Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Oct 1966

Vol. 224 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Social Welfare (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £42,203,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain Services administered by that office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for Sundry Grants— (Minister for Social Welfare.)

Mr. Jones

I want to mention a point that has already been referred to many times in the debate. It concerns the operation of the means test as it is applied to applicants for social welfare benefit. Its operation is particularly hard in the case of widows trying to establish entitlement to widows' pensions. I should like the Minister to note that this is particularly so in the case of widows on small-holdings, the type of case where a woman finds herself trying to carry on a farm after the death of her husband. The means, as disclosed by the investigation officer, will be based, particularly in the southern counties, on the produce of milk and so on. Frequently, in those cases loans have been negotiated by the husband when alive and there is a commitment to repay them, something that cannot be avoided. Therefore, the income of the widow is not what it appears to be as obtained from the local creamery. In cases where there is a continuing obligation of making repayment in respect of borrowing by means of which the income of the holding was raised, this should be taken into account by the local investigation officer. He should also have regard to the amount of money that must be repaid and the fact that the farm must be carried on in the absence of the breadwinner. Deputy Murphy already referred to this question. I ask the Minister to consider the operation of the means test and see how the regulations can be modified to make it more acceptable to people who feel aggrieved in this matter.

Another section of the community to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention is that composed of very small shopkeepers in villages and smaller towns. The Minister knows of the growth of the larger shops and supermarts and as a result people who traditionally eked out a living in small shops are now very hard pressed. It is not much use estimating their means from the sale of goods without taking into account their circumstances otherwise. I found in a couple of cases— and this was true of elderly widows— that they had to obtain the goods from the local supermarket and then sell them at a few pence profit. In such circumstances, we should be able to devise a system of means testing which would be fairer in its operation.

Specifically, I want to refer to the operation of the scheme which the Minister announced two years ago to provide assistance for people living on small farms in congested areas. I want to draw his attention to one particular case which is typical of many. The scheduling of areas has been done on a basis which is difficult to understand. It is hard to see why certain areas, for instance in my own constituency of West Limerick, were selected, while others were not. I know the line must be drawn somewhere but I cannot understand why certain electoral divisions were included and others excluded. In the main, the position should be that if there are smallholders anywhere, they should benefit, if that was the Minister's intention, to enable them to eke out a living. The scheme should be uniform in operation and should not be confined to designated areas.

I wish to refer to the case of a constituent of mine who does not make any secret of his name. He is Mr. John T. Aherne, Glensherrold, Carrickkerry, who sought and obtained a qualification certificate No. M. 18737. He is a married farmer living on a smallholding with five young children. He was in receipt of the allowance which was applicable to him after a means test. He felt that this was some help in enabling him to remain on his holding as others did in that area. A time came when he got less than 24 hours notice to turn up for work on an emergency employment scheme. This was at a time of the year when he had cut his hay and, by arrangement with neighbouring small farmers, it was his week to take the milk of the others to the creamery. He pointed out that he could not turn up until he had the hay saved; there was nobody else to do it. He was then refused assistance on the ground that he failed to turn up for work when notified.

He appealed and appeared before an appeals officer of the Department. He pointed out that he had been constantly seeking work, outlined his circumstances and said he felt he was being treated most unfairly, as were others in this matter. He thought he would be restored the benefit but instead he received notice from the Department through the local office that the appeals officer, whose decision in his case was final, had decided that the applicant was not genuinely seeking and unable to obtain suitable employment under section 15 (b). The notice gave two specific dates, one being the day on which he was summoned to work with less than 24 hours notice, on which he had failed to turn up for work.

He pointed out to the officer concerned the grave hardship involved for him. He said that in his efforts to secure employment, his name had been on the books of Limerick County Council for 16 years for the job of lorry driver but he had never been called. Twelve months previously he applied to Shannon Meats, Rathkeale, but was never called. He applied to the Forestry Division for work and offered portion of his land to them in the hope that he might get employment. He was asked how he had lived prior to the social welfare scheme coming into operation and he replied truthfully that he had acted as part-time salesman for milking machines which had earned him £130 in 1964. He set out to sell milking machines in 1965 but because of the circumstances in which credit was not available to farmers and in which hire purchase arrangements had tightened up, he was unable to sell the product and consequently, though on paper he had sold quite a number of machines, for six months he had been working for nothing. He tried to get work from building contractors, pointing out that his sole income was the money from the milk of six cows, that he had to pay for grazing and that he had contracted with the Agricultural Credit Corporation for accommodation in respect of which repayments at this stage amounted to £40 16s 8d annually. He had to support himself, his wife and five children on the milk of six cows for five months.

I feel sure the Minister did not mean that the regulations should operate to deprive such people of benefit and I appeal to the Minister to clarify the situation. When this scheme was introduced, most people realised that qualification certificates were necessary to get benefits. I know of two other cases, single men, in the same area who were awarded 3/- a week and had to travel seven miles to the garda station to sign for that sum. I do not think that is the type of benefit the Minister had in mind or this House had in mind in regard to schemes of social assistance like this, and there is an obligation on the Minister to ensure that regulations governing such schemes should be spelled out clearly and unequivocally so that all might know what they are entitled to.

There is the means test according to valuation of holdings. There are localities and circumstances in which the land is poor and in which a different type of means test would be fairer. For instance, the amount a person is able to earn from a small holding could be taken as a gross figure and allowance made for vouched expenses. I urge the Minister to bear some such test in mind. If he does so, he will ensure that John T. Aherne and others like him will not be excluded. The only alternative for such people is to give up their holdings and emigrate. The Minister should ensure that the benefits he had in mind for them will reach them. At the moment the Act operates against them as if they were indolent and did not wish to work. Surely we should be able to devise a system to ensure that where people are naturally hardworking and trying to rear families on small holdings, people who do not refuse regular employment when it is offered to them will not suffer by the operation of these rules? There are circumstances in which people on small holdings must co-operate with one another in the transport of milk to the creamery. Their wives must help them with the hay, their children being too young in most cases. In such circumstances, it is not reasonable to penalise a man for not turning up for work. We must be understanding in these matters. The official who has the job of implementing the scheme should not be tied too tightly: he should be allowed to use his discretion in cases where he knows the circumstances warrant it.

The only other matter I wish to deal with is that involving applicants for illness benefit. I suggest there should not be such an unreasonable time lag between the application for benefit being made and its receipt. I know the Minister is more than sympathetic to such applicants: I have had experience of it in a case I brought to his notice. When a person is sick and has sent in a certificate of his illness from the local medical officer, he should not encounter such delays in payments. It is unfair that it becomes necessary to make an approach to the authorities on behalf of such people. Sometimes the local authority have to be approached for assistance to keep such people going until the sickness benefit turns up. This, incidentally, imposes a burden on the local authority who have to pay the amount out of their own funds and who, in turn, must investigate the person's entitlement. Even for this benefit, the applicant has to wait for some time, thus extending his agony. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to speed up these payments, to lessen the time-lag between the receipt of sickness certificates and the despatch of payments.

They are the only comments I wish to make on the Estimate. Specifically wanted to mention this new type social assistance for small farmers in my area and to ask the Minister if this is an arbitrary imposition confined to scheduled areas or does the Minister intend to vary these scheduled areas and give benefits to people in areas not now scheduled? If we segregate people any further, it will be naturally thought that we are imposing inferior status on people in certain circumstances.

Mr. Coughlan

It is with reluctance that I address myself to this question of social welfare payments, because it is outrageous that we as public representatives have to make application time out of mind for the just demands of our people. The Minister can blow about all the money he is pouring into social welfare; it may be all right in figures but in application and from the point of view of practical experience, an appalling state of affairs prevails. I as a public representative have publicly denounced on many occasions, and have got the unanimous support of Limerick Health Authority, the delays in regard to social welfare payments. No voice has been raised against the statements I have made in Limerick Health Authority in connection with the working of the Department of Social Welfare. Numerous times I have denounced the incompetence, the indolence and the inhumanity of the officials of the Minister's Department in the operation of this Act.

When a person makes a claim, a justified claim, for any of the social welfare benefits, there is no compliment or charity about it. I have sent to the Minister three or four complaints every week in regard to the indolence of his Department. The procedure, as far as I know, is this. A person makes a claim in the city of Limerick for a widow's pension, an old age pension or any other social benefit to which he or she is entitled. What happens? The claim is sent to Dublin to be numbered in the Department. The claim is numbered in the Department and it is sent back to Limerick for investigation. It arrives in Limerick and the unfortunate man there is inundated because of this centralisation of claims in Dublin. He will go off on a circuitous route that will suit himself in regard to the investigation of claims.

