Mar adúirt an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh rinne an Teachta Coughlan cáineadh thar fóir. Bhéadh sé éasca dhomsa dearmad a dhéanamh de go raibh furmhór na dTeachtaí eile go réasúnta ag plé leis an Meastachán agus sompla an Teachta Coughlan a leanúint in ionad sompla na dTeachtaí eile.
Rinne an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh tagairt freisin don tagairt a rinne an Teachta Dillon i dtaobh an costais bheatha bheith ag dul in aoirde agus ag cur i gcéill nach bhfuil na scéimeanna leasa shóisialaigh ag coinneál suas leis an gcostas beatha. Ar ndóigh, ní fíor sin. Is fuirist a theasbáint go bhfuil an fás a tháinig ar na h-íocaíochtaí faoi na scéimeanna leasa shóisialaigh níos mó ná an méadúa tháinig ar an gcostas beatha. Ní h-ionann sin agus a rá go bhfuilimse sásta leis na h-íocaíochtaí seo ach is féidir a theasbáint go bhfuil feabhas ag teacht orthu in diaidh a chéile.
It would be easy from listening to the last two speakers, Deputy Coughlan and Deputy Dr. Browne, for me to forget that this Estimate has been dealt with in a reasonable way by every other Deputy who spoke and it would be easy to make the mistake of following the example of the last two speakers rather than deal with the more serious contributions made by other Deputies.
Deputy Dillon referred to the rise in the cost of living. He stated that the 37/6d., the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension, would be equal to 28/- in 1957. I have not had an opportunity to check these figures but in actual fact the rate of these pensions in 1957 was only 24/-, so even on the basis of Deputy Dillon's calculation it is a fact, as he himself has shown, that there has been improvement relative to the cost of living in the maximum rate of the non-contributory old age pension.
I do not claim to be satisfied with the improvement that has taken place but it is a fact that there has been this continuous improvement and our policy is to continue along those lines. If the increase in the old age pension were to be based solely on the increase in the cost of living, as would appear to be the case made by a number of speakers here, and if we were to accept the rate that was in existence when we came into office as a basis for that purpose, then the rate of non-contributory old age pension would be only 31/- at the moment instead of 37/6d.
The cost of living index figure in February, 1957, which was the latest figure available when we came into office, stood at a level of 135. In November, 1964, it was increased by 29.6 per cent. The increase in the non-contributory old age pension has been 56.25 per cent. The increase in the rate of unemployment assistance for a man with a wife in a rural area has been 100 per cent and in an urban area 75 per cent. The non-contributory old age pension has been increased by 60 per cent. The contributory old age pension was introduced only in 1961 and a lot of people who are in receipt of that pension would not in fact have any social welfare payment at all were it not for the introduction of that scheme.
The personal rates of the other insurance benefits, widows' pensions, unemployment and disability benefits, have increased by 41? per cent. If we are to base the argument for increases in social welfare benefits purely on the rise in the cost of living, then we can say the position has been taken care of. In my opinion, the basis from which we started has not been satisfactory and it is necessary to speed up these rates of improvement.
It is true of course if we only go back to the time the last increases were granted, it can be shown that the cost of living has increased since that time. If we were to argue from that limited basis, we could say from this point of view further rises are due. But as I said earlier, if you take a longer picture, you can show that the increase in the cost of living has been taken care of in advance. We are acting on a different principle, a principle which in present circumstances is more advantageous to the recipients of social welfare, that is of ensuring that the social welfare recipients obtain increases in line with increases in the national income.
We have been bearing in mind, in implementing that policy, the basic inadequacy of the rates in many but not in all of the schemes. There has been this gradual improvement representing a continuous gain over the cost of living. The time for considering the question of what, if anything should be done with regard to the social welfare payments this year is approaching, the time when we can see the whole picture, when we can see the total bill which has to be met for the current year in conjunction with the estimate of the revenue that will be available from the revenue received from existing rates of taxation.
I am not in a position to say what will be done in this regard. Our record, particularly since 1957, shows that some improvement in social welfare payments has been given every year. That, in itself, should be sufficient guarantee that this question will be approached in a sympathetic way. I hope, should it be decided to make further improvements this year, that there will be support for the necessary measures to raise the money that will be required. Unfortunately my experience leads me to believe that this hope may not be realised. In so far as I am concerned, as Minister for Social Welfare, I realise that at some stage in the progress of the country and its economy the time will come for speeding up the improvement in social welfare rates. In other words, we should at some stage take a decision to acquire a greater amount of the increasing prosperity to be distributed in this way.
The Government, for fairly obvious reasons, who are engaged in a campaign to improve production in the country as a whole, must bear in mind the fundamental requirement, in the interest of the recipients of social welfare as well as of everyone else, that nothing must be done that would retard the development of the country. Our hopes of providing more adequate rates of payment rest fundamentally on the development of the country's economy.
