Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Oct 1966

Vol. 224 No. 12

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £42,203,000 chun íochta an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1967, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh, le haghaidh Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, le haghaidh íocaíochtaí leis an gCiste Árachais Shóisialaigh, agus le haghaidh Ildeontas.—(Minister for Social Welfare.)

Mr. Treacy

Last night, I sought to point out certain inadequacies and deficiencies in the social welfare code. If proof is required of these inadequacies and defects, one has only to point to the fact that when the Government contemplated establishing a distinct Ministry of Labour, it was decided, as a first essential, especially on the "say-so" of the trade union and labour movement in this country, that if the matters appertaining to a Ministry of Labour were to work effectively, then matters appertaining to employment carried out by the Department of Social Welfare should be taken into the ambit of the new Ministry.

None of us is satisfied that the Minister's Department has ever shown any real regard for the working classes of this country. The labour exchanges, as such, became misnomers. There was evidence of attempts to deprive our people of benefits rather than to assist them to secure these benefits. Labour exchanges became places where a standing army of unemployed, ranging from 50,000 to 90,000 persons on occasions, signed on, in humiliation and degradation, for a period of time, generally a short period of time, until they eventually gave up in despair and went to Britain.

A realistic effort was never made to create employment exchanges out of these buildings. One could sign on there indefinitely over a period of years and not be offered a worthwhile position. The fact was that no jobs were available in this country for the officers of these employment exchanges to offer to people signing on there. If positions were offered, they were of a most menial kind, and good employers, at any rate, had not to resort to employment exchanges. They were able to recruit for the various positions they had to offer outside of this medium altogether, usually through the press or through connections within the job itself.

It came as no surprise to us that many of the functions which were the charge and the responsibility of this Minister and of his predecessors over a long number of years have now been taken from him and have been passed over to a new Department. I believe that the new Department—the Depart-of Labour—will have more respect and more regard for the dignity of labour in Ireland and take positive steps to ensure that suitable work is found for them, suitable training methods provided and proper rates of compensation and benefit paid to those who are obliged to sign on in these employment exchanges.

Certain it is that the Department of Social Welfare has for too long been tied up in means tests of a most niggardly kind. A concept of doles has activated the minds of the administrators of this Department and those of us who have experience of signing on remember well the humiliating experience it was. It was a situation in which it was forcibly borne home to one that there were two classes and two different kinds of world in this little island of ours. There existed between the decent unemployed on one side of the counter and the secure officials on the other a barrier, a barrier constructed of iron bars through which the decent unemployed looked and through which they were expected to make a public confession of their inability to secure work or to hold on to it, a public confession of the innermost secrets of their private lives, their family and domestic affairs. It was a clear case of the "haves" and the "have-nots". One suffered on there for as short a time as possible until eventually, in despair, one decided to emigrate. These labour exchanges, we always said, were the last places God made in this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

Have these been transferred to the Department of Labour now?

Mr. Treacy

That is so, and I wish to express our satisfaction that these have now been taken out of the hands of Social Welfare and passed on to the Ministry of Labour. We hope that labour in Ireland will now get a better deal under this new Ministry than it got under Social Welfare.

Last night I adverted to the inordinate delays which take place from time to time before social welfare benefits are paid. There can be a lapse of weeks, sometimes months, before payment comes through. This applies more particularly in the case of disability and sickness benefit than it does to any other type of benefit. First of all, there is the confusion arising as to the nature of the ailment and whether it is a case more properly for workmen's compensation than for disability benefit. This leads to a great deal of delay until such time as the matter is resolved. There is also the routine delay of processing the claim. That takes a few weeks. In the interim the sick man, his wife and family are left without any income whatsoever and must fend for themselves until such time as payment comes through. They are usually forced to resort to home assistance. This home assistance is paid on the stipulation that it must be refunded to the local authority.

After some weeks of waiting, during which one may have drawn four or five weeks home assistance of, perhaps, £4 per week to maintain a small family—that is as much as one can hope to get—the cheque eventually comes through from the Minister's Department; a deduction of the full amount of the home assistance paid is made at source in the Department and the unfortunate recipient, instead of getting the anticipated £20 or £30 benefit, gets only half the amount. This can have a most disastrous effect on a family that budgets for a certain amount of money per week and finds that the amount forthcoming is much less than anticipated. I would ask the Minister to seek some means of ensuring, especially in cases of hardship, that the home assistance paid is not deducted at source in the Department and refunded to the local authority without at least ascertaining whether such deductions are likely to cause grave hardship.

I have a specific case in mind, the case of a widow whose husband died in tragic circumstances, leaving herself and her seven young children to fend for themselves. She applied for a widow's contributory pension, a rather straightforward case since the husband had been insured over a long period of years, but it was four to five weeks before the claim was processed and the award duly made. In the meantime, she was obliged to seek home assistance. She was paid £4 per week by the local assistance officer to maintain herself and her seven young children. When the cheque eventually issued from the Department, the full amount of home assistance paid, £20, was deducted at source. This had a disastrous effect on that family budget. This widow had been involved in costly funeral expenses. The amount of home assistance paid to her was totally inadequate to maintain herself and her children and she was obliged, of necessity, to secure credit. The deduction by the Department of Social Welfare of the home assistance paid worsened this widow's domestic problem out of all proportion. This was a case of hardship. It was a case in which the home assistance should not have been taken back. In such cases the Minister should exercise his prerogative to ensure that the local authority does not insist on moneys of this kind being refunded or returned to them, thereby causing the kind of hardship I have outlined.

Another matter which is causing me some concern is the fact that it has come to my knowledge, especially in recent weeks, that a large number of recipients of disability benefit, sickness benefit, and so on, have been cut off benefit on the ground that they are allegedly capable of work. These are situations in which doctors differ fundamentally and it is said that when doctors differ patients die. Patients may not die in this instance but they do virtually die of starvation as a result of these decisions. I know of cases, some of which have been already communicated to the Minister's Department, in which recipients of disability or sickness benefits have been called before the examining doctor in the Department and after what some of these patients alleged to me was a rather haphazard and sketchy examination, they were told within 24 hours of thereabouts that their disability benefit was being discontinued, that the examining doctor from the Department felt they were now capable of work. This is a serious decision to come to. It is a serious reflection on the patient and it implies that he is a malingerer and a chancer and that he is pretending to be ill when, in fact, he is sufficiently well to go to work.

It is more alarming, however, if you find that the patient's doctor is of the confirmed opinion that the patient not only is ill but that his illness is of such a serious nature that he will not permit the patient to return to work in any circumstances and that he forbids the patient to resume work. Here we have a conflict of opinion of two professional men. I submit that one doctor's viewpoint is as good as another doctor's. Whether it is because of an economy drive in the Minister's Department, or a result of the cheese-paring methods which they adopt from time to time in Departments or, as somebody suggested to me, as a result of an instruction from the Minister or some of his senior executives to adopt a get tough policy in respect of disability benefit patients, there has been in recent weeks an alarming growth in the number of people who have been disallowed disability benefit because the Department's doctor felt they were capable of working.

I can give specific instances. There is the case of a man in my constituency who all his life was hardworking and industrious and was hardly ever sick. He is employed permanently by our county council as a machinery man and commands a pretty high wage. He is in an insurable position. Earlier this year he developed a back ailment and was obliged to rest on the instruction of his doctor. He sought disability benefit and was paid it for a short period. Then he was called before the examining doctor in the Department and was promptly informed that the benefit was being disallowed on the grounds that he was capable of working. The man informed his own doctor who carried out a further examination. The doctor then said that in no circumstances would he permit the man to resume work. He indicated the nature of his ailment which was a serious one and which would become progressively worse if his back were abused in any way.

The man remained out of work despite the fact that he received no income from any source. He remained out for a number of months and then again applied for disability benefit and was again turned down, despite the fact that I pointed out to the Minister's Department that this man could not possibly be malingering, that he was still seriously ill and that he had to sacrifice a wage of £14 a week and is now obliged to live on the wind. Normally his rate of benefit would be about £4 or £5 for himself and his wife. Is it seriously contended by certain officials in the Department that any sane workman would forego a wage of some £14 and jeopardise his superannuation prospects and possibly his senior position in that job for £4 or £5 a week?

This is what is happening and there have been a number of such cases. I would ask the Minister to look into them and satisfy himself that the patients are not being unfairly treated as I believe they are. I believe that where there is a clash of medical opinion there should be some speedy method of solving the problem rather than allowing it to run on indefinitely and cause hardship over a period. A number of cases to which I have adverted have not yet been resolved and I have not yet been informed by the Department that payment of the benefit is being resumed. The failure to make this payment is the cause of great hardship, distress and anxiety to the sick men concerned and to their families.

I want now to refer briefly to some of the benefits to which insured persons are entitled, particularly in respect of dental treatment, the provision of dentures, spectacles, contact lenses, hearing aids, etc. These are very desirable services which many of our people avail of. It is vitally important, however, that the services we provide should be of the very best quality that the medical profession can provide. There should be no doubt left in the minds of our people that the service provided is any less, by one iota, than that provided for people who are capable of paying for these services. I do not think that this can be truly said in respect of the provision of spectacles. The spectacles provided are of the very minimum standard of quality. In order to secure a reasonably good pair of spectacles, and especially a decent frame, one is invariably obliged to pay extra money because the spectacles which the Department offer are objectionable in the extreme. Up to a short time ago they consisted merely of two pieces of wire held together at the bridge of the nose.

I would ask the Minister to see to it that there is an improvement in the hearing aids supplied by his Department as well. The amount of money which the Department make available to the applicant is such that the person finds it very difficult to find the balance. We have had cases from time to time of those people coming to us and asking us to assist them to get these hearing aids. The local health authorities have come to the aid of those people in finding the balance of the money for the provision of dentures, in particular, glasses and hearing aids from time to time, but they only do so provided the applicant is the holder of a medical card and the applicant's name is on the medical register. It is not good enough if the cost of these appliances is such as to put them beyond the ability of our people to avail of them. I would ask the Minister to consider increasing the allowances in respect of the provision of dental treatment, dentures, spectacles, hearing aids, etc. and to see to it that there is an improvement in the quality of these appliances also.

Last night I referred to what I consider to be the greatest defect in the Minister's administration during the past 12 months, the position after we secured the reciprocal agreement with the British Government and the Minister's counterpart in Britain whereby recipients of British pensions in this country would secure any increases that were granted to those people over there. I pointed out that up to then increases in British pensions, war pensions, disability pensions, retirement pensions and the like, were not applied to recipients of those pensions who were domiciled in the Republic of Ireland.

I also pointed out that the reciprocal agreement made earlier this year aroused jubilation in the hearts of all of us, and particularly in the hearts of those recipients of British pensions who found on various occasions previously that those increases did not apply to them. Many of the recipients of British pensions received a great uplift a few months ago when, as a result of Mr. Harold Wilson's decision to increase pensions over there, those pensions were increased here by as much as £1 a week. This was a great windfall for the people who secured this £1 a week increase in their British pensions. It is to the credit of the Minister, his staff, and all who encouraged him over a number of years, that this state of affairs was brought about. The jubilation of those people was, however, quickly turned to grief and sorrow when it transpired that consequent on getting this increase in their pensions from Britain there was a re-investigation of all claimants involved. A drastic reduction then took place in their Irish pensions. A great majority of those Irish pensions were withdrawn altogether.

We sought this reciprocal agreement for the specific purpose of winning this extra money for our people from the British Exchequer so that those people could improve their standard of living. It was a particularly deplorable and shabby thing, having secured the extra money from Britain, that the Minister's Department should have acted in this mean and niggardly way, by attacking the Irish pensions and reducing them by an average of 30/-. They even cut them altogether in some instances. On 23rd of June last, I put down a Parliamentary Question to the Minister and asked him if he would state the number of persons in receipt of social welfare benefits who had those 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, in reply, said that 1,504 non-contributory pensions had been withdrawn or reduced and that the average reduction, including pensions withdrawn, amounted to about 30/-.

