The Minister should consider that point. At the moment, a man is entitled to disability and unemployment benefits, which give him something. The difference is very slight between the contributory old age pension and the benefits in question. This would be an offsetting factor at the labour exchanges. It would give relief to many hard-pressed civil servants and quite possibly would mean a reduction in their number if the pension were paid out, in the normal way, through the medium of the pension book. It is a step that will have to be taken at some stage. Now is the opportune time. There will be no loss to the Exchequer, and, from that point of view, this is something that can be brought about with a minimum of disruption.
With regard to widows' non-contributory pensions there is need for serious consideration. If a widow with a non-contributory pension is in temporary employment for ten or 20 weeks, her earnings are taken into consideration for the purpose of reducing her pension during the remaining period. This is a very serious situation. It causes a great deal of distress to those unfortunate widows. Sympathetic consideration should be given to this matter. There is a valid reason for altering the present system.
The Minister is responsible for providing the moneys for school meals. An investigation should be carried out by the Department of Social Welfare to find out if this money is spent to the best advantage. I am quite sure that any investigation would show that the children could have much better fare for the money provided. The responsibility rests primarily on the local authority, but the Minister should have an investigation into the type of meals supplied and the wastage that occurs. Some new system should be evolved designed to provide a more palatable meal for these children.
With regard to disabled persons, I raised a matter with the Minister for Local Government in connection with motor car taxation and he referred me to the Minister for Social Welfare. Where these people use cars for the purpose of their employment, they have to pay insurance in excess of 50 per cent and have to pay full tax. The Minister for Local Government is not prepared to make any concession. These disabled persons are put to the pin of their collar to keep these cars running. Where the cars are very small, the tax is only 5/-, but in other countries disabled persons pay a very low rate of tax, a tax which does not impose any burden on their incomes. The earning capacity of these people is limited because of disability and surely some allowance should be made to enable them to pursue their employment? The Minister might examine into this matter and make the necessary arrangements to have some allowance made to offset tax and insurance.
The Minister provides the money necessary to make fuel available for necessitous families. In many cases grave injustice is done to those in receipt of this fuel because they have to pay 2/- per bag, or perhaps 1/6 per bag, to have the fuel delivered, on top of the payment for the voucher. I believe a cash payment should be made to these people. That would enable them to buy briquettes or coal and have it delivered at no extra cost. Some revision is called for. I ask the Minister to have a look at this scheme and to ensure that the money is spent to the very best advantage of those in receipt of this fuel.
No great publicity has been given to this scheme and there are people who could benefit under it but who are unaware of its existence. Steps should be taken to publicise social welfare schemes. The books published by the Department should be available in post offices or Garda barracks in the same way as the electoral register is available for examination. It is only when one reads the book that one becomes aware of the many types of assistance available.
With regard to medical referees, there is a sum of £74,800 for travelling expenses, etc., in relation to the examination of persons by medical referees. This is a matter about which I am not quite clear. First of all, why is it necessary for these people to come before the referee if the certificate of the medical practitioner in the area is accepted? Does it mean that the certificate will be accepted for a particular period? Is there some other way in which the Minister can have the situation checked on? To my mind, it is a terrible reflection on the medical practitioners who are submitting certificates week after week. I should like to know how many cases are rejected by the medical referee and told to go back to work as a result of the examination by the social welfare officer. If a man who is really sick is called upon to travel to the Custom House, or elsewhere, he gets his subsistence allowance and his travelling expenses but the journey could make him much worse than he was. A more simplified system should be put into operation.
I just cannot understand how a certificate can be accepted from a doctor for six, eight, ten or 12 weeks and then the man is told that he is fit to go back to work, even though the doctor has submitted a certificate to say that the man is unfit. Where the logic is in that I do not know. In such a case, is the doctor who submitted the certificate crossed off and are no further certificates accepted from him? There may be a valid explanation for all this. I believe the Minister should be in a position to have, if necessary, his own medical personnel in a particular area who would be able to certify. I cannot understand why we accept some certificates and do not accept others.