Deputy Dillon and Deputy Tully referred to the rule which is used to decide whether or not a claimant for unemployment benefit is in fact unemployed, available for and seeking work, that is if he earns more than 10/- per day from another occupation he is held not to be unemployed. I want to make it clear that this is not a means test, that it is not possible to take into account the family circumstances of the man. This is not a means test. It is a test of whether or not the man is unemployed. The figure of 6/8, which is used, is a figure which is still used in Great Britain in regard to this particular test.
We have to have some way of deciding whether the man is in fact unemployed or not. This rule, in my opinion, is not administered as rigidly as Deputy Tully appeared to think it was. He mentioned if a man earns 10/3 he is ruled out. I think, in general, this rule, which does not crop up very often, is administered in the spirit rather than in the letter, in other words, if the man appears to be genuinely unemployed and seeking work there is not a rigorous investigation into his means.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Dillon about a person on disability benefit performing light work of a rehabilitatory nature and being a recipient of a disability benefit without its affecting his entitlement to the benefit, that would be all right but anything in the nature of ordinary full scale work will, of course, rule him out.
If it is not full-time work, he would be all right for fullscale payment.
Yes. On the other hand, I recall a case in which it was sought to establish that the driving of a taxi was rehabilitatory work. That of course had to be looked on as employment. Therefore, the person was disqualified for disability benefit. With regard to the particular case which Deputy Dillon raised of where it was ruled the Gardai were exempt from stamping employees cards on Monday and the bill which the employer of the person concerned, on Tuesday, was called upon to pay, I shall look into that particular case to see if there is any case for apportioning some of the person concerned, on Tuesday, was that particular case to see if there is any case of apportioning some of the blame for the amount of repayments that accrued to the Departments investigation machinery. If that can be done I do not think it would be reasonable to ask the employer concerned to foot the whole bill.
I am obliged to the Minister.
Reference was made to the children's allowances for old age pensions, which were introduced last year. These allowances are being paid to almost 3,000 children, taking both non-contributory and contributory into account. There are slightly over 1,400 pensions affected.
Can the Minister conveniently segregate the children in respect of non-contributory old age pensions?
The figure is 1,242 for contributory and 1,637 for non-contributory. As I mentioned, in my opening statement, there is one non-contributory pension being paid in respect of as many as 10 children. Deputy Tully mentioned the fact that there was no adult dependant allowance paid with non-contributory old age pensions. Of course, when these children's allowances were introduced, or prior to them being introduced, the old age pension schemes were the only schemes administered by my Department to which children's allowances did not attach.
When that anomaly was cleared up, it immediately pinpointed the fact there was no adult dependant's allowances with the non-contributory old age pensions, whereas there was with the contributory. That appears at first sight to be an anomalous situation. It is not just as clear a picture as that because in assessing means for non-contributory old age pensions the means, as assessed, are halved, that is, only half the means is taken into account.
If they have no means?
If they have no means, the question certainly arises. There is also the fact, that unlike other social welfare schemes, in regard to the non-contributory old age pension, both of the couple can qualify, provided they have reached the age. This is not just a simple case where you can attach the adult dependant's allowance to the non-contributory old age pension. There is a little more to it than that. The question is, however, under consideration.
To go back for a moment to the point made by Deputy Tully in regard to the 10/- per day rule in relation to unemployment benefit, I think it is necessary to have some way of deciding whether a man is genuinely unemployed. Deputy Tully mentioned farmers who came into the city to work for builders. He mentioned one particular case of a farmer with 13 children from Meath who was working for a builder in Dublin. Of course Deputy Tully will understand that in that case the benefit which would be available to a person with 13 children is £9 6s. 6d. I am not saying this applies in the particular case he referred to, but he will see that it would be advantageous to such a person if he could manage to keep his farm going until he had acquired the necessary stamps, and he could then fall back on a social welfare benefit of one form or another. It would amount, in fact—or would be comparable—to what he would earn without having the trouble of travelling from his home.
Surely the number of children should be taken into account? He should not be treated as a single man.
As I have pointed out, it is not a means test. The test is whether or not the man is fully unemployed and really available for work. It is not feasible to take the family circumstances into account. Deputy Tully also mentioned the case where, because of the fact that they have another occupation available, people cannot qualify for unemployment benefit and he said it was unfair to take the contribution from them. I think if he considers this more closely he will agree that if we were to rule in advance that a person was not eligible for the receipt of unemployment benefit and therefore his card need not be stamped, we would be making it more attractive for employers to employ people who were not genuine workers but had other occupations available to them. There would be a financial advantage to the employers, and I do not think that would be desirable. However, this does not arise very often. I admit it is awkward when it does arise. I can see no other way of dealing with it, and other countries do not seem to have discovered any other way than to have this rule, such as it is.
The rate of the non-contributory old age pension came in for a lot of criticism. Deputies said the figure of 37/6 is too small. Of course I agree it is too small. This 37/6 is given in the case of a person who may have £52 10s. per annum in income, and £52 5s. in voluntary donations, and maintenance is not taken into account. A person could conceivably have an income of up to £2 a week and be maintained at home by relatives, and still get 37/6.