Old age pensioners in this country receive pensions up to 47/6 per week. I know of an unfortunate woman who was in receipt of a British retirement pension by reason of the fact that her husband spent the best years of his working life in that country, having been denied the opportunity of a livelihood here at home. As a consequence of his work, sweat and labour and his early death, she enjoyed a retirement pension of something less than £3 per week from Great Britain. Harold Wilson increased those retirement pensions by £1 per week and by the reciprocal agreement entered into by our Minister and his counterpart in Great Britain, this woman secured an extra £1 per week, bringing her pension to £4 a week. Consequent upon that, she was called on by the local welfare officer. She was instructed to return her old age non-contributory pension book to the Department and she has not seen it since. The pension of 47/6 which she enjoyed was withdrawn completely because our means test for non-contributory old age pensions states that people who have incomes exceeding £3 per week are not entitled to any pension whatsoever. That woman got an extra £1 a week from Harold Wilson and Seán Lemass reduced her pension by £2 7s 6d a week as a consequence.

This is what happened in most of those instances and it was a great tragedy for the people concerned. I cannot describe for this House the anger and dismay of those people over the past few months as a result of what has happened. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this means test applies to all categories of persons and if the income exceeds £3 per week, irrespective of the country from which that income is received, those people are not entitled to any pension. That is not good enough.

This money was coming from a foreign source. In this House we fought to bring about that increase to improve the lot of these people. They were, in my opinion, moneys which could be regarded as being in the same category as emigrants' remittances. They are an integral part of our invisible assets and, as such, should not have been reckoned as income and should not have been taken into account. It was a flagrant breach of the whole spirit and intention of the reciprocal arrangement that the Minister should have acted as he did. It was a violation of the real spirit and intention of this agreement, that having secured this relief from Britain, we should have undone it in its entirety and in such disgraceful fashion. If it is not too late, and if it is within the power of the Minister, I should be glad if he would set himself out to redress a flagrant wrong perpetrated by his Department, perhaps unwittingly and unintentionally. But, because of the means test contained in the social welfare code, this has happened.

It was never the intention of this House that that should happen. It was never the intention of the negotiators of the reciprocal agreement that it should happen. That being the case, I will ask the Minister, either by order or some other means, to redress this wrong, to correct the injustice done to the thousands of widows and old age pensioners who are in receipt of British pensions whose Irish pensions have been drastically reduced or withdrawn altogether in recent months.

I appreciate that our economy is anything but viable. There is an acute shortage of capital but I submit the Department should not be so badly off as to covet the pensions of this the most unfortunate, the most poverty-stricken and the most destitute section of our society, the non-contributory welfare section and the assistance section. To interfere with the pensions of these classes of persons was deplorable and the Minister has gathered into the coffers of his Department some £6,000-£7,000. It may not sound a lot of money but this £6,000-£7,000, or possibly £10,000 has been collected at the expense of the most destitute section of our people, the old age non-contributory pensioner and the widow on a non-contributory pension. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to redress this wrong.

Some of the other anomalies I have adverted to from time to time. One is the provision of free fuel in certain areas to the exclusion of others. I have raised this matter in the House from time to time by way of Parliamentary Question. I have adverted to it in my remarks on the Minister's Estimate. If we are to have a cheap fuel scheme, why should we select certain towns in the administration of that scheme? Why should it be restricted? The poor are to be found nowadays in rare abundance. They cannot be confined to hell or to Connacht or to any particular area. We have them in all our towns and villages, in proportion to their size. I know of no reason why cheap fuel should be granted to certain towns. It is as difficult for the poor to live in my constituency as in the neighbouring constituency which enjoys a free fuel scheme.

I would ask the Minister to knock down the barriers of selectivity which apply in the administration of the free fuel scheme. If it is to be continued, it should be continued on a fair, impartial and broad basis throughout the whole country. I think the origin of the selectivity of the zones for the application of a free fuel scheme goes back to the war years and the non-availability of turf in certain areas. Those days are long since past and the Minister should have it looked into in the light of the present situation, and if the scheme is worth continuing at all, it should be applied to the whole country.

I have adverted, Sir, to the payment of home assistance and hope that, especially in cases of hardship, the obligation to refund might not be insisted on in future. There are people who find themselves temporarily in financial distress and who are glad to avail of home assistance and who would want in conscience to refund it. That is understandable, but the health authority would be justified in seeking no return of these moneys in certain cases. I have mentioned cases of acute hardship where, in my opinion, it is wholly unjust, and I hope the Minister will have regard to these cases.

I want to talk briefly about the administration of home assistance, which is a function of the Department. I have never been satisfied that we have shown the same regard for people in distress as we should have as a Christian society. I would like to see greater respect for those unfortunate people who are obliged to seek assistance from the public purpose. Let us all be satisfied that we Irish are a proud race. We are slow to seek assistance, to wear our heart on our sleeve. When people seek home assistance, they are really at rock bottom, really in distress. That is not to say that we have not a hard core of wise boys who are prepared to cash in on every opportunity available.

I appreciate that assistance officers have a difficult task and have to cope with a difficult element at times but it is a far far better thing, if we are to err in the administration of home assistance, the relief of acute distress and the relief of destitution, that we should err on the side of charity. We should be prepared to be done down at times, as we will be, in the allocation of money. I would like to see an overall improvement in the approach to these unfortunate categories of persons. Is it not a fact that these people are obliged to go along to an office which may also contain the local dispensary? It is usually in the local dispensary these moneys are doled out and there is, in most instances, no degree of privacy whatsoever. People are obliged to make a public confession of their sad state of destitution within earshot of all the people in that compartment, the people queueing up and in some instances people in the outer hallway and in the adjoining rooms. They can hear what everyone is saying and what is being said by the assistance officer to the unfortunate applicant concerned.

There is, of necessity, in these cases a searching interrogation carried out in which the innermost secrets of the private lives and domestic affairs of these unfortunate people are laid bare before all concerned. I submit that it is intrinsically wrong and unchristian that that should be allowed to happen in a public place and I ask the Minister to take steps to ensure the strictest privacy for people who are obliged to go on an errand of this kind. The strictest privacy and the strictest secrecy should be maintained. It is not good enough that those people should be interrogated in a public place or that they should be paid out in a public place within the hearing or in the sight of other groups of people. There is evidence of those people being interrogated for home assistance and paid out not merely in dingy, draughty rooms and dispensaries but at the crossroads of this country. I am appealing for a better deal for those, the least fortunate in our society.

It is no wonder, Sir, that you find a build-up of antagonism towards the Minister's Department by the mass of our people, our working-class people, our labour and trade union movement in particular, when you see indignities being inflicted on our people by way of the allocation of home assistance or the does in our employment exchanges. It is no wonder that build-up of antagonism and opposition is such that it has forced this Government to hand over the affairs of labour exchanges in the future to another Department altogether. That, whether the Minister likes it or not, is a serious indictment of the maladministration of the Department of Social Welfare and the way it has treated decent working-class people who found themselves out of a job or in distress in the past. This is an indictment of the maladministration of the Minister and the officials who looked down upon these unfortunate people and treated them as second-class citizens and made the position for them so utterly intolerable that eventually they gave up the ghost in trying to survive in this country and quit altogether.

I said last night in my opening remarks that the great founder of our Party. James Connolly, always maintained that there were two types of freedom; that political freedom meant nothing for us in this country unless it was backed up by economic freedom as well. He maintained that the freedom of a nation was governed by the freedom of its lowest class and the only freedom the lowest class of people in this country enjoy is the freedom of breathing fresh air and some of the air is contaminated. After that they have freedom to starve and pass away silently as a result of malnutrition.

When we talk of social freedom we want to see true freedom, the freedom of decent standards of life. Those of us who work for a living—and mark you, we are getting fewer; we are reaching the stage where we have too many old people and too many children and too few adult people at work to maintain the aged and the young—those of us who are still of adult age and responsibility and at work are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to help our less fortunate brethren. I say again as contributors to the social welfare code that we are prepared to pay a higher contribution if only we can be assured that these unfortunate people, the sick, the aged, the infirm and the widowed will get a better deal.

We in the Labour Party maintain that it is a primary function of an Irish Government, a Christian Government to say the very least, to protect our people in sickness, infirmity and old age from which none of us is immune. We should so organise our society that these unfortunate people are backed by the full resources of the Christian State which they helped to create in their working days. The people we plead for now in old age are the people who helped to win for us the partial freedom we enjoy today of 26 Counties. Those are the people who are being rejected by an Irish Government. We ask that the full resources of the Christian State be placed behind those people, that they should get a better deal and a fairer share of the wealth of the nation which they helped to create and in which they are entitled to participate. If they did not have the opportunity to work and to put up stamps for contributory pensions there is no reason why they should be condemned to non-contributory pensions and the obligation of odious means tests, odious means tests of the lowest kind. We talk loudly and secure political kudos by increases in social welfare benefit and I believe there are other increases coming. According to the news this morning the Minister has thought fit to increase pensions still further. It is only now these increases as a result of the last Budget are being put into operation.

Mr. Ryan

It is the third time they have been announced—the Budget, the Act and now an announcement.

Mr. Boland

It cannot be done any other way.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister milks it for what it is worth.

Mr. Boland

No; we have people who become entitled to things they were not entitled to before. Surely it is the function of the Department——

Mr. Treacy

Is the Minister in possession or am I?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is giving information.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

Deputy Tully——

Mr. James Tully

I did not contribute. The Official Report will show that.

Mr. Boland

I heard you.

Mr. Treacy

We had these public declarations and, mark you, it has always been a good political gimmick to cash in on the sufferings of the people to whom I referred, to mention from time to time all you are doing for them and to secure the widest possible publicity for increases in the benefits of these people. We have had the statements of the grandiose increase of 10/- in these pensions last year; we have had the many references to the increase of 5/- in these pensions this year; and, seemingly, it is only now that the increases are being applied to certain of these people. It is all right to talk about the increase of 10/- or 5/- for the old age social welfare beneficiaries: it goes down very well for the time being. It is good politics, but it is mean politics, despicable politics, especially when you analyse these projected and alleged increases and find that there goes with them a means test of such a kind as to make it virtually impossible for the vast majority of people to secure the increases.

It is as difficult for a person in receipt of an old age or widow's pension to benefit by this 5/- increase as it is for the camel to get through the eye of a needle because there goes with this increase a stipulation that it applies only to people with no means whatsoever. Having regard to the experience of the Minister's officers, it is a relatively easy matter for them to find some form of means in every household concerned. Even the most destitute person would, very likely, have some other means, however small, possibly a home assistance allowance, a small allowance from a charitable organisation; and it may well transpire that these allowances will be taken into account to deprive that destitute person of the increase for which the Minister is seeking such lavish publicity, both for himself and his Cabinet.

These are some of the sentiments I wanted to express on this Estimate. Before concluding, I want to refer to a trick, to a device, which the Department still continues to perpetrate on our unfortunate people which I think ought to stop. It is presumed by the Minister and his Department that there is adequate work available from May to October, work opportunities in such abundance and of such a kind that nobody should be unemployed, especially in rural areas. But all these unfortunate people who are in receipt of unemployment assistance, in particular during the months from May to October, are disallowed peremptorily on the ground that work is available in the rural areas. Nobody takes any precaution to ensure that work is found for these men, or that work is in fact available. An order is made withdrawing benefits between May and October and the unfortunate people concerned can fend for themselves after that. They may be fortunate enough to get a little work in the rural areas but, usually, there is none available.