I read a letter at the last meeting of Limerick Health Authority from an unfortunate widow in my constituency. The letter is dated 30th August, 1966, and I quote:

I applied for a widow's pension last May and you directed me to get a form and fill it in and bring it back to you, which I did. Since then I have sent the Department of Social Welfare all certificates necessary, birth, marriage and my husband's death certificate, etc. The pension officer called on me about two weeks ago. I would be very grateful if you would put in a good word for me that I might get a widow's pension as I am £300 in debt.

She got her pension only last week. She had to wait from May until 16th August for the pension officer to call, and she got her pension last week because of the representations I made to the Department. Yet the Minister tells us he is doing this, that and the other in regard to social welfare. That is only one of the many cases I could quote here.

I applied in April, 1965, on behalf of a widow and I got no acknowledgment of it until 18th August of the same year. I can give the name and address. I applied on 24th August on behalf of a person who had already sent in six certificates, and got no acknowledgement or reply. I applied again in mid-July on behalf of another person, and although six certificates had been sent in, no payment was received. I applied again on 31st August and the person did not receive benefit until November. I made another application on 5th November on behalf of a person who had sent in six certificates and received no acknowledgment. I made an application on behalf of a man in John's Square, Limerick, who had forwarded three certificates and received no payment. I applied again on behalf of a man from Galbally, in whose case nine weeks elapsed and no payment was received.

I have many letters here which I could quote for the Minister if he wants to take heed of these unfortunate people who are depending wholly and entirely on the accurate and up-to-date working of his Department. This is not a personal view; it is the unanimous view of Limerick Health Authority that you and your Department have been indolent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister and his Department have been indolent and negligent in the handling of claims. What is the situation that has resulted from the Department's indolence and negligence? Applicants come to their public representatives and we go to the home assistance officer to make representations on their behalf. I have letters here from widows. We plead with the home assistance officer for £1, £2 or £3 and a couple of turf vouchers during the winter period for these people. Where does the money come from? It comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Limerick city and county because of the ineptitude and indolence of the Department. Every excuse is made. Certificates are sent up week after week and nothing is done. We, as public representatives, have to get in touch with the home assistance officer, the local labour exchange manager, and then we have to get in touch with the Department of Social Welfare to inquire if a cheque is being sent out to the applicant or if it is on its way or what are the Department doing about it. We get the same old answer, that the matter is being investigated. I want to alert the Minister to this fact, that Limerick Health Authority unanimously discredited his Department on account of these delays. I am not speaking personally in this matter. I speak now as a representative of Limerick Health Authority. That authority is composed of fairminded people, who know what the Department are doing and who know of the incompetence, indolence and inhumanity associated with the Department in the investigation of claims.

It then comes to the point where we make representations on behalf of old age pensioners. We send up whatever claims have to be submitted. Claim forms are completed. We get a stereotyped reply. Can anyone imagine the effect on one of getting these acknowledgments in respect of unfortunate persons who may have been born in the early 80s or 90s of the last century? I have returned these documents on numerous occasions to the Department. This piffle is sent to us and we are asked to transmit it to the applicants or to advise the unfortunate persons who may be only holding their bones together. The educational facilities available in the 80s and 90s of the last century were not as good as those available today. I do not know what we are supposed to do with these acknowledgments or how we are supposed to explain to an applicant that her claim for old age pension is being investigated and the investigation may take five or six months.

Then they call this the Department of Social Welfare. I have another name for it. The people of Ireland have another name for it because of the indolence, incompetence and inhumanity in the working of this Department. It is about time the Minister applied himself in an energetic and intelligent manner to the work of his Department. I cannot understand why in the case of a person who lives in Limerick county her application for a widow's or old age pension must be sent to Dublin to be stamped and then returned to Limerick perhaps two weeks, four weeks or three months later for investigation. Will the Minister deny that that takes place? He cannot. If you think that that is social welfare in operation, your opinion and mine are at variance. Nobody will make a claim for a widow's pension or any other form of social benefit unless she is forced to do so. I treat all these claims that I meet as of immediate urgency and on many occasions I had to phone your Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister's Department.

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister's Department. I have done so on behalf of persons who had been waiting two or three months. It is my duty to do so. The people who come into the office at 10 a.m. and stamp a claim from Limerick and send it back for investigation about two months later have no humanity. There is no humanity there and there is certainly no social welfare there. If that is your parsing and analysis of social welfare, it is not ours. The quicker you realise that fact, the better.

We come to another section of this alleged social welfare and the great benefits that are being poured out. You are pouring out money like a man with no hands, according to yourself, but I want to bring to your notice— to the Minister's notice—claimants for unemployment benefit who are not regarded as claimants until they have signed at the labour exchange on three days. Take the case of dockers who line up along the quay wall in all kinds of weather at 7.30 every morning. There are 360 in Limerick. A number of them are called for work and the rest proceed to the labour exchange. The same thing happens on the second day. On the third day, men who were not employed on the first two days may be called on to work. Their claim is broken. Where is the social welfare in that case? These people get one day's work in three. There is a five-day week in operation. Therefore, they get one day's work a week. Are you aware of that? Is your Department aware of it? These men get £3 5s. a day when they are working. They lose five days benefit at the labour exchange. What are they to do? What would anybody do with a big family living on casual work?

What about the people whose employer refuses to stamp their cards? What does this Department, this great beneficiary that doles out all things to all people, do about it? I have here details of cases where an employer has for years refused to stamp cards. The employee taking the employer at his face value thinks everything is grand. Then work stops; he goes to the labour exchange and makes his claim. He is told he has no cards there for two or three years. On 14th April and 15th May, I sent the Minister ten cases of one employer who refused to stamp cards for years. The Department wrote back and said it was up to the employee to proceed to do this, that and the other. These unfortunate men were working on the road laying a sewer. I am not the only one in this House who now knows about this case. What has the Minister done about seeing to it that that employer stamps their cards?

Now we come to the case of the unfortunate citizen of this country who happens to be out of the country for some time. He goes to the employment exchange to make a claim and is told it will not be considered on three grounds. This is an Irishman married to an Irishwoman. The three grounds given were: (1) he had at any time before making such application been ordinarily resident in any urban area for a period of five years or for a number of periods which amount in the aggregate to five years: (2) he has been residing in any urban area for one year immediately preceding the date of application; (3) he has had at least three months employment within the year immediately preceding the application. That letter is dated 30th September, only one moon ago.

There is a married man who because of his skill was taken by his company to Germany, where he spent four or five years training in a factory. Because of his wife's ill health, he comes back, makes his claim in the employment exchange in Limerick on 30th September and is refused on these three grounds. Where is the humanity there? We all have another name for that Department, whether or not the Minister is aware of it. On more than one occasion, you and your Department have been unanimously condemned by Limerick Health Authority because of these delays.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Condemn the Minister.

Mr. Coughlan

As you know, Limerick Health Authority——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please address the Chair and not the Minister directly?

Mr. Coughlan

It is hard to be patient when you are dealing with incompetency and inefficiency. What can you do but be ruthless? Why blame me? Now we come to that section of our community who have spent years working for our greatest enemy, the man we never wanted to feed or serve. These are people who through their own ability and ambition were granted benefits in England. They come home to spend the autumn and winter of their lives in Ireland. They bring with them from this archenemy of ours, according to some of the people over there, the benefits they have well earned. Then they apply to the Department of Social Welfare for their old age pension. They are told: "You do not qualify. Somebody else is feeding you; why should we?" Because they get £2 or £3 a week pension from Britain, they are automatically disqualified for an old age pension here.

What right have we to deprive these people of what they have well earned from somebody else? Why should we interfere? Is it not another trick of the loop effort by the Minister and his Department to hoodwink these people by telling them they are entitled to benefits when he knows in his heart and soul they will never qualify for them? Let us be honest and tell the people the truth at all times. But you come in here and tell us the amount given this year as against last year. It is not so long since we could buy ten Players cigarettes for 6d. I do not know what they are now—I do not smoke— but I am sure they are more than 6d. We could say we gave you twice as much for cigarettes or whatever it is. That has no bearing. It was the same thing with the Minister for Local Government when he told us last night about what he was giving for housing. There is no comparison between figures last year and this year. Anyone can juggle with figures and the Department of Social Welfare is the master juggler.