There is at present the question of people who would have come in again under the social welfare code, due to the alteration in the ceiling. When the ceiling was raised to £1,200, quite a number of people who were previously outside the limit came back in. There is the case in CIE and elsewhere of people who have been in and out, due to the variation in the ceiling over a number of years, and who continued to pay voluntary contributions in order to be eligible for benefits they thought desirable and necessary. After the last change in the ceiling, CIE would not bring in a certain section who were under that ceiling. This is a very serious situation and one whereby many men can be deprived of the contributory old age pension by virtue of the fact that CIIE insist that it is only necessary for them to insure for widows and orphans. In time to come, it is going to affect many people if they get away with this.
I believe there is a case being made again to insure many of these people who are under £1,200 and are not fully insured at present. I am sure the Minister and his Department would seek out any employer who failed to bring into the social welfare grouping people under that amount. If these men are under £1,200, there is no reason why they should be debarred by CIE from getting the full benefits to which they are entitled. I would ask the Minister to have another look at this very serious situation which in years to come will affect many CIE workers who were outside the code and whose earnings now are such as to bring them in.
I have in mind an urgent case and next year will be too late to do anything about it, the case of a man who if he is not brought in under the social welfare code by the full contribution, will not be in a position to have the necessary number of stamps to qualify for the old age pension. I wonder would CIE make up the difference in that case? I am sure they would not. They are not a very friendly group when approached about problems of this kind. For that reason, I would ask the Minister to come down heavily on them, if they do not face up fully to their responsibilities to the workers.
Last week in the Dáil, I heard Deputy Dillon talking about a poor, friendless, homeless, hungry man and I was amused when I listened to him, but I would not be so amused today because I am aware now of a case which requires investigation. It is a case of a young man who went to England, spent three years there, and then returned here because of a nervous breakdown. During that period he was sufficiently thrifty to save a few hundred pounds, not enough to buy a motorcar, but if he had spent the money on drink or other forms of amusement and had no money now, he would be entitled to some form of assistance. He lodged this money week after week with a building society. He was only a labourer and, therefore, his earning capacity was not great. When he applied for unemployment assistance, his assessed means, after examination, were somewhere in the region of 50/- and on appeal the assessment was in the region of 40/-. Taken into account in that assessment were the free lodgings he had in his father's house. He was not earning while he had these lodgings but he was deprived of assistance of any kind. He sleeps in the house but buys his food out. He is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, due to his condition. His father has told him that unless he can produce the necessary means to exist, he can sleep in the house but cannot eat there.
This is not an exceptional case and it is one that should be more closely examined. I wonder if the man slept in the Iveagh buildings what would be the reaction to his case? Would he then get assistance? I am quite sure he would. If the man had spent his money on wine, women or something else and had come back without any money, then the case would be different and they would be only too happy to help him. Because he did not do that and because the money he lodged is assessed as means, he is deprived of assistance which he wanted only until he could get gainful employment. I believe that he will not get gainful employment and if he does not end up in a hospital, he will end up in some kind of institution. It seems to me that the simplest thing for him to do would be to take his money out of the building society and then if he applied for assistance, he would not be assessed on that amount. This case may not have come to the Minister's notice but I would ask him to have the matter examined to ensure that justice is done. This line, which one must very often toe, causes very great inconvenience. We must approach the case more humanely. I believe this regulation should be modified to a degree whereby one can get assistance when one is in need of it.
The next section I want to deal with are the old age pensioners. I believe one of the previous speakers indicated that delay in payment is a factor which causes some people to go into institutions. I have known only one case where the delay in payment meant the person going into an institution. Those people become nervous while waiting very often six or seven weeks. There may be a very valid excuse why the delay in payment occurs but there, again, it is purely a regulation drawn up with no human approach to the problem.