The Minister and his Department must know very well that machines have replaced men on the land, that there is an exodus of human beings from the land, that they are running at the rate of 20,000 and 30,000 per year in recent years, that there are no employment opportunities whatsoever, that one man can do the work of ten labourers of the past. Yet this archaic and outmoded regulation is still in operation and all these people in the rural areas are disallowed unemployment assistance during the summer months from May to October on the pretence that they can get work.

There is a far more serious aspect. Apart altogether from depriving these people of their sustenance, of their means of livelihood, you are removing considerable thousands of people from the unemployment register at our labour exchanges and, lo and behold, there is a considerable drop, supposedly, in the number of unemployed during these periods: supposedly there is work, and benefit is disallowed on the pretext that work is available. These people become a forgotten section, relegated to a limbo of forgotten beings between May and October. Of course in this country, with its high cost of living and the difficulty of maintaining oneself and one's family for even a week, clearly no responsible family man could fight this kind of penal clause, so these people invariably emigrate to England.

We in the Labour Party deplore this sharp practice of cutting off a vast number of unemployed people, disallowing them benefit on the pretext that during the summer months work is available on the farms, sowing seed, tending crops or harvesting grain. This is not so, and the Minister knows it. I would ask him to explain what happens to these thousands of people in the interim—who cares whether they live or die, whether they come or go, whether the fact is that this is a means of manipulating unemployment figures and that the records we have been getting from his Department are not true records of the actual standing army of unemployed at any given time.

Nobody can tell with any degree of certainty how many people are emigrating each year; it is a speculation. Some say 40,000 and others say 20,000. This is deliberate on the part of the Government who, if they wanted to assess the number, could very easily do so. This kind of manipulation and tricking about with unemployment figures is bad enough, but the human misery that goes with it is our primary concern. It is understandable that many of the functions and duties which this Minister had in the past are being taken from him and handed to another Department. It will be a very bad Minister and a bad Department which will not do more for these people than he has done for them in the past.

These are some of the sentiments I wanted to express on this Estimate. In respect of these categories of persons, we in the labour movement have a very simple, humane and Christian philosophy. We liken the nation to the family. As in the family, the rich, the powerful and the strong do not prey upon or oppress the weak. In the Christian family, the store and value of all is shared by all. The weakest physically or mentally shares equally with the most gifted, the most healthy, the most physically strong. So should it be with the nation. Those of us who can afford to contribute to the betterment of the less well off people should do so. That should be the approach of any Christian Government, and that should be the approach of those of us who wish to see equality in Ireland, and to see in Ireland the happy homes which I know are the desire of all our hearts.

Mr. Molloy

When the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare comes before the House, most Deputies take a particular interest in it because, as in my own case, we seem to spend a large proportion of our time as public representatives making representations on behalf of people who find some difficulty in understanding the operation of the social welfare code. It is only reasonable that we should take a particular interest in it.

I do not wish to delay the House very long on this Estimate but I want to compliment the Minister on the humane approach he has always adopted towards these problems. Any time I have had to approach him or officers of his Department with difficulties which my constituents had in relation to the various benefits under his Department, I have never had any cause to feel that justice was not being done. Of course—and I know the Minister subscribes to this idea—we in the Fianna Fáil Party will probably never be satisfied with the amount of benefit which we can make available to the more needy sections of the community. Indeed, our ambition is to provide a comfortable standard of living for those less well off people who have to depend on State assistance at certain stages of their lives, through no fault of their own, I might add.

I have explained that I do not want to speak for very long on this Estimate because I know it is in capable hands. I have no complaint to make with regard to any particular case. They have all been dealt with very fairly by the Minister and his officials, but there is one matter which I have already raised twice in this House, which comes under his Department, and which has to do with the payment of unemployment benefit to employees who become disemployed as a result of strike action by other people in the factories in which they work; in other words, where a strike is called in a factory and people who have no act or part in the actual strike become disemployed. It is most unfair that they should be deprived of unemployment benefit when they are put out of their jobs through no fault of their own.

I know the Minister has every sympathy with me and with the men who find themselves in that position. There was some confusion between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Minister's Department over who was waiting to hear from whom. The Minister stated quite clearly in reply to a query by me on the Supplementary Estimate last February that he was waiting for word from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions since June, 1964. On that occasion Deputy Tully interrupted to inquire was he right in the date he had heard the Minister state, and the Minister confirmed that he had said, June, 1964. Deputy Tully and I both said that was too long to wait. The strange thing is that Deputy Tully who on that occasion expressed those feelings and that opinion came into the House on 29th June and accused the Minister of being the cause of the delay in settling this matter.

Mr. Treacy

What is stopping the Minister?

Mr. Boland

I will answer that at the appropriate time.

Mr. Molloy

I myself was accused on that occasion by Members——

Mr. Treacy

Are you trying to control the trade unions yourselves? Are you trying to take them over?

Mr. Molloy

Deputy Treacy made some very pious remarks this morning.

Mr. Treacy

You have some hope of taking them over. That is the rock you will perish on.

Mr. Molloy

Deputy Treacy said——

Mr. Treacy

Leave the trade union movement to do their own business.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Treacy should allow Deputy Molloy to make his speech.

Mr. Molloy

We should be more than anxious to solve the problems of the men who are placed in this awkward position. The Minister has expressed his desire to do so. I have raised this matter twice and I am now raising it a third time. I want to keep this matter before the House until eventually we will see the day when legislation is brought in to rectify the situation and remove this anomaly from our social welfare legislation.

When the Minister is replying, I should like him to let the House know what has happened since 29th June when this matter was raised by me at Question Time. Have the Irish Congress of Trade Unions submitted a memorandum to the Minister with their recommendations to overcome this problem?

Mr. Treacy

Is the Deputy aware that not only were these people not given social welfare benefit but that they were not given home assistance by the Minister's Department?

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy is missing the point completely.

Mr. Treacy

Let us not have any hypocrisy about this.

Mr. Molloy

Deputy Treacy and his Party should help in trying to eliminate this injustice in our system and they should not try to make small political capital out of it. I do not know why he is so hot. He has interrupted me several times. Maybe he has a guilty conscience. I have not accused him of anything.

Mr. Treacy

Deputy Molloy would not have said what he did if Deputy Tully were here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Treacy please restrain himself?

Mr. Treacy

I do not like to see a Deputy attack another Member of the House behind his back.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will please cease interrupting. If he does not want to listen, he has his remedy.

Mr. Molloy

If Deputy Treacy wants to send for the rest of the Members of the Labour Party, I will repeat my statement.

Mr. Treacy

Deputy Treacy is quite capable of defending himself and does not want anyone behind him.

Mr. Molloy

I am sorry if I pricked the Deputy's conscience in this matter but my conscience has forced me to my feet to bring this matter again to the notice of the House and to appeal to the Congress of Trade Unions, who are doing a good job, to co-operate with the Minister in this matter and have the position rectified. It is only a small thing. The Minister said on several occasions that he is anxious to improve the situation and, if possible, improve even on the system which operates in England at present. The system which operates here, I understand, was originally the brainchild of the late Deputy Norton and was brought in by Labour Party representatives. They now know that it did not cover the position properly. We in Fianna Fáil know that the position is not properly covered and I know of certain men in my constituency who had to walk the streets of Galway while the Irish Congress of Trade Unions kept the Minister waiting for a memorandum and these men were thereby deprived of unemployment benefit.

Mr. Treacy

Did the Deputy get home assistance for them?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Molloy

I understand, in fairness to Deputy Treacy, that he is the only Labour Member to have spoken so far who referred to this matter. As reported in—I think—volume 223 of the Official Report of 29th June, Deputy Tully and Deputy Corish interrupted and delayed the business of the House for a long time at Question Time. They seemed to be very agitated over this question and yet Deputy Treacy is the first Member to mention it even casually on this Estimate today.

Mr. Treacy

I mentioned it years ago, before ever the Deputy came to the House, as the records of the House will show.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Treacy should restrain himself.

Mr. Treacy

I agree.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy agrees, there can be no further argument.

Mr. Treacy

Why should Deputy Molloy infer something which is incorrect?

Mr. Molloy

I did not come in to make the blood of Deputy Treacy or of any other Labour Deputy boil but to cite a case in which people of my constituency were seriously affected for many weeks and deprived of unemployment benefit, which any man should get who had contributed to the fund, because this anomaly was allowed to exist in our social welfare system. I feel in duty bound to raise it here and I trust that these remarks will be effective. I hope that in the very near future we shall see this situation rectified.

Mr. Treacy

Did you get them home assistance? No answer.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Deputy Molloy referred to finding the Minister very helpful in dealing with matters brought before him by the Deputy. I am sure other Deputies would say that any Minister would be helpful but one of the objections we in Fine Gael have —and it is shared by the Labour Party—is the way in which social welfare is administered. It should not be necessary to bring something before a Minister or officials of his Department. Naturally a Minister will pay attention to something brought up by any Deputy and particularly, perhaps, when it is brought up by a Deputy of his own Party, but the point I want to make is that the machinery of social welfare administration should move smoothly without oiling by Deputies or other public representatives. In saying that I am not attacking the officials in any way. They do their duty well in this Department as in other Departments but the complexity of our social welfare system is such that almost inevitably anomalies arise which have to be smoothed out by public representatives.

I was interested in what Deputy Treacy said about the widow who had £3 a week from the British Government and £2 7s 6d from the Government here and who, when the increase of £1 a week came in the British pension, bringing it to £4 a week, was knocked off the £2 7s 6d pension, leaving her £1 7s 6d worse off than she was before the increase. That appeared to be the mathematics of Deputy Treacy's statement. I do not doubt the Deputy but I have been a long time in public life and I, therefore, put in the provision that if the statement is correct that this woman now gets £1 7s 6d less as a result of the £1 increase in the British pension, then there is something wrong with our machinery which should be rectified.

There would be some logical basis for it if her pension here was reduced although that would be very hard and I would not approve of it. I do not say it should be done but merely that I could understand it, but the complete loss of £2 7s 6d because of the £1 increase from England is very difficult to understand, if true. I trust it is an administrative slip and not deliberate policy on the part of the Department or the Minister.

The increases that were announced last night have been mentioned. The Minister was pleased at this and some of the Deputies thought that perhaps they should not be mentioned. Some of them thought Fianna Fáil were cashing in on these increases and in my opinion, there is no group in the House better able to cash in on any increases given than Fianna Fáil. Notwithstanding that, I submit to the Minister that we do not get sufficient information concerning social welfare benefits.

Mr. Boland

When you get them, you object.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

When I say "we", I mean the Irish citizen. There should be notices put up in post offices and published in the newspapers of the benefits available to citizens by way of pensions and other allowances. I have always thought there was something very cheeseparing about our attitude to the people in this respect. Deputies have referred to the social welfare classes as being second-class citizens. Of course that is not so, but what we pay in the way of old age pensions and other benefits to sick and old and poor people should go to them as a right and not as a handout for which they should be suitably thankful. That is not the way we should do it.

Notwithstanding the efforts made here to tell the people that it is their right as citizens to get certain payments when they reach a certain age, they do not seem to be aware of it, and Deputies, councillors and others concerned who are not perhaps public representatives but participate in charitable undertakings, find that a great deal of their time is taken up informing these unfortunate sections of the population what their rights are in connection with social welfare schemes. That could be remedied by a much wider dissemination of information as to the benefits to which they are lawfully entitled as citizens. Such information should not just be given through the radio when an increase has been granted because the information then appears to be in the nature of an endeavour to gain political advantage for something which is the citizens' due right.