The Minister tried to centralise the working of his Department but he has confused it, befogged it and muddled it tragically at the expense of the unfortunate social welfare claimant. Just remember the letter I quoted— and that is only one. I can produce them and I have produced them at meeting after meeting of Limerick Health Authority and I have got the full support of that authority on all my claims and in my charges of indolence and ineptitude on the part of the Department.

That is all very well. Some of us can wait a week or a day but how long can these unfortunate creatures wait? Every second day of the week, I have to put them into my car and bring them down to the local assistance officer or to the local dispensary. A turf voucher will come some time: a couple of quid will come some time. This is what has been created by this alleged uplift and reorganisation of the Department of Social Welfare.

Do the Department of Social Welfare know anything at all about their business? They are not burdened with intelligence and they are not vitally aware of the needs of the people as we are, as public representatives. I feel very strongly about this. I want to impress on the Department and whoever is in charge of the Department's staff—I do not know who is in charge of it—that we have sent up not one resolution or two or three resolutions from Limerick Health Authority with regard to the incompetence, indolence and inhumanity of their approach. We shall pursue the matter until we get satisfaction for the claims of the unfortunate people who are waiting six months, five months, eight-weeks' certificates going up, six months' certificates going up, and nothing coming and they are falling on the shoulders of the local ratepayer to keep them going in the meantime. You have shifted their cost from your general bill on to somebody else. You are now trying to shift it over to the taxpayers of Limerick City and County.

While I am in public life, I shall expose the shifting of the responsibility of this Department on to the local taxpayers. If you think or if the Department think that home assistance will carry the people, because of your indolence, ineptitude and inhumanity in your approach to the Department, you are backing a loser as far as we are concerned.

I know this and have gone through it. There is no week that representations are not made by me to this Department twice, four times or six times, because of indolence, ineptitude and inhumanity. Do the overpaid and underworked people who work from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. ever think of anybody else? Do they ever think of the unfortunate people who are starving and waiting for the money to buy a loaf of bread, a pint of milk and the half-stone of coal to try to keep body and soul together? If these claims were treated locally in the first instance instead of all this nonsense of sending a claim to Dublin to have it numbered and stamped and in two months' time sent back to Limerick for investigation, and another two months elapsing before it is investigated, we should all be better off and we should have a happier community.

I do not know whether my advice falls on stony or on fertile ground tonight but, be it stony or be it fertile, that is a matter for the Department. If it does not fall on fertile ground, we shall continue to pursue the matter. As far as Limerick Health Authority is concerned and as far as Limerick Corporation is concerned, we shall continue to embarrass this Department until such time as the light is switched on and these people see what unfortunate people throughout the country are suffering because of—let me repeat it—the ineptitude, inhumanity and indolence of the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Carter

I do not claim to speak on behalf of any corporation, health authority or council, but, having listened at length to some of the speeches, I would say I have not heard any widespread condemnation of the administration except by one Deputy. One can claim to speak only on a subject one knows. As far as representations to the Department are concerned I can say, offhand, that I have as great a volume of representations to make to that Department as any Deputy, some of which relate to very difficult claims. I have not met with any inhumanity or indolence from any official engaged in the administration of social welfare.

It is easy to stand up in this House and to condemn officials who, perforce, must administer the Social Welfare Acts in relation to the various subjects presented to them. I want to say, offhand, coming after the last speaker, that I dissociate myself from his ugly epithets and some of the charges he made here. Those of us engaged in this public work know that, in this year, the Department of Social Welfare is responsible for the disbursement of £42¼ million. That is a huge sum in relation to the size of our Budget. We also know the Minister's statement that this sum represents an increase of roughly £10½ million over and above what was originally estimated and this increase in expenditure stems from the increases given under the Social Welfare Act of 1965.

When we come to speak about spending money, we all must, if we are realistic, have some regard to whether or not we will be able to raise the revenue necessary in order to redistribute it in the best possible way, in the fairest, most equitable and just way; it therefore behoves us to have regard to the amount which can be levied by way of taxation in any given year in order to raise the necessary revenue. A sum of £9½ million was necessary to provide for the increases in social welfare and social assistance generally. There is an upward trend in expenditure in every direction and I think the sum of £1 million extra was mentioned as representing the upward trend in expenditure here.

When we speak of social welfare, we have to consider it in the context of the general aim of Government policy. The general aim of Government policy in its economic programmes is, with the help of various specialised agencies, to generate more employment or to create more work. In that connection we have such agencies as An Foras Tionscal, Córas Tráchtála, Bord Fáilte, and so on. All these agencies or organisations were established with the general aim of providing work. Over and above these agencies, there are other incentives in the way of financial supports of one kind or another for both the agricultural and the industrial arms of the economy and there, again, the aim is to create more employment, leading in time, it is hoped, to a position in which there will be no longer any need for unemployment assistance or, as we call it the dole. We all look forward to the time when unemployment assistance will no longer be necessary and the greater the success of the programmes and of the various agencies I have mentioned, the less need there will be for State assistance socially.

There are one or two specific points with which I should like to deal. In the interim, the twin social problems of unemployment and emigration will continue, especially in the congested areas. These areas are peopled in the main by smallholders. I might mention here that the unemployment assistance scheme, as we know it, was never designed for smallholders. I do not, therefore, envy the Department of Social Welfare its task of trying to apply this scheme to smallholders.

That brings me now to a part of the scheme which can be described as both unfair and unjust so far as the smallholder is concerned. I refer to the Employment Period Orders. These orders are difficult to apply and, if one goes through the mass of correspondence in relation to these Orders, one sees at once the difficulty there is in relating them to smallholders, especially smallholders in the congested districts. There are two such Orders—the First and the Second. The theory behind the administration of the First Employment Period Order is that for part of the year a farmer of over £4 valuation is not deemed genuinely unemployed and seeking work because it is accepted that he is fully occupied on his holding. I want to relate that condition to the Second Employment Period Order. The theory here would seem to be that during this period of the year, agricultural work is available for all hands. It is my submission that both of these Orders are unsound so far as the congested areas are concerned. Lest the Minister might think that I have an axe to grind in this matter, I shall give him an example which will support the case I am making, namely, that the Minister should seek to abolish those orders.

Take, for example, the Second Employment Period Order and examine the position in relation to it. We shall see that work on the land may be available for smallholders who are deemed to be not fully employed on there own holdings if—and where there is an "if", there is a want—if they live in areas in which there are larger farmers who might require seasonal labour. The point I want to make here is that in congested areas where the holdings are of a similar pattern, it is simply not true to claim that farm work is freely available. This brings me back again to the First Employment Period Order which contends that because a worker lives on a £3.19 rateable valuation, he is available for work throughout the year, while his neighbour down the road, on a £4.1 rateable valuation, and who may perhaps be living in worse conditions, is not deemed so available.

Here we come to a gap and this is, shall we say, a serious omission in the social welfare scheme which annoys me. The worker who lives on a £4.1 rateable valuation is deemed available for work for only 18 weeks of the year. Here it will be seen what a difference 2/- in the valuation may make. The 2/-on its face value is neither here nor there in this day and age but if we take it in the context of the administration of the scheme, it makes a vast difference to the farmer who lives on the slightly higher valuation. The point is that even if it is admitted that the rateable valuation is a reliable guide for the amount of time taken up in farm work—and, mark you, I should not like to have to argue that case— one could say outright that the dividing line is surely not as sharp as defined in the Employment Period Orders.

If there have to be Employment Period Orders, the duration of the Orders should quite obviously be related to the valuation of the farm in a more gradual, reasonable and logical way. In support of that, one could say that those claimants who are disqualified from unemployment assistance by the Employment Period Orders referred to are not disqualified on the grounds of need. For example, there is no suggestion that at any period of the year their means are such as to render them ineligible for unemployment assistance which, incidentally, as we all know, is at the lowest rate of all forms of assistance.