The very rigid line which one must toe should be examined in regard to those old people. The interview by the investigation officer in regard to those people is very important. It is a very delicate situation. Old people are sometimes proud. Sometimes old age pensioners should qualify for supplementary assistance but they fail to apply for various reasons. If it is a question that additional payments are necessary it should be brought to their notice. I know, on occasions, where old people were interviewed. They were entitled to additional facilities but there was never any mention of those facilities. The people in social welfare are only concerned about their own job and are not concerned about the supplementary assistance which those people obtain from various charitable organisations.
A page should be inserted in the pension books indicating the supplementary assistance which old people can obtain. The old age pensioner could consult this page in his pension book from time to time. He would then know what he could obtain. I would ask the Minister to have another word with the people in his Department who are dealing with old age pensioners. Those old people are very dear to the hearts of all public representatives. Public representatives have indicated their desire to see that the problems of the old people are fully met. Most of them feel that the assistance which those people should obtain should be given to them even at expense to the nation. I am quite sure that no person would begrudge additional taxation if it made the lot of old age pensioners better than it is at the moment, particularly people on non-contributory old age pensions.
I have seen old age pensioners from Ballyfermot, Drimnagh or Crumlin walking to the post office, which very often is a considerable distance away, and empty CIE buses passing by. Those old people are unable to pay the bus fares. CIE on many occasions have been approached and asked to provide free travel for those people during the off-peak hours. This may be well away from the Estimate under consideration but I believe that the Minister could have some type of offsetting factor there by way of a voucher which could be issued to those people in the same way as the turf vouchers are issued at the moment. They could then obtain free travel during the off-peak hours. I do not see why CIE could not provide such free travel, particularly as many transport authorities in other countries provide free travel for old people.
I see the Minister gets rent of £15,000 from CIE. He could very well raise that and see that free transport was provided for those old people during the off-peak hours. In the centre of Dublin people can travel during off-peak hours at very reduced rates but where this is really required, in the perimeter areas of the city, no such concessions are available. It is deplorable that we have a transport system here which does not give those facilities to old people who wish to travel during the off-peak hours when empty buses are travelling during those hours. Those facilities should be available in the outer areas of Crumlin, Drimnagh, Ballyfermot and on the other side of the city at Coolock and Finglas. If CIE expect the city service to pay at the expense of the old people we must have fresh thinking on this matter. I would ask that some type of consideration would be given to this particular aspect. This matter has been raised here before. It has been raised at Dublin City Council and at every council throughout the country. I am quite sure there are no members of the Dublin local authority or of the national Parliament who would object in any way to any offsetting factor, even if it meant additional taxation, in order to meet the needs of the old people.
Once again, I would ask the Minister to consider making available a list of social services so that people can consult it without having to go to the office and paying 1/6d, if it can still be obtained. At one time this could be obtained in the Government Publications Office. It is hard to expect old people to pay this money to know the services which they can obtain. They are hardly likely to say: "I will go down and get a copy and see what it is all about." This could be made available in many ways. It could be made available through the local press and also in the post office. The post office would probably be the most desirable place because it is there that pensions are paid. The people in need of additional assistance could consult such a list there. I believe that an additional page in the pension book giving an indication of the different types of assistance that are available to old people, of which they are not aware at the moment, is something well worth considering.
In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the question of disabled people. I would ask him to provide some offsetting factor whereby disabled people can meet the high cost which often has prevented them from taking up employment where a car was necessary. The Minister should provide some assistance by way of relief in taxation. He could consult with his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, and have the rate of taxation on cars for such disabled people reduced. This would ensure that they could obtain different types of employment. Disabled people suffer a grave inconvenience because of their disability and they are precluded from taking up gainful employment of the nature which can be carried out where there is no disability. I would ask the Minister to consider that and to be mindful of the fact that there is in this city at the moment a section who are trying to deprive people of the benefits to which they are duly entitled under existing legislation. No one such group should get away with that type of tactics.