On many occasions there are undue delays in payment of benefits. That is something which again falls into the category of apparent handouts to people, though it is their right. People should receive these benefits not when the Government wish to pay them. These payments should not be held up for any length of time. Delays in this respect cause a great deal of fright and worry to elderly people who, particularly widows, are peculiarly prone to fright when they think they will not get the benefits. Consequently, there should be as little delay as possible in payments.

The free fuel scheme has been mentioned. I came across a case, and I had to intervene, of old people who were entitled to benefits under the scheme but who, owing to illness and old age, were not able to go to the depot to get their fuel. I had to deal with a case of an elderly woman who was prepared, poor creature, to pay for the free fuel being brought from the depot to her little flat. However, she was too bedridden to make the necessary arrangements to get in touch with the man who did such jobs for her. That is a flaw in the administration that should be looked into. I must say that when I got in touch with the Department, they were very helpful about it.

Another matter referred to here is the difference between the contributory and the non-contributory pensions. In respect of a husband, wife and children, the contributory pension is £5 7s 6d and the non-contributory benefit is £2 17s 6d. It is a very wide difference. Again it depends on how we look at the problem. The problem of poverty does not stop at or recognise contributions or lack of contributions: a man and his family will not be less hungry in 1966 because the man did not make contributions or could not make them or was not allowed to make them in past years. Hunger will attack non-contributory as well as contributory beneficiaries, but the contributory pensioners get about £2 10s more per week.

I know this is a difficult problem for any Irish Government to solve because we are a nation with a large proportion of elderly people, probably the highest percentage of elderly people among the nations of Europe. Poverty in certain areas has been and is a big problem. Therefore, this question of how much we can contribute has to be related to the burden which is placed on the working members of the community. It is a problem that affects every able-bodied man and woman who is gainfully employed. All of them carry an inordinately heavy burden. We have a duty to look after old and sick people and we must do it to the best of our ability.

In connection with pensions generally, there is the big question of the pensions for retired industrial workers, and some day our machinery here will come round to dealing with the problem in a nationwide way. It is something with which we could very well start to deal as a nation. It would cost money, but, at the same time, it would guarantee the future for a lot of our old people. It would take people off home assistance and so on and give them a right which they do not feel they have at present.

I do not wish to speak too long on this subject but it is one which is of vast importance to us. Over on this side of the House we feel it is a continuing process, that the benefits are rather slight compared, in many cases, with the need and the poverty which they hope and help to alleviate. They do not entirely alleviate it and we feel that this should be done to a much greater extent. We also feel that the machinery should be made clearer and less complex, that all the time this country should be working towards the position in which people increasingly know exactly what their rights are and that there should be no question that elderly and sick people feel, on the one hand, they are in receipt of a form of charity of which they are slightly ashamed, or, on the other hand, that the receipt of benefits is dependent on getting the ear of some local representative in Dáil Éireann or the council. It should be made clear to the people that these are rights which nobody can take away from them, rights which nobody wishes to take away from them. The Minister and his Department should increasingly keep that before the members of the public.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

I have listened to most of the debate here and I feel that nearly all the points have been covered, but there are a few things which strike me as worth mentioning. First, there is the case of people who are self-employed, not in insurable employment. Take the case of a husband who dies leaving a widow with young children and in difficult circumstances. Because he has been self-employed, she is not entitled to a contributory widow's pension, and because of her circumstances, she will be forced to seek employment. Even then, when she has three years' stamps, she will not be entitled, as I understand it, to a contributory widow's pension.

Just because this woman's husband was self-employed, she should not be deprived of a pension. There should not be a hard and fast rule; each case should be examined on its merits. The widows of self-employed persons should be entitled to receive some sort of contributory pension. They go on for years struggling to bring up young children, and even when they reach 65 and when their services are dispensed with in whatever occupation they have been, they must wait until they are 70 before they get a very meagre pension. Furthermore, in relation to these contributory pensions, these people are paying money and should get their pension at 65. It may cost the State a lot of money but it is something that is well worth doing. People who are used to a way of life and used to a certain amount of money cannot suddenly do without it at 65. I know of many cases like this all over my constituency and it worries me a lot. These are people who had young families when their husbands died— they may have married late—who were in good employment but who spent all they had in educating their children, and then find themselves at 65 without a shilling.

The treatment given to the old, the sick and the disabled in this country must seem to foreigners, to people who look at our system, quite a disgrace. It is said here and everywhere else a country can be judged by the way it treats its weaker citizens. Certainly if this country were to be judged on that basis, we would rate very low with the rest of Europe. We have arrived at the situation where top executives retire at 65 with golden handshakes, while the ordinary man and woman who work just as hard as these top executives retire with nothing. This is a situation which should not be allowed to continue, and it is a situation that I feel we as a responsible Opposition should point out to the House.

A great deal has been said about the method of assessing people's means for old age pensions. I am not sure that it is an easy thing for a Minister to decide how a person's means should be assessed, but the way in which it is done at the moment is degrading, to say the least of it. A man is dragged before a committee and must disclose to everybody his means or lack of means. The system is geared to encourage a man or woman to be untruthful in disclosing means. This is not good. Every little thing is taken into consideration, and a man or woman must literally bare his or her soul before the pensions officer and committee before he will get a few shillings a week. This is a degrading system.

I know things are difficult now and that there is a yardstick for the granting of pensions. However, the Minister must realise that at the moment, in rural areas particularly, times are extremely difficult, and pensions officers should now be instructed to be a lot more lenient during the months or years, or however long this crisis lasts. In the past farmers who were entitled to some pension had it gauged according to their valuation. The farmer with a certain valuation of two years ago was in a very different position from that of the farmer with the same valuation today. Two years ago the cattle trade was at its zenith. Now it is worse than it was during the Economic War. Even though a man may have a few cattle, their value has so depreciated that he is probably wishing to the Lord that he had not got them because he has to feed them during the winter and is probably a lot worse off than the man who has no cattle. For that reason, when being assessed for pension purposes, for these few months or years, or as long as this crisis lasts, these people should be given every sympathetic consideration so that they will be allowed these vital few shillings, because I am afraid a few shillings is all that they will get, to eke out an existence in their old age.

I sometimes think that we pay too much to certain classes and not enough to another class. The ideal thing would be to reward everyone who arrives at the age of 65 with some sort of pension. I recognise that in this country we cannot do it but those who are getting a pension should get it with some sort of grace and should not have to get on their hands and knees and go to every TD and every country councillor and get them to try to make a case for them to get a few shillings.

There is another thing that strikes me in regard to holders of medical cards. The medical card system is the only one we have. It has been criticised long and loud here. I feel in many cases it is unfair but I will say this much for Galway County Council, that they do try to meet all requests. Persons in County Galway who have medical cards and find themselves in need of dentures apply in the normal way. They have their teeth extracted and I have known cases where persons have waited for six years for dentures. After a year, not to mind six years, the shape of a person's mouth has altered. So, when the dentures finally come, they do not fit. As one dispensary doctor said to me: "A lot of dentures in this town are left on the dresser". Surely that is a shocking waste of State money? Could some system not be devised whereby these people would get their dentures almost immediately? I understand from dentists that it is vital to get the dentures as soon as possible because otherwise the mouth changes and the dentists make dentures and they do not fit.

There is a similar point to be made in connection with people looking for spectacles. In my constituency I find that people wait months to see an oculist and more months waiting for spectacles and when the spectacles finally come the standard is very poor. A lot of money is put into the health services and I think a lot of it is very badly spent.

I understand that in various counties they have different standards of assessing eligibility for medical cards. In my constituency, when people invest in a television set they lose their medical card. That is hardly fair. It is very easy for a person to hire out a television set. It costs about 10/6d or in some cases 9/6d a week. Life in rural Ireland is very difficult and surely a man and his wife and family are entitled to spend 9/6d a week on enjoyment. We give an awful lot of lip service to rural Ireland and to the need to keep people on the land but we will never keep them on the land if we make it more difficult for them to exist on the land. I would prefer to have my family looking at television at night where at least you would have them under your eye, than out along the roads or making plans to skip it to England, as happens in a great many country areas.

Therefore, I would ask the Minister to have a word with the local authorities with a view to eliminating that disqualification. It is not as if these people pay £100, £90 or £70 or whatever the price may be, for a television set. They would not have that amount of money in their wildest dreams. They merely save this 10/6 or 9/6 a week in order to have a few hours enjoyment at night.

There is very little else that I want to say. All that needed to be said has been said by various Deputies. I would like the Minister to think particularly of widows whose husbands were not in insurable employment. I know cases of great hardship. The hardship could be easily eliminated and it would not cost the Exchequer a considerable amount of money.

There is also the case of women whose husbands disappear. The number would be very limited. These women are not widows; they are married. They are eligible for nothing. Where it is proven that the husband cannot be traced for X years these people should be entitled to the benefits that widows are entitled to. There was a case in my constituency of a woman with seven children. Her husband had vanished. Only for her kind neighbours, she would be starving. She is not a widow. She is sure she is not a widow, although she has not seen or heard from her husband for years.

The number is so limited and there is such hardship involved that some case should be made for these women. The Minister should have some discretion so that these people could be treated as widows and given the same pension as widows get. In point of fact, they are living in the same circumstances as widows and very often are in desperate need. I think this could be done at very little cost to the State and it should be done.

Mr. L. Belton

As regards medical cards, in the city of Dublin, I find that in the past six years——

Mr. Boland

I have not any responsibility for medical cards.

Mr. L. Belton

The last speaker referred to them.

Mr. Boland

I did not like to interrupt the lady.

Mr. L. Belton

I thought it was a branch of social welfare. Is the Minister in any way responsible for moneys paid to disabled persons.

Mr. James Tully

Slightly.

Mr. L. Belton

In my constituency I had a case recently of a man, his wife and a partly disabled son. The husband was not working; he was drawing social welfare benefit. The mother was working as a cleaner with CIE. On assessment of the family income, the son was entitled to about £1 or 22/6d a week. The father died. The incomes of the mother and son were then jointly assessed and as a result the son was declared not to be entitled to benefit. That entailed great hardship on the mother who was trying to support herself and this disabled son. That is a case that should be looked into.

I received a reply from the Minister recently to the effect that contributory old age pensions are payable only to persons in this country or in England or in the Isle of Man. It is disgraceful that something which a person and his employer contribute to and of which the State contributes only a small part should be denied just because persons happen to be living in certain places.

The greatest pity of all are the non-contributory old age pensioners who have to live on a miserable pittance and whose pensions are reduced. Quite recently, when British pensions were increased in the case of persons resident in this country, our own Government made a corresponding reduction in the old age pension.

There is a matter which I should like the Minister to clarify in connection with the increase which is to be given to old age pensioners in November. There seems to be doubt as to who will be entitled to this increase. Only this morning I was at a meeting of the Dublin Old Age Pensions Committee. Everybody there who heard the announcement on radio and television yesterday were of the opinion that all non-contributory old age pensioners were to get this 5/- increase. We contacted the Minister's Department this morning and they informed us that only people with no means will get it. I should like the Minister to clarify the position and, instead of misleading these people into thinking they are to receive an increase of 5/-, let it be publicly known that only a small proportion will receive it. It is pitiful to listen to the stories of some of the people we have there. Were it not for the UKB, quite a number of them would find themselves completely destitute. I appeal to the Minister to consider the plight of the old age pensioners and to be as sympathetic as possible in the matter of increasing their present miserable allowances.

Mr. Harte

I have but a few points to make. One has been mentioned already by many Deputies. It is the disgraceful situation whereby, when the British Government increased pension allowances to people living in this country, those people in many cases had their Irish pensions withdrawn. This has been very noticeable in my constituency and most areas around the Border counties. Some people have worked in the Six Counties and have therefore qualified for British pensions. In addition, much emigration has taken place from Donegal to Scotland. Many people who qualified either for a 100 per cent State pension, or a reduced pension because they were in receipt of a British pension, found themselves worse off when the British increase took place.