Now, I come to another aspect of this matter which is also bound up with the enforcement of those Employment Period Orders and which is equally difficult to understand. In fact, one would be at pains, going through the exercise, to get a reliable grasp of the method which the Minister has to use in order to arrive at a decision for the purpose of the enforcement of these Orders. It is apparent that the total income extracted from the farm is assessed, divided by 52 and the weekly vote of unemployment assistance is reduced by this amount during the 18 weeks for which it is payable. In my submission, this is grossly unfair. The workers in this group are paid unemployment assistance for 18 weeks only because they are deemed unemployed for this period and they are denied it for the remainder of the year because they are deemed employed.

There is another point to note in this regard. If a man works for part of the year and is unemployed for the remander of it, what he earns while he is employed is not assessed as means when he is unemployed and therefore, in equity and to be fair to the smallholder, the money he earns, which must surely be earned while he is employed, that is, during the operation of the Employment Period Order, should not be used to reduce the unemployment assistance during the period of the year he is unemployed. This is a complicated explanation and it is hard enough to grasp the principle of it. A further point to note here is that if the total income earned from the land is to be spread over the whole year and used to reduce the weekly amount of unemployment assistance, then surely this reduced amount should be paid for the whole year. Again, I would submit that if unemployment assistance is to be withheld for portion of the year, it should be paid at the full rate for the remainder of the year.

The position at present is that a smallholder under £4 rateable valuation is assured of an annual income, even though it may be at a low enough level, from unemployment assistance plus whatever he has from his farm, which is supposed to equal the amount of unemployment assistance which would be payable in his case had he no means. If his rateable valuation is over £4 he will have this income for 18 weeks only since it is for only 18 weeks his income is supplemented by unemployment assistance.

Finally, for the remainder of the year, his income will be below unemployment assistance level, which, as I indicated here, represents the lowest standard of living in the scale of social assistance. As I have said, God knows the Minister tonight has listened to enough criticism—maybe some of it fair and some of it unfair—but I should like to wind up by making the case that, as I mentioned earlier, the unemployment assistance scheme was never drawn up to be applied to smallholders. Yet, with all, we must take it on present terms. I would say, in fairness to those people I mentioned, that the Minister should move to abolish the injustice contained in the Employment Period Orders.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is not my intention to detain the House to any great extent but rather to draw the attention of the Minister to what I consider to be a few matters of outstanding importance in relation to the poor sections of the community. At the outset, let me say, with reference to speeches that have already been made on this Estimate—and I have been a Member of this House now for very close on a quarter of a century—that I have received no discourtesy whatever from the Department of Social Welfare. Neither have I at any time made representations to the Minister for Social Welfare. The occasion arises very frequently when like most Deputies, a letter has to be written to the Department. When I had occasion to write, I was always extended the courtesy of a most satisfactory, comprehensive and very favourable reply.

I should be lacking in my duty if I did not express my appreciation to the staff of the Minister's Department. The Department of Social Welfare must have an extraordinary volume of correspondence to deal with. Compared with the Land Commission, the Department of Education or any other Department, the Department of Social Welfare have to deal with an enormous amount of correspondence. I have always had what I consider to be a favourable reply. I never received the slip in Irish which was displayed by Deputy Coughlan. I cannot say that the Department favoured me any more than any other Deputy. I should like to support the plea put forward by Deputy Coughlan in relation to the small slips with the reference number on the left-hand corner, the name of the constituent for whom the Deputy is making representations written in ink across the top and the remainder in Irish. That is a shabby reply to send to any Deputy.

The services of the staff of the Department may be taxed probably to the fullest capacity. Even so, I feel that Members of the Oireachtas who make representation on behalf of constituents should receive a reply which they can present to their constituents. I respectfully suggest that the slip which I saw in Deputy Coughlan's hands, and which I never received from the Department of Social Welfare, should not be sent out to any Deputy who makes representation on behalf of his constituents. I make representations at a very steady rate to the Department but I never received such a slip from them. An effort should be made to send a Member of the Oireachtas a reply which he can convey to his constituents.

I sympathise with Deputy Coughlan if he has to present those slips to his constituents in Limerick. I also sympathise with any other Deputy who has to present them to his constituents. Such a reply should not be sent to any Deputy because a reply of that nature is of little use to the person to whom it is passed on. I should also like to express my appreciation of the manner in which I have been treated by the staff of the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Cunningham

Couple the Minister with that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I should like to couple the Minister with that but I do not think I ever had occasion to ask the Minister for anything. I never write to the Minister because I always think it is better to send a note to the Secretary of the Department. Ministers may come and Ministers may go but the permanent head of the Department is always there. It is a good thing for Deputies that such an impartial officer as the Civil Service head of a Department is there. It is a very great safeguard for Members of this House from all Parties and for that reason I am only too glad and happy to associate the Minister with any bouquets I have to give to his Department. In doing so, I may say I never found him display discourtesy because I never asked him for anything. If I did, I am sure the Minister would display the courtesy expected of any Minister to any Deputy no matter to what Party he belongs. I can assure Deputy Cunningham it is not my intention to press that.

I always address my correspondence to the Civil Service head of the Department. I cannot describe myself as a personal friend of the Minister, but there are many members of the Government whom I have known intimately for many years and I never hesitate to send a note on any problem that comes my way. However, so far as the Minister for Social Welfare is concerned, if I ever have to get in touch with him, I will have no hesitation, but I would expect the same courtesy as I have received from his Government colleagues.

This question of social welfare is a very big problem. It is very easy to offer criticism and very easy to offer solutions, but in this country I feel that more attention should be given to the Department of Social Welfare. I really feel this is an Estimate on which every single Member of this House can address himself at great length. It is the one State Department which deals primarily with the poorer sections of our community, those who cannot provide for themselves, those who because of old age, of unemployment or of ill-health or disablement cannot cater for themselves. They are helpless to defend themselves and they are unable for one reason or another to take their place as citizens and provide fully for themselves. For that reason, the Department deals with a very specialised section of our people. I have always expressed the opinion that it should be a Department which would lend itself to helping those people rather than to making it difficult for them and adding difficulties to their already great burden.

There are many people throughout the length and breadth of this country who have been deprived of the means of providing for themselves. The only assistance they get to keep body and soul together is the assistance from the Department of Social Welfare. It would be quite wrong to say that charitable organisations will be able to cope fully with relieving all the distress that arises.

Mr. O'Leary

Hear, hear.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is not possible. For that reason, it is only right to pay tribute to the charitable organisations — the Roomkeepers' Society, for example, the various conferences of the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the many other charitable organisations—who seek to make the lot of the poorer sections of our community easier. They have performed an outstandingly great service. Again, we must admit that it is not possible for the State to cater for every single case of distress that is likely to arise. I do not know of any country in the world that has such a comprehensive social welfare programme in operation that it caters for every single case of hardship.

No matter what way the Department of Social Welfare endeavour to cater for the poorer sections of the community, there will always be a need for charitable organisations and I hope that the general public, you and I, a Cheann Comhairle, and all of us here who have the faculties available to us to provide for ourselves will realise that. There is a bounden duty on all our people to endeavour, so far as possible, to act in a Christian way in assisting the poor and the needy. I want to say that in this country whatever charitable offerings were made, the recipients were always grateful. It is worthy of note that it is the poorer section who give the most generously to help the poor. That is a nice and fine spirit. Our people are noted for their kindness and their very great charity.

The Minister must be well aware of the great Christian, charitable and national work being performed by those charitable organisations. No matter what allowances the State may give, there are many poor people and those are the people with whom I am greatly concerned. You have not alone hundreds but thousands of people who have left in them a degree of self-pride, who are too proud to make it known that they are in poor circumstances, in distress and poverty. It is a grand thing that there are people still who possess this great gift of self-pride. I really feel that, in the city of Dublin where we have the lights of O'Connell Street and the grandeur of the cars parked thereon, the crowds that may be coming from cinemas, hotels and ballrooms, at the back of all that, there must be a vast amount of hidden poverty and distress.

Mr. O'Leary

Not so hidden.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I bet there are people living on a single meal a day, who, because of pride, do not let their neighbours know they are in difficult circumstances.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would not relate to the administration of the Minister's Department.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I should hope it would relate. In those types of cases charitable organisations help to relieve the Department of Social Welfare and the recipients. The Department of Social Welfare have a responsibility towards those people. Through their generosity charitable organisations help people who are too proud to beg, too proud to seek home assistance, too proud to seek unemployment assistance and too proud, in other words, to solicit public assistance. I would like to see a complete recasting of our social welfare code, so that the vast number of people at present in dire want and need will be catered for.