That leaves the case of the person who has nothing, and who is not maintained by relatives. I agree in such a case home assistance of a fairly substantial amount would be necessary, but I think those cases can best be dealt with locally. Deputy Tully appealed to me to give the little extra that would be required. Unfortunately, when that little extra is related to the 112,000 recipients of non-contributory old age pensions, the total is not small. It was a big problem to get even the amount of money which was necessary to give the comparatively small increases which it has been possible to give so far.
Is the Minister satisfied that really necessitous old age pensioners living alone do get home assistance?
I have not had complaints that they were not getting it.
The trouble is that those are the people who will not ask for it. They would starve first.
Deputies should try to get rid of that mentality in these cases. Old age pensions are now looked upon as something to which a person is entitled, or is not entitled, and home assistance should be looked upon in the same way.
Will the ratepayers have to pay for it?
It is hard to deal with people who will not ask for the benefits that are available to them. In regard to the disqualification from unemployment benefit of people on strike, I think it is generally agreed that the Department cannot appear to take sides, particularly when contributions are paid both by employers and employees. It is fairly well accepted that this disqualification has to be there. However, I want to make it clear that there is no disqualification from receipt of home assistance.
The Dublin Health Authority were not aware of that until fairly late during the last strike.
My information is that every case was dealt with on its merits.
How long did it take?
There may have been some cases where people became genuinely unemployed and suffered because of the fact that the strike took place, but I think most cases were cleared up and satisfactorily dealt with when the evidence was available.
I agree it is unpleasant that when an increase is given in Garda widows' pensions there has to be a corresponding decrease in non-contributory widows' pension. My Department are at present in touch with the Department of Justice in regard to this matter——
Hear, hear.
——and we hope it will be possible to deal with it in some other way. At the time I extended the period for averaging the number of contributions for contributory old age pensions to 20 years, it was thought that extension was the most that was practical, but we are still considering whether it is possible to make any further extension to bring in people who feel they are being harshly treated.
It would be greatly appreciated if the Minister could.
Deputy MacEoin referred to what he described as the difference in attitude between different social welfare officers. I do not think there can be very much in that. Every effort is certainly made to have as much uniformity as possible in dealing with these cases, but individuals have to apply the regulations and there may be some disparities. The instructions given are comprehensive, and we also have supervisors in charge of an area in which a number of different social welfare officers are working, who supervise the recommendations and general approach of social welfare officers. They are people who have wide experience of this matter and they try to have as much uniformity as possible. Occasionally a comparison is made of the number of cases where a deciding officer rejects the appeals made against the decision of an old age pensions committee by the social welfare officer and if that discloses any obviously wrong approach by the social welfare officer, his attitude can usually be corrected.
Deputy MacEoin also mentioned a number of particular cases. If he sends me particulars of these I shall have them sympathetically considered. Another regulation that was criticised as being harsh was the regulation that a recipient of disability benefit should always leave information as to where he is at any time when he leaves home. That is regrettable but it is necessary because social welfare officers investigating these cases could meet with wholesale obstruction in this matter.
Deputy Leneghan referred to the question of unemployment assistance for smallholders. He welcomed the change in the method of means assessment which I have announced it as my intention to make and he asked that in addition the signing regulations should be alleviated. When I am introducing the new amendment I shall consider what can be done in the case of smallholder recipients in regard to the question of signing to prove unemployment.
The £4 valuation limit was mentioned but I should explain that this limit applies only in the case of employment period orders. The first employment period order excludes smallholders whose valuation is over £4. It is not an overall limit on the receipt of unemployment assistance which can be received for the remaining portion of the year except when the employment period order is actually in operation. The whole question of employment period orders is under consideration at present. The estimated cost of the proposed amendment of the scheme is quite high, surprisingly so I think, but according to figures that are available for the census return it appears there are a number of smallholders who are not at present in receipt of unemployment assistance who would qualify under the new system of means assessment which I propose to introduce. I do not know whether that is so or if there is some deficiency in the information available in the census but that appears to be the position. So, before I can contemplate making any other improvement in the unemployment assistance scheme as it applies to smallholders we shall have to wait and see how this proposal will work out financially.
Deputy Leneghan also criticised the medical referee system and claimed that the local doctor's certificate should be sufficient. In the next breath he complained that benefits were far too low but if there is to be no system for eliminating abuses the problem of improving benefits will be accentuated. It is found necessary to have this system of referring disability benefit cases to medical referees.
I do not think there are any other points that require to be dealt with. I thank Deputies generally for the manner in which they dealt with the estimate and I would ask the House to give it their approval.
I should like to ask the Minister a question which I overlooked in the course of the debate. Has it ever struck him, particularly in urban centres, that there is an extraordinarily gloomy atmosphere about employment exchanges and would he consider arranging to have these establishments cleaned up and somewhat less prison-like in their atmosphere?
People who must call there are gloomy, no matter what the building is like.
There seems no reason why they should be so broken down and decrepit. They are employment exchanges and are not there for the distribution of the dole. They are places where people go who hope for employment.
We shall see if anything can be done to brighten them up.
Vote put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 23rd March, 1965.