That is a deplorable situation. I know it is out of order to mention legislation but I feel the Minister must consider seriously the possibility of increasing the statutory limit in relation to non-contributory widows' and orphans' and old age pensions. This is the stumbling block. Anyone in receipt of more than £3 per week will not receive a State pension. Those people of whom I now speak, who until recently were in receipt of a British pension of £2 10s, have received a reduced Irish pension. If they receive anything less than £3, they qualified for some Irish pension. But simply because an alien Government, who provided their husbands with work when this Government failed to do so, saw fit to increase their pensions, the Government here reduced the allowance for their dependants. The Minister should now seriously consider increasing the statutory limit to, say, £6 per week. I have been trying to find out when the statutory limit was fixed at £156 per year.

Mr. Boland

In 1965.

Mr. Harte

That is a shock. May I ask the Minister, through the Chair, what was the statutory limit prior to that?

Mr. Boland

It was £143.

Mr. Harte

So we have an increase of £13?

Mr. Boland

Yes. It corresponded to the increase of 5/- in the rate of old age pension.

Mr. Harte

Perhaps we are at cross-purposes? I am talking about the higher limit.

Mr. Boland

Yes, that automatically goes up. When there is an increase in the maximum rate of old age pension, the means scale is automatically extended to bring in a higher category for the minimum rate. Every increase of 5/- automatically increases the upper limit by £13.

Mr. Harte

In view of the fact that a lesser percentage of the national cake is being paid out to social welfare recipients now than ten years ago, perhaps the Minister might see fit to increase the upper income limits, particularly to facilitate people whose husbands worked in Great Britain and who until quite recently were in receipt of a British pension and an Irish pension?

I should like to cite the case of two families. Let us say the father of one family obtains insurable employment in this country and, on reaching the age of 70, qualifies for a contributory old age pension; or, if it happens that he dies before his wife, she qualifies for a contributory widows' and orphans' pension. If that man reaches the age of 70 and draws a contributory old age pension, he can go into business and earn as much as £1,000 a week and the Department cannot take a halfpenny from him. There is nothing wrong with that. He is entitled to his contributory pension. If he dies earlier, his widow is entitled to her contributory pension, even though the family may be earning £1,000 a week. The Department cannot reduce that lady's pension by one penny. Again, that is quite right.

But, now, take the case of the father of a family who had to seek work in Great Britain. He could not obtain it here simply because this Government did not provide a job for him to support his wife and family at home. His wife and family remained here while he was in insurable employment in Britain. Say he died in Great in Britain. He was entitled to a British contributory pension but, because he worked in Great Britain and did not qualify as a contributory pensioner in the Republic, the Department either reduced or withdrew completely the pension that lady was drawing up to that time.

Here are the two arguments I would put before the Minister. I think it is unfair that this should be the position. I have one particular case in mind of a lady in Donegal whose husband, because he could not obtain work from any of the local places where people normally obtain work, was self-employed, in a manner of speaking. At no time during his life in this country did he stamp his cards. He tried to provide a living for himself and family as best he could. Times became difficult. This gentleman was forced to emigrate to Great Britain to seek a livelihood. He worked there for three or four years. Then, unfortunately, there was an accident and he lost his life. His widow was in receipt of a British pension. She had four or five of a family and was also in receipt of a non-contributory widows' pension from this country. Once the British Government increased that lady's pension, the Department of Social Welfare saw fit to withdraw her pension completely. In fact, she got an increase of £2 12s a week from the British Government and she lost £1 6s to the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister may deny it but this is a loophole by which the Department are saving money. I see no reason why that lady had to have her pension reduced. There must be many cases like this in the entire country because of the transfer of labour force from here to Britain and, later on, when some of them prosper and come back, these things are bound to repeat themselves as often perhaps as I could mention them.

At this stage the Minister should increase the statutory limits so that people in this particular dilemma can be assisted. Quite some time ago, because of the number of complaints that public representatives in County Donegal were receiving, it was necessary to table a motion at a meeting of Donegal County Council to the effect that Donegal County Council request the Minister for Social Welfare to increase the statutory limits so that recipients of old age and widows' and orphans' pensions would not lose their Irish pensions because of an increase in the British pensions. For certain reasons, some members of the county council would find it very embarrassing to support that motion and then ask the Minister to reject it. As there are about ten ways of choking a cat, the Fianna Fáil members of the council modified the motion to read:

That the Department of Social Welfare be requested not to take Irish or British contributory pensions into consideration when assessing means of applicants for old age and non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions.

That was sent to the Department of Social Welfare some two or three months ago. It was sent on the understanding that members of the county council who supported to original motion would support this one unanimously provided that if this one failed the Fianna Fáil members of the county council would then unanimously support the original motion which was tabled and which had been redrafted to the satisfaction of the members of the council who could not support it. There is a letter from the manager of Donegal County Council in which he states that, apart from an acknowledgment dated 16th June, there has been no further communication from the Department. This indicates the lack of interest that the Minister and his Department have in the people for whom I am making a case now.

I see no reason in the wide world why the Minister could not have read this resolution which was unanimously passed by the county council in Donegal which is controlled by the Fianna Fáil Party and which was sent to the Minister on a date prior to 16th June last. Why the Minister and his staff could not have read that, could not have decided its feasibility and either accepted it or declined to accept it, we are not told but he should at least have let Donegal County Council know the position relative to the application made to them. The reason is, of course, that once this was refused, members of the county council who originally could not support the motion as tabled would then be committed by word of honour to support the original motion which, in effect, was to request the Minister to increase the statutory limits forthwith. When the Minister is replying, perhaps he will inform me as to his intention in relation to this matter because, no doubt like many other Deputies representing Border constituencies, the problem that has become most familiar to deal with in the quite recent past is this particular problem.

While I appreciate that people in receipt of contributory pensions, pensions they have subscribed to over a long time of employment, are justly entitled to a contributory pension, having obtained that contributory pension they can also be in receipt of superannuation. They can have a private income of up to £1,000 a week and the Department cannot do a thing about a reduction in their contributory widows' pension or the old age pension. Consider the position of the person who was forced to leave this country to seek employment in a neighbouring country and who tried to protect his wife and family by the same pension rights only under another Department, namely the British Government. Simply because his wife and family elected to stay in this country, or because he could not find a home for them in Great Britain he allowed them to stay in this country, we find that not alone did we chase him out of this country because we could not find a livelihood for him but now we are fining the dependants because he did not come back here and stamp a card. This is an appalling situation. No Deputy could speak too strongly on it in this House and no person could bring enough pressure to bear on the Minister to have this upper income limit adjusted so that the matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

I know I may be boring the House with this but, on one occasion during the summer months, the son in a family in similar circumstances called at my home to inquire why his mother had been reduced in her widow's pension. This was not the first case in relation to which I had an inquiry; I had inquired into other cases earlier. Now this young man had to emigrate and he came back on his holidays here with his English wife and young family. He simply could not understand why an Irish Government should treat his mother like this. Difficult as it was for him to understand, his English wife found the whole thing quite beyond her comprehension.

In the kind of society in which we live, this sort of situation should not be tolerated. The Minister may be trying to do the best he can but no government should be allowed to get away with the idea that it is Government money these people receive by way of pension. The function of a government is to make sure that those in the poorer sections of our society— this is particularly the function of the Minister for Social Welfare—receive ample help to enable them to live a life which is not just that of a beggar. The Government collect the money from the people to distribute it in the way the people want it to be distributed.

Those of us who discuss these matters with the general public are well aware that nobody objects to an old age pensioner getting a decent pension at 65 or 70 years of age. Nobody objects to a widow and children getting a decent widow's and orphans' pension to enable her to make a living for herself and her dependants. I cannot understand why a government should be reluctant to collect money from those who are quite prepared to pay for these services. If I were a member of a government I believe I could publicly defend any increase in taxation to help the poorer sections of our community to live a little more comfortably than they do now. Most of the benevolent societies founded 50, 60 and 70 years ago are now societies without a function. Some have been disbanded. Those societies evolved because a group of men came together and organised themselves and their friends in order to solve a problem. Each contributed 5/- or perhaps 1/- per week and, when a member fell ill, the society stepped in with financial assistance. As the need became more obvious, men in public life realised it was not right that a certain section should accept responsibility for another section; they realised that this was the responsibility of government and society as a whole should accept responsibility for those in need. That is the way in which Departments of State developed in relation to social welfare and it was on these rocks that the foundations of these Departments were laid.

If that argument is correct, and I have no reason to believe it is not, I cannot understand why the Minister for Social Welfare cannot go to the Cabinet and say: "Each and every one of you is a public representative. Each of you has been in contact, as have all the Members of Dáil Éireann, with the man in the street, with the family in the thatched cottage, with the industrial worker, with the big business man, with all the people who make up this nation, and all are agreed that the old age pensioner is entitled to a pension irrespective of means." Certainly 95 per cent are agreed that not alone should the pension be paid at 70, without a means test, but that it should be paid at 65.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is suggesting legislation now and that is quite irregular.

Mr. Harte

I am merely citing what the general public convey to me as a public representative. I believe the same message has been conveyed to every other Deputy and I merely want to bring it to the attention of the Minister. I do not propose to suggest legislation. The case I am making is that the Government are aware of this and there is no reason why the Minister for Social Welfare should not tell the Government of which he is a member that this is a unanimous request from the people: all people reaching 70 years of age—I am content to settle for the 70 at this stage— should be entitled to an old age pension irrespective of means.

An Ceann Comhairle

Suggesting a line of action to the Minister and his Department does not necessarily make the Deputy's statement regular. It is quite irregular to suggest a line of action.

Mr. Harte

I submit to your ruling. I do not know whether it was the present Minister or one of his predecessors, but it was certainly stated by a Minister for Social Welfare that, in due process of time, the number of pensioners in receipt of contributory pensions would increase. The number of pensioners in receipt of non-contributory pensions will, therefore, grow less. That was eight or nine years ago and I do not think it would impose too great a burden now to give a pension at 70 years of age irrespective of means.

I understand that the Department have saved approximately £150,000 as a result of increases in British pensions. This is a staggering amount, in view of the fact that some pensioners would have had their pensions reduced by 2/6 a week and some pensioners would have had their Irish pensions withdrawn completely. This money could be put to better use by the Minister if he would now redistribute it to the people from whom he has withdrawn it. I do not wish to delay the House unduly but I would ask the Minister to inquire why his Department have not replied to Donegal County Council in relation to the motion I mentioned earlier and, having found out why, I should be glad if he would inform the manager of the council so that in turn he might present the views of the Minister to the council.

When the Minister is next attending a Cabinet meeting and discussing next year's Budget, he should make a demand for more money to pay to recipients of old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and disability benefit. If he comes to the House looking for support for this increase, he will, provided there are no strings attached, undoubtedly receive the support of the Fine Gael Party. I would point out that a smaller percentage of the national cake is now being distributed among these people than was being distributed to them ten years ago. I should also like to say that I am not at all satisfied with the way in which people who were in receipt of disability benefit, and whose claim to such benefit is disputed by an inspector of the Department, are transferred to unemployment benefit and, indeed, to unemployment assistance. On many occasions I have had to ask doctors to give me medical certificates to produce to the Department to prove that people were still disabled and therefore entitled to draw disability benefit.