The Department of Social Welfare at the present time have rather comprehensive schemes of one type or another. To deal determinedly, courageously and energetically with the many social problems we have, our first objective should be to rid our country of distress and want and poverty. That is the responsibility which the Minister has, the responsibility which any Minister for Social Welfare has, to rid the country of distress and poverty and want and see to it that the old, the blind, the sick and the widows at least have at their disposal sufficient funds to enable them to live and to live independently. The feelings of people who cannot live independently—by that, I mean people who are not able to earn and provide for themselves—must be terrible. It is bad enough to be in receipt of the allowances paid by the Department of Social Welfare, which are entirely insufficient, but the fact that those people have practically to live on charity and on the assistance provided by the Department must be an extraordinary load of worry for them.

We should have social services which will ensure that all our old age pensioners will be able to live in Christian deceny. I respectfully suggest that at the present rate of non-contributory or even contributory, pension. with the cost of transport, the cost of electricity, the ever-increasing rates and the cost of living soaring higher and higher every day, old age pensioners who have nothing but the allowances provided by this State must find it extremely difficult to keep body and soul together. That is why, and I have seen it on many occasions, the recipients of old age pensions have to apply to the local authority for home assistance to supplement the rate of old age pension paid to them.

I often thought that it would be much better to have the old age pension steadily increased and to pay the old age pensioner a pension on which he would be able to live independently than to compel him to seek supplementary allowances from the local authority. In many cases the local authorities are doing their best to provide home assistance for the old, the blind and the widows. I feel that this is an effort on the part of the Government to evade their responsibilities in so far as the Exchequer is concerned and to make greater demands on the local authority for the provision of these supplementary allowances of home assistance.

When the world is gearing itself to everything that is modern and up-to-date, when a man is preparing to reach the moon, when Governments are spending millions on rockets and men are circling the earth in space, we must ask ourselves how can the millions be provided for these things when it is so extremely difficult to find money for widows and orphans, the blind, the lame, the sick and the poorer sections of the community who find it so difficult to keep body and soul together? I am not suggesting that Ireland is about to take part in the race for the moon but we could provide no better service than looking after the old, the blind and the widows. That is the section of the community who deserve our sympathy and it is the section who have not alone been given a deaf ear but also the blind eye by practically all Governments since the State was founded. Let us express the hope that, with the great social advances being made throughout the world, an effort will be made to provide fully and well for those poorer sections of the community.

I might suggest to the Minister that between now and this time 12 months when he will present his Estimate again he might seriously look into the recasting of our social welfare services. In addition, he might find it possible to see that the local authorities will be relieved of their responsibilities in that regard and provision made from State funds because it is all the same. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The State might as well provide fully and relieve the local authority or let the local authority take over full responsibility, which would be absolutely impossible. I do not think it right that we should have the State and the local authority at the same time doing work which should be undertaken by the State. The State is responsible. I think it was the late President Kennedy who said in very striking terms that a country that cannot provide well for its poor cannot long afford to protect its rich. We all have a duty to provide for the poor and our present social welfare services are falling far short of what would be expected.

It is true to say that there has been a good deal of criticism of those services and the manner in which they are being administered. My memory takes me back to the days of free milk, free boots, free beef, free doles, free turf. I will not elaborate on the free beef tonight. There is nothing provided in this Estimate for free beef. We have had in this country seeds sown by Fianna Fáil and those seeds were sown by the allocation of free beef and free milk, free boots and free doles.

I am sure the Minister will agree that our people are equally as proud as people abroad who are to a great degree far more independent than we are. If I am a judge of the Irish people, they want nothing for nothing. They want to be independent. It is very degrading for any man or woman to have to queue up for free turf and it was very degrading for the unfortunate people years ago to have to queue up with vouchers for free beef. It is degrading for people to have to accept free milk. When we have to provide free beef, turf and milk, it shows that there must be a high degree of poverty. I am not suggesting that any steps should be taken to deprive people of those facilities because you must have them until you have something better with which to replace them. It is better to have our people independent.

I have often said, and I make no apology for saying it, that the free dole was the curse of this country. I often said that it was a good effort to pauperise our people. It did not give them the encouragement to work, if work was available.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss legislation on the Estimate.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I agree, a Cheann Comhairle, that in order to make those radical changes, legislation would be necessary but I think the Minister has, as well as his Ministerial duties, moral duties. He has a moral responsibility.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is the Minister's parliamentary and administrative duties we are concerned with here.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I feel there is a link between the moral responsibility of a Minister towards the people and his parliamentary responsibility. It is demoralising and degrading for people to live on free dole and it is wrong to encourage them to remain on free dole. Would it not be better for the Minister, instead of paying this free dole for, let us say, three, four, five, or six days per week, to subsidise an employer so that instead of free dole being paid out to an unemployed person the employer would receive an allowance to enable that person to be put into productive employment?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but he is discussing legislation; he is suggesting the introduction of legislation and either of these is not permissible. What must be discussed is the administration of the Minister for the past 12 months or the amount of money voted to it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

On the amount of money which is being provided for free dole, I respectfully suggest that the amount provided for unemployment assistance in this Estimate under review would be much better spent if those people who are able to work were put to work and the amount provided in this Estimate as unemployment assistance given to subsidise the employer.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to keep interrupting the Deputy but he is clearly advocating legislation.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Well, of course, the Chair sees my point.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do, but I also see the irregularity.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

At least there is no harm in directing the attention of the Minister for Social Welfare to the fact that the moneys provided in this Estimate for free dole could be better spent and I am suggesting to the Minister that he look into ways and means for so doing.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would remind the Deputy that that would require legislation and he is not entitled to advocate legislation on this Estimate.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

May I raise one point to which I have been giving serious thought for some time past? It is children's allowances, for which the Minister is responsible. Everyone can draw children's allowances. Whether a person has an income of £100 a year or £100,000 a year, he can draw the children's allowances. I do not see anything wrong with that but I find it very hard to reconcile the fact that a person with an income of £5,000 per year can draw children's allowances, and at the same time under the same Department, an old age pensioner can have great difficulty in trying to get his full rate of pension of 47/6d per week.

An Ceann Comhairle

Again, the Deputy is discussing legislation. There is legislation to deal with that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

There are so many things needing legislation in the Department of Social Welfare that perhaps what we should be really advocating in this Estimate is a new Minister who will bring in this legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can put down Bills himself.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The manner in which old age pensions are investigated is, in my opinion, most unreasonable. I should have hoped that the Minister for Social Welfare would have directed, by way of circular to all investigation officers, to all pension officers, some instruction to exercise a greater degree of charity when it comes to assessing means. I was alarmed at the manner in which some pension officers calculated means for old age pension purposes. I was alarmed at the manner in which investigations were carried out in connection with claims of widows for widows' pensions. I was astonished at the long delay in disposing of claims for blind pensions. Certificates of blindness have to be obtained but I can never understand how it takes several long months to dispose of claims for blind pensions. If a person is blind, he is blind and there is no more to it, and the first certificate of blindness ought to be sufficient to qualify the applicant for a blind pension. Everybody knows, that if a person is blind, he cannot work and he is suffering from a physical disability which renders it impossible to provide for himself and his family. Would the Minister undertake to expedite all claims for blind pensions and make a ruling in his Department that, from the date the application is received, the case should be finally disposed of within four weeks? Indeed, there are old age pension appeals in the Minister's Department—some of them close on 12 months. Again, I cannot understand the long delay in the Minister's Department or whether it is that the appeals officers in his Department are already overwhelmed with work.

I do not know what has happened since the inter-Party Government were in office but I can readily recall, when they were, that day after day these files of appeals would be disappearing and there appeared to be, at that time, more speed and efficiency in disposing of appeals for old age pensions, widows' pensions and blind pensions. But in recent years, particularly in the past three or four years, there seems to be some unreasonable hold-up. I agree with Deputy Coughlan when he says there appears now to be a long delay in disposing of certain claims for social welfare benefits.

I know cases in which six, eight and ten medical certificates were submitted and no payments were made, because of investigations being carried on in the Department. I have a feeling that one of the reasons was that, in many rural districts, we had what was known as the National Health Insurance agent at one time; he then became the social welfare agent for the paying out of social welfare benefits; he then disappeared when it came to the time for retirement, was not replaced, the certificates were sent to the head office in Dublin and the payments were sent out direct from there. In areas where the National Health Insurance agents—as we knew them of old —existed, there now seems to be a long delay and the whole affair seems to be more unsatisfactory than it was at the time when it was being disposed of by them or by the social welfare agents.

We have cases in which certificates have gone astray, in which certificates have not been received in time, in which certificates were not posted, and there are cases where the Department of Posts and Telegraphs did not exercise speed in the despatch of these certificates to ensure the delivery of the cheque at the end of the week. I am sure the Minister for Social Welfare knows that a sick person unable to work, will have his wife and five or six small children depending each week entirely upon the cheque which must come from his Department by way of sickness benefit. It is a shocking disaster in any home if that cheque does not arrive at the end of the week. When the cheque does not arrive it is too late to get home assistance; the home assistance officer cannot be immediately contacted. Even if he is, it may be late on the Saturday afternoon by the time the vouchers are made available and the whole thing is most unsatisfactory.

An effort should be made to expedite matters—even at the expense, if it is necessary, of increasing the staff dealing with social welfare benefits—where a worker is ill and has his wife and family entirely dependent for their very existence on the payment of social welfare benefit. The responsibility should be placed on the heads of the Department concerned to see that every sick person within the State receives the benefit due to him on the day on which he is entitled to receive it. It is only country members of county councils and country members of the Dáil who realise the hardships these people have to endure when there is not one penny piece in the house to provide for the necessaries of life for a whole week-end.

The day has gone in this country when shopkeepers would trust people in poor circumstances. We have now reached the stage when all the small shopkeepers themselves have gone out of business. We have now reached the stage at which the supermarkets are doing the business in our big provincial towns. That means that a person must have cash in hand. The poorer section of our people depend on the payment of social welfare benefits each week. They must have money for the shopkeeper. Otherwise, they must remain hungry. I am sorry to say that in many part of the midlands, I have known cases where the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the local clergy, and the local TD, have had to come to their aid to prevent a family from suffering absolute starvation from Saturday to Tuesday morning. This is a situation which should not prevail in a Christian country as this.

This Minister should call together the officers responsible for dealing with sickness benefit and should give them definite instructions that if they are short of staff they should say so. It is his duty and the duty of the House, to provide the money so that there will be ample staff to pay sickness benefits to the poor people who need money each week when the certificate comes. Doctors do not give certificates for fun. They have certain professional standards and they give certificates only to people who cannot provide for themselves, who cannot work, and who are entitled to certificates. When they reach the Minister's Department, the cheque should go down post-haste to the applicant for sickness benefit.

Most of the problems I have with the Department relate to sickness benefit. I am satisfied that nine out of every ten cases are genuine. I can never understand why delays are caused by crossing files from one place to another to be initialed and marked `checked'. Surely we must realise that in the meantime local authorities are cut down on funds? Practically every county manager is doing his best to reduce the amount paid out in home assistance. Superintendent home assistance officers have been instructed not to encourage people to seek home assistance. May I ask the Minister while the Department are not speeding up the payment of sickness benefit, what are the poor people to live on?

The Minister can perform a duty of great national importance to the poor section of the community. We must bear in mind that when a person is well off, the least of his thoughts are for the poor person who has not a penny piece to provide his next meal. Poor people are often lonely, worried and sad. How many of our well to do people whom God has blessed with all the riches of this world and with contentment shun the poor? That is why there is a great responsibility on the shoulders of the Minister. He is the link between the Government of the day and the poor who cannot speak for themselves, and who can only be spoken for by Deputies who can express their grievances in this House.

Whatever the wealth and riches of this country may be—and there is no clear evidence of that today—there are very poor people in the country. There are many who are on the verge of hunger. That is why the Minister would be well advised to have conferences in the Department to ensure that there will be no delays in dealing with old age pensions, widows' pensions and other payments. I presume the Minister would require more money to increase these benefits and that would require legislation. May I throw out a hint to the Minister? We will expect him to exercise the great influence he has with the Government to see that his Department will receive a greater allocation of money for poor people, because the responsibility of providing for the poor rests on his shoulders.

I want to direct the attention of the Minister to the state of many labour exchanges. I do not know whether the Minister has passed them over to the Department of Labour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would come under another Department.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We will deal with that tomorrow.

Mr. Boland

If this finishes.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If the labour exchanges have gone to the Department of Labour, I sympathise with the Minister for Labour because he has inherited a most undesirable legacy. Some of those exchanges were very far from what is desirable. I have seen in the town of Tullamore——

Mr. Boland

The Deputy must not want it to come up tomorrow.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

——people having to remain in long queues in torrents of rain to have their cases dealt with. However, this is now a matter for the Department of Labour and let us hope we will be able to say a word about it tomorrow, and we will solicit the sympathy of the Minister for Labour in the provision of employment offices and accommodation for people who are unfortunate enough to have to resort to those offices, so that they may at least have a roof over their heads while transacting their business.

Deputy Coughlan raised the next point with which I want to deal. I can never understand why British pensions are taken into account in the assessment of means for old age pensions in this country. That is wrong and I hope it will be remedied in the not too distant future. There are many ex-service men who were courageous enough to give their services during the 1914-18 war, and who were granted pensions by the Crown in return for their services, their bravery and their skill in the field. It is regrettable that when an increase is granted in those pensions by the British Government, steps are taken by the Department to take back from the pensioners the money given to them by the British Government. If the British pensions are increased, the Department decreases the pension here. It is the British Government giving with one hand and the Irish Government with two hands taking back what the British Government had given.

If a person is fortunate enough, gallant enough and brave enough to have won for himself a pension for services outside this country, it is only right that that should be completely disregarded. I could never understand why payments from outside the State were not disregarded. Maybe in his reply the Minister will tell us if he will do anything about this during the next 12 months. Quite recently a large number of British pensions were increased. I know one case in my constituency in the town of Mountrath where an old age pensioner had a British pension and the moment that pension was increased, the Department of Social Welfare asked for the pension book which was later returned with a reduced rate of pension. What was granted by the British Government was taken by the Irish Government. That is wrong; it is something of which the House should take a serious view. When pensions are provided by the British Government, we do not expect them to subsidise the Department of Social Welfare. When the British increased their pensions, what really happens is that the Irish Department of Social Welfare reduce the Irish pensions. That is wrong and the means test should be altered so as not to take into consideration income which may be in the form of a pension from outside the State.

In the case of very small farmers who apply for unemployment assistance, there is a serious situation. There are many small farmers whose incomes are less than £4 a week. At this very moment we have a number of them lying outside on the steps of Government Buildings. I believe it is teeming rain on them and the least the Minister could do is to give a hint to the Minister for Agriculture to open the door and let them in.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not arise.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If they are small farmers with an income under £4 a week, they are worthy of mention. Those small farmers whose incomes are so very limited and who can be catered for by the Department of Social Welfare should be treated more generously when they sign on for unemployment assistance. I have known quite a number of them in my own constituency and it is true that very many of them have very small holdings, and in some cases, by the time rent and rates are paid, the income would not be anything like £4 a week. The Minister should be generous in dealing with people in such circumstances. Judging by the way things are going, it will not be too long until most farmers have their incomes reduced to the region of £4 a week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss farmers' grievances on this Estimate.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

My thanks to the Chair and I assure him of every co-operation. I do not intend to deal with the problems of the farmers but it is no harm to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a social problem exists in connection with small farmers. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries may be dealing with the greater problem of farmers, but the Minister for Social Welfare has this problem of the very smallholders and I am asking him to be more generous in the future than he has been in the past with those people.

Mr. Treacy

Those of us who are concerned about the least fortunate in our society would fail in our duty as public representatives if we did not avail of the opportunity of pointing once again to the defects, inadequacies and anomalies which exist in our archaic and outmoded social code. A great man once said—his monument is behind me in this House; I refer to James Connolly—that the freedom of a nation is measured by the freedom of its lowest class and that every upward step of that class to the attainment of higher things raised the standard of the nation in the scale of civilisation and that every time that class was beaten back into the mire, the whole moral tone of the nation suffered.

We judge true freedom on these Benches by the standard of life of the most distressed of our citizens. We have always asserted that it is the fundamental duty of any Christian Government not merely to safeguard people in their everyday lives by providing employment, job security, decent conditions and good wages and all the things that go with the good life but that, in particular, there is the responsibility to safeguard us in sickness, in infirmity, in widowhood and in old age. It has been said by some Government spokesmen, in an attempt to present a facade to the House and the people of the country, that all is well with social welfare. We have got these annual increases in benefits of 2/6 or 5/- and sometimes 10/- depending, perhaps, on the situation whether a by-election, a general election, a local election or a Presidential election is in the offing.