I have in mind a particular case of a father with a family of ten who has not worked for the past seven or eight years and who would like to work but who, because of illness, cannot avail of work which may become available. Occasionally this man loses his right to the disability benefit. I would venture to say that certainly on two occasions in the past 18 months he has been refused this benefit. He has attended a board and someone—I do not know whether the man was a qualified doctor or just an inspector from the Department—asked him a few questions without giving him a medical examination. He came to the conclusion that the man was fit for work, despite the fact that he attends a dispensary doctor once a week. When this man is disqualified, he arrives at my door, and I telephone the doctor who has no need to examine the applicant and in the next morning's post, I receive a letter certifying that he is suffering from a certain complaint. When this is sent by me to the Depart ment, the man's benefit is restored. I cannot see the logic in this. This man is either entitled to disability benefit or he is not and he is either fit for work or he is not. If a dispensary doctor, who knows this man because he is his patient, is prepared to certify that he has a particular complaint, surely that should be accepted by the Department as ample evidence without all this manoeuvring and sending down someone—as I say, I am not even certain that he is medically qualified—to decide whether the man is capable of working or not?

Mr. Cluskey

He is not.

Mr. Harte

Deputy Cluskey tells me that he is not medically qualified. Might I be permitted, Sir, to ask the Minister if an inspector attending these interviews is just an inspector or a qualified doctor?

Mr. Boland

He is a qualified doctor, a medical referee.

Mr. Harte

A medical referee is a qualified doctor?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Cluskey

He can be disqualified on other grounds.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Harte is referring to whether he is fit or unfit for work.

Mr. Cluskey

They send out men who have no medical qualifications.

Mr. Boland

That is to investigate means, or to find out whether a man is working or not. The question of fitness is only decided upon by a medical referee who is a doctor.

Mr. Harte

The point we are discussing is in relation to fitness and I accept from the Minister that the man is a medical referee and a doctor. However, I have attended doctors on occasions and any time I attended a doctor he examined me to ascertain what was the compaint. He did not ask me a few questions and say to me: "Everything is OK; go home." These are the things that happen when a recipient of disablement benefit attends one of those boards. The person whom the Minister describes as a medical referee simply asks a few questions. He makes up his mind that this person is either fit for work or is not fit for work, despite the fact that the local dispensary doctor each week is issuing a certificate to the Department that he is unfit for work.

I do not wish to labour this point but again one of the most significant, and one of the most obvious, things which confront me as a public representative is the number of people in every Department of State who perform work which, as I said in another debate, is non-productive. This costs a lot of money which could be spent in a much better direction to keep the people, whom the Minister describes as medical referees and other individuals, from going around performing acts which are non-productive. The Minister should clear away some of the cobwebs in his Department and put those people into a more productive occupation. As I was saying, the people not alone who are in receipt of disablement benefit but who are genuinely transferred to unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance, discover that for possibly a month, they receive no payment whatever from the Department until one section gives the all-clear to the other section that the money should be paid. Here again simple legislation could be introduced or an order could be issued by the Minister to the chiefs of the different sections stating that this should not be allowed to happen.

I want to say, in fairness to the Minister and his Department, that I have spoken to colleagues in the Fine Gael Party and have also inquired from Deputies in the Labour Party regarding this matter, and I find that this is not a picture which can be painted of the entire country. Apparently it is only something which happens in certain areas. My area is one of those in which it happens. I know of people who have been in receipt of disablement benefit over a period of five or six months. They are then certified as being fit for work and they draw unemployment benefit for a period. The time-lag between the last payment of disablement benefit and the first payment of unemployment benefit is far too long. Those allowances are little enough but very often the recipients must go to the local grocery, the local drapery, the butcher, any local businessman or make arrangements with the rent collector and say: "Will you wait until next week until the unemployment benefit comes through and I will then be able to pay you."

This is not the reason the Department of Social Welfare was set up in the first place. It was set up to help those people and to collect money for distribution amongst them as fairly as the Department saw fit, not to bring them into the position that they have to go on bended knees to local businessmen to ask for extended credit until they receive from the Department the money to which they are justly entitled. The delay is not so great when the transfer is from unemployment benefit to unemployment assistance but still there is an unnecessary delay. Maybe the officials involved in the particular set-up in Donegal are doing the best they can. Maybe it is a question of the distance between Dublin and Donegal that is the reason for this delay. The Minister should take steps, whatever the reason for the delay, to ensure that it does not happen again or that it ceases forthwith. I am quite satisfied that if simple steps were taken by the Minister, this matter could be adjusted to the satisfaction of all.

I should like to say that if the Minister comes into this House some time after April next and indicates that he proposes to increase social welfare benefits because of the cost of living and because it is necessary to increase them, provided there are no strings attached, in regard to increases on bread, butter, foodstuffs, clothing and footwear, he will receive the support of the Fine Gael Party. He will certainly receive my support and I will agitate to the best of my ability, within the framework of my own Party, to see that he gets the support of that Party.

Mr. Boland

Did the Deputy get the all-clear?

An Ceann Comhairle

Has the Deputy concluded?

Mr. Harte

I did not hear the Minister's remark.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was not relevant to the discussion.

Mr. Ryan

It was vexatious.

Mr. L. Belton

It is out of order.

Mr. Harte

I will conclude on that note.

Mr. Andrews

I want to deal very briefly with four aspects of social welfare, social work, the social science graduate, the old age non-contributory pensioners and social security generally. It is my belief that there is very little appreciation of the social science graduate and indeed of the social worker in this country. The figures speak for themselves. Every year 60 people graduate from our universities and colleges. Most of those people, in the main, emigrate either to Britain or Northern Ireland, and to Northern Ireland in particular where their services are snapped up immediately on graduation. I believe there is not a proper recognition by the Department of Social Welfare of the need to induct those qualified people into the Department.

The tendency today is to look on our social services as pieces of administrative machinery for doling out entitlements of one kind or another. We have not reached the stage at which we can look on our social services as agencies for dealing with cases of family breakdown, the support of many old people, the mentally ill, deprived children and with personal problems of children and young people in need of protection or, if I may add, in need of control in some instances.

It is an extraordinary thing that in this community of ours where there is so much emphasis on the religious and ideological importance of the family unit, there are not children's departments and family welfare departments in our local government administration. These two offshoots of the Department are so self-explanatory that they do not need any explanation from me but the point is that one gets the feeling that the work of the Department of Social Welfare is confined to doling out of all sorts of benefits and nothing else. The function of relieving our deprived children is at the moment being carried out by various district groups, Catholic and Protestant, and of course there is little co-ordination between them. I do not want to suggest that these groups are not doing a good job. They are doing a first-class job but it is the lack of communication between the groups that is bad. This applies to an area in which our social workers' problems in dealing with the maladjustment of families are greatest.

These qualified social workers make tremendous contributions in many ways. There are of course many mal-adjustments in families living in poor housing conditions. All these can be deemed to come under the aegis of the social worker, the qualified social worker. This is what I am trying to get across. In recent times public attention has been focussed on the mentally ill and the care of the aged. In my opinion, not sufficient public attention has been focussed on the possible provision of children's services about which I am speaking.

The position, as I am sure every Deputy knows, is that all this legislation concerning children is contained in the 1908 Children's Act. This is known as the children's charter. It deals with infant life protection, protection of young children, juveniles, and so on.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not see how the Minister for Social Welfare comes into this mosaic.

Mr. Andrews

I would not say it is a mosaic. I am developing a point.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think it is relevant.

Mr. Andrews

This applies to family welfare and I am trying to develop it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not making points that seem relevant to the Minister's control.

Mr. Andrews

I ask you to accept that these are very relevant in the context.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may continue.

Mr. Andrews

Shall I continue in this context?

An Ceann Comhairle

I did not say how the Deputy is irrelevant.

Mr. Andrews

I shall continue on another question which you might consider has more relevancy. We have woven into the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Health and the Department of Education many similar functions. Where can you draw the line between these functions? When I discuss the Department of Social Welfare, it has a bearing on the Department of Education and——

An Ceann Comhairle

That may be, but we are discussing the administration of the Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Andrews

I am asking the Minister for Social Welfare to amend, in conjunction with other Ministers, the 1908 charter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is clearly not in order because he is suggesting legislation, which may not be done on this Estimate.

Mr. Andrews

This could apply to——

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot argue with the Deputy. He will have to come to the Estimate.

Mr. Andrews

I shall leave this point; I shall go off the matter altogether. I return to my them of the social worker which I believe is very much to the point. Another aspect of the Department is that there should be provision for the employment of a qualified social worker for a given figure of employees in various firms. There are firms who do employ the social worker, or social welfare officer, but there are many who do not. I would ask the Minister to ensure that a social welfare officer is employed in firms for a given number of employees. Equally, the social worker has an important part to play in the implementation of the recently established manpower policy. The manpower policy and the Occupational Injuries Bill might be seen as the beginning of a modern charter for our workers.

I again ask the Minister to consider this whole question of the social worker and the social scientist in the context of the recent manpower policy and the Occupational Injuries Bill. The whole point of my argument is that there is not enough public attention focussed on the drain from our universities in relation to social science graduates. However, as I seem to have caused the Chair some worry, I shall not go back on that subject.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not worrying.

Mr. Andrews

You are becoming restless, Sir. I shall go on to the question of old age non-contributory pensions. This scheme came into operation in 1908 and it was introduced to help certain members of the public on low incomes. The scheme was financed out of funds of the Department of Local Government and Public Health of the time. During the early years, the rate of pension was 10/-. Those were the days of the setting up of the State. Compulsory health insurance came in 1911. The National Insurance Act of that year compelled insurance for illness for most manual and non-manual workers below a certain income level. The distribution of benefits was given over to societies, including many of the well-known private insurance companies. The central administration of the scheme was provided by an Insurance Commission. By 1933 there were 65 firms dealing with weekly contributions.

I believe, Sir, this makes for inflexibility. Benefits are low and they impose a drastic reduction in living standards on people who are unemployed and people who have to try to live on these particular benefits. It would be well to bring to the attention of the House that in most European countries this system has now been abandoned or, alternatively, these countries have introduced a flat rate contribution system. They have introduced a graduated rate of pensions and benefits where contributions are a percentage of earnings. Contributions are related to previous living standards. Such a pension scheme is not a provision at a basic minimum but is in relation to previous standards of living. The increasing popularity of this class of scheme is becoming recognised in this country. When these schemes become fully available, then we will have come to the realisation of social security.

Mr. Cluskey

I am somewhat amazed at the utterances of the last speaker. I agree entirely with most of what he said but it astonishes me that a man who can advocate such things should have, comparatively recently, joined a Party who have been in power in this State since 1932. He comes in, stands up and advocates something which we, in these benches, have been advocating for years to people who turned a deaf ear.

Mr. L. Belton

He joined the wrong Party.

Mr. Andrews

Perhaps Deputy Cluskey joined the wrong Party.

Mr. Cluskey

Oh, no.

Mr. Ryan

Perhaps both Deputies are in the wrong Party.

Mr. Cluskey

I have no doubts at all.

Mr. Andrews

I have no doubts either.

Mr. Cluskey

With regard to the social workers——

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy means the social science graduates.

Mr. Cluskey

——the qualified social welfare workers—I entirely agree with the desirability of having those people but I would point out to the Deputy through the Chair that there is very little even a fully qualified social welfare worker can do for malnutrition and most of our people on social welfare are suffering from malnutrition. The whole approach of the Government to social welfare is, as the Deputy said, to dole out just barely sufficient to keep body and soul together, just barely enough to keep the breath of life in an old person. For a Party who have enjoyed government for so long, they have made no new approach to this problem. The system that operates at present with regard to social welfare is one which has been in operation since 1911 and with people in the Fianna Fáil Party who express, on chosen occasions, such progressive views, it is rather surprising that they have not looked at this question since 1911.