It has been said that some £40 million will be spent in this Department: the Minister contends there has been an increase of £9 million or £10 million in his Vote this year. That may be so but I do not know how this extra £10 million is being spent. Certainly, it is not spent on those most in need of it, the least well off of our community. It may have gone in administration costs, in status increases or some other way but certainly the section which should have benefited most, the non-contributory element, the assistance element, the widowed, the old aged and the unemployed did not benefit at all, I submit, from the extra millions which the Minister so vaingloriously spoke about in the House.

Let us not forget that this social welfare code is still constrained by the most niggardly means tests the art of man could devise. Unfortunately, the game of politics was played with the increases given. We have had dual Budgets this year. Last year, in the one Budget, an increase of 10/- a week was provided. It got lavish headlines in the daily newspapers, big coverage on television and sound radio, the Government organs, especially, making capital out of that allegedly great increase, due to the benevolent Fianna Fáil Government.

It was only a few days later, when we had had time to look closely at the social welfare code, that we began to realise only those whose incomes did not exceed £26 a year would benefit by this increase. Anyone whose means were assessed at more than ten miserly shillings per week did not receive that increase of 10/-. The House will realise in respect of the 5/- a week increase provided in the two Budgets this year that it was a disgraceful, even a despicable thing for a Government and a Minister for Social Welfare to boast about it and about the 10/- increase last year and later to say: "But no one gets this"—the "but" was in small type—"if his income exceeds 10/- a week." Obviously, thousands of those in need did not get that 10/-increase. Therefore, the Minister perpetrated a fraud on the poverty-stricken people and his Government stood behind that fraud. As I have said, 5/- a week extra was granted to social welfare beneficiaries this year and it contained a stipulation, again in small type——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to discuss legislation, either past or to come, on the Estimate.

Mr. Treacy

I think I am at least entitled to discuss the administration of the Department in respect of moneys provided by this House and that is what I propose to do. I wish to point out that in respect of the increases in assistance benefits, to non-contributory widows and orphans and old age pensioners in particular, only those people who had in the words of the Minister no means whatsoever derived benefit from the 5/-increase. It was bad enough to apply a means test of £26 a year last year but to come along this year and say on the one hand that they were giving an increase in social welfare benefits——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is continuing to discuss legislation, which is not in order on the Estimate.

Mr. Treacy

Very good. I shall confine myself to saying that when this money for social welfare benefits was provided by the House, we appealed to the Minister to adopt a more humane approach to this matter. We asked him to rid his mind and the minds of his advisers of the idea of imposing these terrible means tests which insist that one will get an increase in social-welfare benefit only when it has been proved one has no means whatsoever. Let them not talk about being a great benevolent Party or a great Christian Government who have the welfare of the aged and the infirm at heart when by legislation they make it virtually impossible for anyone to benefit——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

For the third time, I wish to remind the Deputy that it is not in order to discuss legislation on the Estimate.

Mr. Treacy

I should like to join with Deputy Flanagan in bringing attention to the Department's treatment of beneficiaries in this country of British pensions of various kinds. The Labour Party played a prominent part in recent years, particularly in recent months, in the endeavour to get the Department to realise the urgent necessity of bringing about a reciprocal agreement between this Government and the British Labour Government in regard to social welfare beneficiaries under the British code living in this country.

In years gone by, many thousands of Irishmen were obliged to leave this country not because they liked the bright lights of Piccadilly Circus but because they were denied the opportunity of earning a livelihood in their own country. Having spent many years in England, many of them received benefits of various kinds. Some of them joined the army and participated in World War I and World War II and, in recognition of their valour in the field, earned British war pensions. If they died in action, their widows and their children benefited. Many others spent a number of years working in England and qualified for high rates of old age pensions, retirement pensions and unemployment and sickness benefits, as the case may be. When it came to retirement, those men and women decided to come home. It transpired that any increase in their pensions from the British Government were not applied to them while domiciled in the Republic.

We in the Labour Party sought to redress this injustice and were successful in getting the Minister and his counterpart in the British Labour Government to evolve a reciprocal arrangement whereby any future increases in British pensions would be applied to beneficiaries in this country. That agreement is now in operation. However, a dismaying feature has appeared: this odious means test is being applied to the munificent pensions awarded by Harold Wilson's Labour Government because our Minister for Social Welfare has decided to re-investigate the means of thousands of beneficiaries who are entitled to pensions here. Many of them have suffered a reduction and considerable numbers have had their pensions taken away altogether.

The 23rd June this year saw an army of social welfare officials rampaging throughout the country on this mission. Because of the co-operation between this country and Britain, the Department immediately became aware of every person who had secured an increase in his British pension. All pension books were immediately called in by the Department and drastic reductions, and in some cases withdrawal of pensions altogether, took place on a very large scale. This is deplorable. It was most dishonourable that having sought a reciprocal agreement by which our people were to benefit, our own Irish Government should dissipate this increase by the withdrawal of Irish pensions. I asked the Minister at column 1264, Volume 223, of the Official Report of 23rd June, 1966, if he would state:

the number of persons in receipt of non-contributory social welfare benefits who had these benefits reduced consequent upon the increase of British pensions paid under the reciprocal arrangement with Britain; and what was the average reduction in these benefits.

The Minister for Social Welfare replied:

So far, 1,504 non-contributory pensions have been withdrawn or reduced, the average reduction, including pensions withdrawn, amounting to about 30/-.

This was the shabbiest, meanest and most despicable act of which any Government could be guilty. This was money from a foreign source, which might be regarded as an emigrant's remittance, would certainly be regarded as an important factor in bridging the gap in our balance of payments, would be regarded as part of our invisible assets. This revenue was brought about by the benevolence of a British Labour Government, and it was intrinsically wrong for the Minister and his Department to apply this niggardly means test and undo all that we sought to achieve in this reciprocal agreement.

I want to put on record the feelings of outrage and dismay of all the recipients of British war pensions, British retirement pensions and other British pensions involved. I would ask the Minister to relax the legislation in respect of the categories of persons to whom I have referred. If he thought it worth his while to bring about a reciprocal agreement with Britain whereby all future increases would benefit Irish recipients in this country, the least he should do is to see that increase was not dissipated by any action of his Department.

I want to protest also about the shabby manner in which it was done. The many thousands of people involved were given no intimation by the Minister's Department as to why this was happening. They were merely instructed to send back their Irish pension books, whether it was an old age pension or a widow's pension. The books were sent back; weeks and months elapsed and, despite the representations of Members of this House, including myself, we could get no indication from the Minister's Department as to what was going on. In due course, after some months, there were meetings of old age pensions committees in our areas, of which some of us were members, certainly in my area, at which scores of these cases came before us, and it was revealed that many old age pensions were reduced drastically or withdrawn by reason of the increase in the British pension.

As one who played some small part in trying to bring about this reciprocal agreement, I deplore the action of the Minister and his Department in this instance. Yet the Minister and his Government would continue to pretend that they and they alone are the conscience of the poor of this country and that they and they alone have done anything worthwhile to help them.

I have always believed that the social welfare legislation, as I know it, is so framed as to deprive the applicant or the beneficiary of benefit rather than to assist him to secure it at any given time. It is hardly known to most people that if their income exceeds £3 per week, they have no hope of getting an old age pension. It is hardly known to most people that there are so many tricks in the social welfare code that it is very difficult to get benefit, and that if they are fortunate enough to get benefit, the legislation is such that they will not long continue to enjoy it. Some means will be found to disqualify you quickly.

A claimant for unemployment benefit must be capable of and available for work. Benefit may be disallowed on various grounds some of which a claimant would be amazed to know about. If a claimant has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment or elsewhere, if he is locked out as an indirect result of a stoppage of work of any kind, he does not receive benefit. If he has lost his employment as a result of alleged misconduct on his part, he does not get the benefit. If he refuses what is regarded by the Minister's officials as suitable employment, he is disqualified. If it is felt that he is not availing of every reasonable opportunity to obtain employment, he is disqualified.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Treacy will appreciate that all this is incorporated in legislation passed by this House and that it is not in order to discuss legislation on Estimates.

Mr. Treacy

I am merely pointing out how difficult it is to get benefit and how easy it is to be disqualified and generally pointing out the defects in our social welfare code.

Arising out of my duties as a member of an old age pension committee I have discovered an anomaly. It is extremely difficult for the ordinary person to secure a non-contributory old age pension when the rigid means test to which I have adverted is applied. If the income exceeds £3, the person gets no pension whatsoever. Yet, other categories, such as farmers who hand over their farms to their next-of-kin, particularly a son, are conceded the old age pension without question irrespective of the valuation of the land involved or the amount of money which they may have in the bank, or the standard of life which that family may enjoy. Without hesitation, the maximum old age pension is conceded while for the ordinary town-dweller a niggardly means test is applied. This is something which we cannot understand.

I appreciate the necessity to have legislation which assists people to hand over their property, especially farms, to the younger generation. Anything which tends towards that is essentially good. At the same time, it is difficult to understand the anomaly. There is a means test whereby maximum pension is granted in a case where a man hands over his property to his next-of-kin but continues to enjoy the full fruits of that property, the opulence, riches, wealth and luxury which go with it and which denies a pension to a poor unfortunate person on the side of a street whose income is as low as £2 or £3 a week. That is something which members of old age pension committees can never understand —the flagrant maladministration in respect of two sections of our people, the bending over backwards to give pensions to one section and the full use, or abuse, of the regulations which the Minister could design to see to it that other sections do not get it.

We would also like to see a levelling up in the amounts of pensions paid as between contributory beneficiaries and non-contributory beneficiaries. In every instance the rates of pension payable to the non-contributory section are much less than those payable to the contributory sections. I appreciate that in respect of contributory pensions the beneficiaries have been insured contributors over a long number of years and have paid their share for the insurance stamp every week. I appreciate that the cost of that stamp is considerable at the moment. The Minister is being credited with an expenditure of an extra £10 million this year and an overall expenditure of some £40 million. Let it not be forgotten that these social welfare contributors, the working classes, contribute at least one-third of that amount—7/4d per week.

Mr. Boland

None.

Mr. Treacy

They contribute 7/4d per week.

Mr. Boland

None of the amount in this Estimate.

Mr. Treacy

There is 7/4 per week deducted from the wages of every insured male person and 7/- is deducted in the case of every insured female worker. That is their contribution. We feel that all working class people, both men and women, would be prepared to contribute more to social welfare if they could be satisfied that the money would go to those most in need. We would like to see a balancing of the differential which exists as between the non-contributing sections and the contributing sections.

The contributory old age pension is 60/- per week. The non-contributory old age pension is 47/6 a week. In the case of a man and wife and two children the contributory old age pension is £5 7s 6d. In the case of a man and wife and child the non-contributory pension is 57/6 a week. These are odious comparisons.

We do not like the two classes of society which the Minister seems to perpetuate in this code. Let there be a levelling up and let us eliminate from the Statue Book for all time the odious, niggardly, inhuman means test which is applicable in the case of non-contributory pensions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, all this was incorporated in legislation passed by this House and it is not in order to discuss impending or past legislation.

Mr. Treacy

I am very sorry if I would seem to transgress the rules of the House.

Mr. O'Hara

The Deputy is not a regular offender.

Mr. Treacy

Thank you. May I say, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that there would be something fundamentally wrong in regard to freedom of speech if in a national Assembly, we were not permitted to make a plea for the least fortunate in our society.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was the national Assembly that adopted these regulations.

Mr. Treacy

The national Assembly will amend them, please God. Many of the things I am advocating here would not require new legislation but could be done by a stroke of the pen, by an order of the Minister, in the morning, if he felt in the mood. This Minister, without introducing legislation or involving me in a breach of order or decorum could, by order, do many of the things which we require to be done. Certainly, he could, by order, in the morning, decide that the old age pension should be paid at the age of 65 rather than 70 in the case of men and at 60 in the case of women.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That, again, is another matter for legislation.

Mr. Treacy

That may be so, but I have suggested the Minister may do that by way of order.

Mr. Boland

Provide the £10 million by order, too.

Mr. Treacy

This Party have never hesitated to make available to you all the money required for social welfare purposes but we reserve the right to be satisfied that the money goes to those we feel are most entitled to it. We have the right to question the manner in which the Minister raises the money and in which he administers it. We have never hesitated to extend our support and votes when the Fianna Fáil Government required them to provide the necessary means for the assistance of the sick, infirm, aged, widows and orphans, and we never shall.

I searched the Minister's speech carefully for some reference to the workmen's compensation legislation which this House enacted some time ago but found no mention of it. In 1954, the leader of my Party, Deputy Corish, first set about the amendment of the workmen's compensation code by setting up a Commission. This Commission sat for a long number of years and brought forward recommendations which were accepted by the Minister and approved and ratified by this House. It is disturbing in the extreme, despite the long delay in improving workmen's compensation, to find in the Department of Social Welfare booklet for 1966 that workmen's compensation payments stand at the same figure as in the 1950s, that is. £4 10s per week. This is despite the fact that legislation was passed by this House to improve these payments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy does not seem to understand that that is again a question of amending legislation.

Mr. Treacy

But this legislation has been passed by the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to discuss legislation.

Mr. Treacy

Arising out of what is contained in this booklet, could I ask the Minister when the new legislation increasing workmen's compensation will be applied?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a matter for the Estimate. The Deputy may raise it otherwise.

Mr. Treacy

I appreciate that the Chair can hamstring a Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no question of hamstringing Deputy Treacy or any other Deputy, but the rules of the House do not allow a Deputy to discuss legislation on an estimate.

Mr. Treacy

Surely I am entitled to comment on this booklet issued by the Minister's Department?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not on legislation passed by the House. That would not be in order.

Mr. Treacy

I am not entitled to comment on this booklet at all?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now discussing legislation passed by this House. I am telling him it is not in order.

Mr. Treacy

Very good, Sir, I should like to comment on the booklet——

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

On a point of order, Sir, surely the Deputy would be allowed to discuss the administration, the facts which emerge from that booklet, without suggesting legislation in connection with it? I am asking the Chair for assistance because it is rather difficult to discuss many of the things which are of great importance on this Estimate without appearing to suggest legislation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a very long point of order.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is well aware the legislation was not passed at the time this booklet was got out. His Party, in conjunction with the Fine Gael Party, were engaged in holding up the legislation.

Mr. Treacy

This booklet is for 1966 but there were supplements issued with it in respect of disability benefit. There is no reason why the Minister could not issue a supplement in respect of workmen's compensation. It is to be greatly deplored that the Minister has been mulling over this matter since the leader of the Labour Party set up the Commission in 1954 and that as yet no increase has been made in workmen's compensation payments, despite the political capital made out of it at the time.

It would obviously take a long time for me to comment on all the aspects of social welfare on which I should like to comment. I want to appeal to the Minister again to be more understanding of the needs of our people in respect of the administration of the free footwear scheme now under the control of his Department. Heretofore this scheme was administered by the local authorities. While it may not have been quite as satisfactory as those of us on public bodies desired, nevertheless it was relatively fair and impartial. Since the scheme was taken over by the Department of Social Welfare, however, it is my experience that this so-called "free" scheme is costing the poor of this country contributions ranging from 5/- to £1 or 25/- per pair of footwear on the means test basis applied by the Department.

This never happened when the scheme was administered by the local authorities because their officers, knowing the people intimately, their standards and backgrounds, administered the scheme fairly and impartially. The yardstick now applied by the Minister is such that only those in receipt of unemployment assistance or home assistance receive footwear free. The other categories, entitled to any benefit whatever, are charged on each pair of footwear. It would be much better if the Minister particularised the type of person entitled to this footwear rather than have the scheme administered in this ridiculous fashion.

I am concerned also with the delays involved in the payment of social welfare benefits of various kinds, particularly disability benefit or sickness benefit, as it is more commonly known. Deputy Coughlan is right in adopting an outspoken and indignant attitude to this question of delay in the payment of disability benefit. I do not know if the Minister realises the hardship caused by these delays on the family concerned. If a family is waiting for benefit for a number of weeks, it means they are obliged to seek home assistance. Mark you, in almost all the cases where home assistance is granted to a family to keep body and soul together pending payment of social welfare benefit, it is repayable to the local authority and is usually recouped by the local authority.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20th October, 1966.