One realises the magnitude of the problem with which we are faced with regard to social welfare when one considers that at any given time, one-sixth of our population, taking into consideration the recipients' dependants, live, or rather exist, on social welfare— one-sixth of our population. It was described at some length yesterday just how a person exists on an old age pension.

The proportion of our national income devoted to social welfare is the lowest in Europe, with the exception of Spain and Portugal. I do not think there is any Deputy, irrespective of what Party he belongs to, who would feel too happy with just running neck-and-neck with countries such as Spain and Portugal. This is after Fianna Fáil government for so very many years.

We hear a lot these days about poverty and the war on poverty in very prosperous countries. I think the people of this country would be satisfied if the Fianna Fáil Party even started a skirmish on poverty with regard to the people who are on social welfare. I feel the vast majority of the people would be prepared to support the Government in this so even from the point of view of political expediency, at which Fianna Fáil are quite apt, I think they might have a look at this. It might be worth their while to have a look at it because there is, make no mistake about it, a growing consciousness on the part of the people of the unchristian, inhuman way in which we have treated our old and our sick.

We in the Labour Party do not just get up year after year, week after week, and talk about those things. We have been prepared to prove our sincerity. Every time the Government included in their Budget an increase in social welfare, we displayed our sincerity by voting for that part of the Budget which would bring some sort of relief, even the meagre relief the Government proposed, to those people. We need not be judged only on our words; we can stand over our record. I do not think, with all due respect to Deputy Andrews, that the Party of which he is a member can say the same.

Mr. Andrews

Sure, we introduced it and the Labour Party just voted for something we introduced.

Mr. Boland

On one occasion— the Labour Party supported us on one occasion.

Mr. James Tully

During the period of the inter-Party Government the Deputy's Party voted against it.

Mr. Andrews

I do not know anything about that.

Mr. James Tully

I know the Deputy does not.

Mr. Boland

On one occasion only.

Mr. Cluskey

I shall not pursue the matter with Deputy Andrews; I shall pursue it with the Minister.

If the Minister would take his courage in his hands and face up, in a realistic manner, to this question of social welfare and tell the people: "We will do this and we will tax that to do it", not pull a gimmick and stick in a couple of millions for some scheme but tell them: "We are taxing this and raising revenue by this means and the money we realise there will go towards a real increase and a real rise in the standard of living of those people", he would get the necessary support from the people.

Mr. Boland

As I pointed out in my opening speech, the Estimates which we have been discussing here are, of course, out of date by now. These Estimates were based on the social welfare services as they existed prior to the Budget. Consequently, they take no account of the changes made in the Social Welfare Act passed here before the Recess. I mentioned, also, that we would have to have a Supplementary Estimate at a later stage in the financial year in order to deal with the position as it now stands.

We had quite an amount of the usual type of unreal criticism from some Opposition Deputies who completely disregard the fact that in order to distribute money to those people who are depending on social welfare, this money must first of all be levied in some form or other on the general public or some sections of the public. I can see no reason why, when advocating improved social welfare, Deputies should be so reluctant to refer to the very relevant fact that the necessary money must be compulsorily collected from the members of the community who are engaged in production. Not alone are the Government entitled to redistribute income in this way, it is their most fundamental duty to do so and I have no apology to make for the fact that a large part of the revenue collected by the Minister for Finance is collected for redistribution by my Department, and that I collect a further substantial sum myself by way of social insurance stamps. Some Opposition Deputies, apparently, will never learn that the people are not fools, that they are capable of appreciating that the money for expanding social welfare must be provided by them, and that they will treat with suspicion so-called policies which deal only in promises of improved benefits without any reference to where the money is to come from, or without any plans to ensure that the community will be in a position to finance such promises.

I want to start off by saying I am completely in agreement with the viewpoint that the rates of some of the schemes administered by my Department are far too low and that it should be one of the most urgent things on the national conscience to raise them to a satisfactory level. But, while we have had a lot of talk here and elsewhere about these inadequacies in some of our social welfare schemes, I can see no sign on either side—in the continuous struggle with regard to the distribution of the national income— of an appreciation of the fact that a higher proportion of this income must, in all justice, be acquired by the State for redistribution amongst those who have suffered any of the misfortunes covered by social welfare schemes. Deputies would be more helpful—I agree that a number of Deputies were not too unreasonable in their comments —if they emphasised to the general public that the time has come when more of the incomes received by them as rewards for the part they have played in increasing production must be re-allocated to people who, for one reason or another, are not able at present to make any personal contribution to the improvement of the economy, although they may have made a substantial contribution in the past.

Admitting there has been a recent economic setback, it is fact that we are recovering from this and it is demonstrable that since 1957 this Government have been reasonably successful in fostering economic growth. We have now, in my opinion, reached the stage where the most important function of the Government is to ensure that the increased prosperity is equitably distributed and generally utilised for the common good. I do not accept the view that there is any good reason why this increased prosperity should remain in the hands of those to whom, because of their position in the economy, it accrued in the first instance, and I aim to try to acquire an increasing proportion of it for the expansion and improvement of the services administered by my Department.

I have shown time and time again that, at every stage since the change of Government in 1957, there has in fact been a continuous gain by each of the social welfare schemes over the cost of living. In the earlier stages, when it was so vitally necessary to concentrate on restoring the economy which had been almost wrecked by three years of Coalition Government, the rate of improvement was slow but it was a steady and consistent improvement. Last year we made a major advance, which resulted in an increase of over £10 million in income maintenance payments, and this clearly indicated that the Government recognised their fundamental function of ensuring that the standard of living of those who had to depend on social welfare must be increased at a more rapid rate than other sections because of the leeway to be made up. The increase of £10 million in the total of income maintenance payments was a major exercise in the redistribution of income to take in in any one year.

This year, while worthwhile and costly improvements have been made, I freely admit there has been—by Fianna Fáil standards, and I emphasise by Fianna Fáil standards—something in the nature of a pause, or I should say, a temporary reversion to the pre-1965 rate of progress. Of course, the recent enactment of the Occupational Injuries Act alters that picture of a comparative pause to one of considerable progress in regard to social welfare in this year, but it is obvious that the more rapid advance towards an adequate social welfare code, which commenced in 1965, must be resumed as soon as possible.

Mr. James Tully

Is "enactment" the word?

Mr. Boland

The "enactment"— yes. It has not been brought into operation yet; the administrative arrangements necessary to bring it into operation are proceeding. It was possible to proceed with them when the long passage of the Bill through the Dáil and Seanad was completed and I would hope to have the Occupational Injuries Act brought into operation by about 1st April next year, which is the target date set at the moment.

Unlike Deputies on the other side of the House, I see no reason at all to feel in any way inhibited in saying exactly what this means, that is, this resumption of the more rapid rate of progress commenced in 1965. I feel in no way inhabited in saying exactly what that means to the members of the community who have not themselves to depend on social welfare. In so far as what is often referred to here as the crushing burden of taxation is concerned, it must be accepted that the tendency of my Department will continue to be increase that load. I certainly accept that and Deputies should realise that demands made here for improvements are, in fact, demands for increasing the load of taxation. I recognise the importance to the community as a whole and to those depending on my Department in particular, of continuing conditions conducive to economic growth but in my opinion, the most authentic test of the success of a Government is the skill with which it channels the maximum possible amount of the national income to social purposes without inhibiting economic expansion. That, of course, has a very important part too. I accept it as reasonable that we as the Government should be judged by this standard.

We have always been able to show a good record in this respect. I believe we will be able to maintain that record. It is largely because we have been able to show this record that we have been returned, as Deputy Cluskey said, so many times as the Government. I do not see any other reason for State activity in promoting economic expansion than to make it possible to improve the all round standard of living of the community as a whole by the provision of remunerative employment for as many people as possible, and by the development of all our social services. That is the only justification I see for a fostering by the State of economic activity.

There is no reason I can see why the State should be active in this regard in order to enable individuals to amass large fortunes. The State's interest is in the improvement of the standard of living of the community as a whole, with particular reference to those people who happen, through no fault of their own, to have to depend on the services administered by my Department. I am reluctantly compelled to recognise the effectiveness of the profit motive in generating economic activity, but I have no hesitation in saying that the Government play a big part in the success or otherwise of profit-making undertakings, and therefore, the Government have an indisputable right to acquire a reasonable proportion of the profits of profit-making undertakings for distribution in the form of social welfare.

No one here has advocated increased taxation, but everyone who has spoken has advocated expanded and improved social welfare services. I feel entitled to interpret this debate, as Deputy Harte said I should interpret it, as a unanimous call on me to ensure the acquisition of more of our resources for improving the performance of my Department. I willingly accept that as my function in the Government. I have already referred to the general belief that the scope for increased taxation here is small. In my opinion, it is a regrettable fact that increases in social welfare inevitably have to be so directly related to increases in taxation. To a certain extent this is because all categories of State employees have, in the conciliation and arbitration schemes, a built-in method of not only foreclosing on revenue buoyancy but also making increased taxation inevitable, since their claims are not decided in the context of the budgetary problem as in the case of social welfare.

I cannot promise that social welfare will cease to be a contributing factor to any future taxation increases there may be but I think it obvious that if we are to make a worthwhile improvement, other methods of finance will have to be considered. For instance, we will have to consider moving towards a more normal relationship between the proportion of direct State contributions to total expenditure on social welfare, and the proportion contributed by the employers and workers. As I have said, I have shown many times that we have always ensured that social welfare payments have more than kept pace with increases in the cost of living. However, since Deputy Ryan has only recently taken over as the Fine Gael spokesman on social welfare, and since he has been following the line that little, if any, improvement has been made, it would be good and helpful to place the position on record, so that he will be able to avoid making statements which cannot be substantiated.

The latest cost of living figure before this Government came into office in 1957 was that for February, 1957. The figure stood at 135. In August, 1966, the latest figure which is now available, it stood at 187, an increase of 38.5 per cent. In 1957, the maximum rate of the non-contributory old age pension was 24/-. That was payable to people whose means did not exceed £52 10s per year. The maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension from the 1st of next month which will be payable to people with no assessed means will be 52/6d, an increase of 28/6d, or 119 per cent. For those whose means do not exceed £26 5s per year, the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension is 47/6d, an increase of 23/6d, or 95 per cent. For those whose means do not exceed £52 10s per year the rate of non-contributory old age pension payable is 42/6d, an increase of 18/6d, or 77 per cent. In the case of all those three categories a maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension of 24/- was payable in 1957. So, covering the period in which the cost of living increased by 38.5 per cent, the increases in non-contributory old age pensions have ranged from 77 per cent—which happens to be exactly double the increase in the cost of living—to 119 per cent.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is aware that an increase on a very inadequate base is not comparable at all?

Mr. Boland

I quite agree with Deputy Tully that we started from a very inadequate base, and, as I have said, we have not yet reached an adequate situation. I am merely saying that we are making progress, and I can assure Deputy Tully that we will continue to make progress. In addition to that substantial gain on the cost of living, we have also provided in regard to non-contributory old age pensions, additions in respect of dependent children which, strange as it may seem, have caused quite a considerable improvement in many cases.

With regard to non-contributory widows' pensions, in 1957 the maximum rate payable to widows whose means did not exceed £52 10s per year was 22/6d. From 1st November onwards, the maximum rate which will be payable to those who have no assessed means will be 51/-, an increase of 28/6d, or 127 per cent. For those whose means do not exceed £26 5s, the rate of non-contributory widow's pension is 46/-, an increase of 23/6 or 104 per cent. For those whose means do not exceed £52 10s, the rate of pension is 41/-, an increase of 18/6 or 82 per cent. This means that over a period in which the cost of living rose by 38.5 per cent, the rates of non-contributory widows' pensions have been increased by from 82 per cent to 127 per cent.

In addition, as Deputies known, there have been many easements of the regulations and extensions of scope in regard to this pension. In regard to unemployment assistance, a scheme very seldom mentioned, and certainly one which never received any attention from any Government other than the Fianna Fáil Government, the improvement appears to be even more spectacular, but that, I fully concede to Deputy Tully, is because the base from which we started was even more inadequate and this was largely so because of neglect by Coalition Governments. I cannot understand how Deputies seem to think that if non-contributory old age pensions are dealt with, we have salved our conscience. While there is every reason to demand improvements in the rate of non-contributory old age pensions, younger people who find themselves depending on unemployment assistance are equally in need of consideration. I could never understand why unemployment benefit never took part in either of the two increases which were given during the two Coalition Government times.

In 1957 in urban areas, unemployment benefit for a single man was 18/- per week. It is now 39/-, an increase of 21/- or 117 per cent. In the case of a married person the rate in 1957 was 28/- and it is now 72/6, an increase of 44/6 or 159 per cent. In rural areas, for some reason which I would not attempt to justify, the rate is lower and the improvement is even more spectacular. The rate was 12/- in 1957 for a single man. It is now 33/-, an increase of 21/- or 175 per cent. In the case of a married person, it was 20/- in 1957 and it is now 64/6, an increase of 44/6 or 222.5 per cent.

Mr. James Tully

Before leaving that subject, would the Minister comment on the question I asked about introducing a disability assistance scheme?

Mr. Boland

I often get the impression that Deputy Tully—I do not say he has any other way of getting information—can read my mind to a certain extent. We have cover for all the contingencies laid down as requiring cover under income maintenance schemes by the ILO on both insurance and assistance sides, except that, on the assistance side, we have nothing that really corresponds to disability benefit. We have the disabled persons maintenance allowances scheme but that does not compare with disability benefit in the same way as unemployment assistance compares with unemployment benefit.

I have felt for some time that this is the only real gap in the structure of our income maintenance services. I am not saying that these services are entirely satisfactory otherwise but this is the only gap I see, and I would certainly hope at some time to fill that gap satisfactorily. In the White Paper on Health, the Minister for Health announced his intention to change the method of assessing means under the disabled persons maintenance allowances scheme, to bring it more into line with the assessment of means for the other schemes such as unemployment assistance.

Mr. James Tully

It is no good when a man is in hospital.

Mr. Boland

In any case I am discussing with the Minister for Health whether or not this scheme should come under the aegis of the Department which deals with all the other income maintenance schemes. If it does, my object would be to bring it into conformity with the unemployment assistance scheme so far as possible.

Mr. James Tully

Fair enough.

Mr. Boland

Obviously, it would be very difficult in the case of self-employed people to have a scheme of payments for short-term illnesses because, unlike employment which is remunerated by wages, the income does not always completely cease in the case of short-term illnesses. Whatever is done in this respect will probably, initially at any rate, have to be confined to long-term illnesses.

I was going on to show that we have ensured that social insurance benefits more than kept pace with increases in the cost of living. In the case of unemployment benefit and disability benefit, the rate for a single person in 1957 was 30/-. That has been increased by 22/6 to 52/6 or 75 per cent. In the case of a married person, the rate in 1957 was 45/- It is now 92/6, an increase of 47/6 or 106 per cent. The contributory widows' pension is of course paid at the same rate as the single rate for unemployment or disablement benefit and has increased in the same way. This again has happened in a period when the cost of living figures increased by 38.5 per cent.

Similarly, in regard to contributory old age pensions, we have taken care to ensure that they have made a relative gain on the increase on the cost of living. The scheme was introduced for the first time in 1961 and so it is only with the position since then that it can be compared. In November, 1960 the cost of living figure was 148; in August this year, it was 187, an increase of 26.3 per cent. The original rate of contributory old age pension in January, 1961 was 40/-. It is now 60/-, an increase of 50 per cent and the married rate has been increased from 68s 6d to 107s 6d, an increase of 57 per cent, in a period when the cost of living increased by 26.3 per cent. In addition to that, we have introduced additional allowances for dependent children in both non-contributory and contributory old age pension schemes. The result is—there are now one or two cases only, exceptional cases, but cases of need nevertheless— where the maximum rate of old age pension in the course of payment is £5 7s 6d per week and in the case of contributory old age pensions, there are one or two maximum rates of £9 17s 6d being paid.

Prior to 1957, when there was, of course, no contributory old age pension scheme, the maximum anybody in these circumstances could have received was 24/- per week. It is clear, therefore, that in addition to ensuring that the maximum rates of payment have more than kept pace with increases in the cost of living, we have also succeeded in developing and expanding the social welfare services in many cases. In 1957 the maximum income, irrespective of the number of dependent children, above which no non-contributory pension was payable was £104 15s a year. Now a person with two dependent children could have an income not exceeding £208 15s per year to qualify for the minimum rate of pension and this, of course, would be increased by £13 per annum for each child in excess of two. If that man's wife were also still alive the minimum rate of non-contributory old age pension would be payable on an income not exceeding double that amount, £417 10s, with increases for each child in excess of two.

Therefore, I think I have shown without going into great detail that not only have we been ensuring that the cost of living has not gained on the rates of payment of social welfare benefit but we have been also expanding the cover of the different social welfare schemes. Of course I agree that if we take in isolation the period since the last general increases were granted, a case can be made for further increases based on the increase in the cost of living, apart from the fact I have admitted that there is a fundamental case for increases in the rates of payment themselves which are, as we are all agreed, too low in the absolute.

Deputies can be assured from our record of attention to this matter that we shall not allow the cost of living, for the first time since we took over in 1957, to gain on the rates of social welfare benefits. While I admit there is a special need to increase social assistance rates, the figures I have just given do not substantiate Deputy James Tully's assertion that social assistance improvements have not kept pace with improvements in social insurance benefits. There is clear evidence in the figures of the increases given of my appreciation of the more urgent need for improvements in the rates of social assistance given.

Deputy Ryan had some interesting and attractive suggestions for new forms of assistance such as the provision of assistance in kind and so on in addition to monetary payments. There are many such things which could be done but Deputy Ryan and others also pointed to the necessity which we all see for substantial increases in many of the rates of benefit payable under the existing schemes. The fact is that the desirability for innovation and expansion is always in competition for a limited amount of money with the urgent need for improving existing rates of payment. Despite this, there has been no recent year when there was not some substantial expansion of the cover of social welfare in addition to increases in the rates of payment. I shall not lose any opportunity to develop a more comprehensive social welfare code but, unfortunately, it is always necessary to make a choice as to how money available to me is spent. Certainly there is no shortage of ideas as to improvements that could be made.

A lot of the debate was taken up dealing with the question of the effect of the recent reciprocal agreement with the British Government in regard to pensions on recipients of British pensions who are also in receipt of non-contributory pensions here. I should like first of all to point out that it was known while the negotiations were going on that some of those people had come into the means category which qualified them for social assistance here because of the failure up to then of the British Government to pay increases awarded to their pensioners living here. Because these increases were not being paid to British pensioners living in this country, the Irish taxpayer had to carry that burden. It was known that there would be a saving on non-contributory pensions in this country when this reciprocal agreement was put into effect and the savings estimated from this source, in so far as it was possible to estimate them, were taken into account in the improvements granted in the Budget and in the Social Welfare Act of this year. The Act had some further improvements not mentioned in the Budget.

As I said in my opening statement, the improvements provided in this year's Social Welfare Act are not included in this Estimate and so the effect of the saving on non-contributory pensions has not shown up in this Estimate but will show up in the Supplementary Estimate which I shall be introducing later in the financial year. It is not asking too much of Deputies to try to understand how it came about that some reductions in these non-contributory pensions had to be made due to the fact that the reciprocal agreement provided, among other things, for the payment by the British Government of increases granted to their pensioners this year, increases which had been with held up to now.

When that agreement came into operation, the pensions payable by the British Government to people here immediately were increased to the amounts which would be payable if those people were residing in Britain itself. I cannot understand the attitude of Deputies who request that because this money comes from outside the country, it should not be assessed as means, while contributory old age pensions provided under our own scheme are assessed as means, and in fact, rule the person out entirely for a non-contributory pension. I cannot understand why it should be suggested that this type of income should be disregarded while pensions earned in ordinary industrial employment are not disregarded or while the savings gathered by a self-employed person over his whole lifetime are not disregarded.

Surely the suggestion here, if it is to be carried out logically and justly, must come down to this old demand for the abolition of the means test. There is no merit whatever that I can see in the suggestion that this type of income should be ignored and other incomes taken into account in regard to the means test. Deputies either see the need for and the equity of having the means test when the amount of money available for social assistance is limited, or they do not. It must boil down to the fundamental question whether the limited amount of money it is possible to extract from the community for this purpose should be given out regardless of means or should be related to the needs of people who otherwise qualify for it. When the amount of money is limited—and surely everybody here must realise that for the foreseeable future at any rate it will be limited—it is fundamental that this money should be distributed on the basis of bringing the "havenots" as far as possible up to the same level as the "haves".

Deputy Treacy made a demand for the abolition of what he described as the niggardly means test. I cannot remember all the epithets he used; to amuse myself when he was talking I jotted them down, but they all mean the same thing. A call for the abolition of the means test is a demand on me to give this limited amount of money that is available on an equal basis to those people who have ample means and those who have no means whatsoever. It is a fundamental thing in the distribution of social assistance that it should be given on the basis of means.

There has been, I admit, some confusion in regard to the amount of money which, because of this reciprocal agreement, became available for redistribution by my Department. The estimate I gave on 14th June last was that £268,000 would thus become available. That was on the basis of what appeared to be likely to happen at that time, but it now transpires, when I think we have reached finality, that the total is approximately £195,500. As I said, it surely would be anomalous to treat those who got their British pensions increased as being still in receipt of lower pensions while persons being awarded British pensions now would naturally be assessed on the basis of the full pension. I regard the suggestion to abolish the means test or to change it as an abominable one and I certainly cannot understand how any member of a Party who claim to have the interests of the less fortunate members of the community, particularly at heart, could demand of me that I distribute this limited amount of money on an equal basis regardless of means. The suggestion that I should give an old age non-contributory pension, which admittedly is at an inadequate level, at the same rate to people who have an income of £4 per week from another source as to those who have no means is, in my opinion, an antisocial suggestion.

Deputy Ryan referred to the requirement to cash social welfare benefits at specified post offices. I think he exaggerated the difficulties in so far as the people cashing them were concerned. I would like to make them more freely exchangeable, but there are many objections to doing this. One that springs to mind immediately is that subpostmasters can be required to cash these cheques as a separate transaction which forms part of their remuneration, whereas other traders would be obliging customers by cashing them. Cases have been known of people who insisted on payment in kind rather than in cash, and we all know of cases where, for instance, children's allowance books have been held by traders as security for credit. That is an undesirable thing.

The collection of children's allowances, in particular, in densely populated areas is a problem which I should like to see solved. It is rather humiliating and degrading for people to have to queue up to obtain these allowances and it does involve a certain amount of hardship, especially in bad weather. However, it is a difficult problem to solve and there are many reasons why the present system is adopted. Certainly if I can find any way of avoiding this, I shall do it. Of course, as has been said, it is not compulsory to collect this money on the first day of the month.

Mr. Ryan

Perhaps not legally, but practically, yes.

Mr. Boland

Most people in the areas to which Deputy Ryan was referring do find it compulsory, in fact. He gave some of the purposes to which this money is generally allocated, and I agree it does involve collecting it at the first available opportunity. It is difficult to find a more suitable way of doing it but, certainly, if I can arrive at any solution of the problem, I will.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.