Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Mar 1968

Vol. 233 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,681,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain Services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for Sundry Grants.

The purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to meet the cost of the increases in rates of payment and the other improvements in social welfare services announced in the 1967 Budget Statement. When introducing the estimate for my Department in October last, I explained that the 1967-68 estimate did not make provision for this expenditure, and that a supplementary estimate for this purpose would be required later. The additional amount required is £2,681,000 which will bring the Exchequer expenditure on social welfare for the current financial year to £45,237,000.

Under Subhead E, which provides for payment by the Exchequer of the deficit on the Social Insurance Fund, only £20,000 extra is being sought. The additional expenditure from the Fund arising almost entirely from improvements in the social insurance schemes is expected to amount to £1,084,000. This is met to the extent of £817,000 by increased income of the Fund due mainly to the increase in contribution rates from 1st January last. Accordingly the difference, namely £267,000, falls to be recouped. There is, however, a sum of £247,000 in the Fund which was overdrawn from the Exchequer in previous years, and when this is offset against the net additional expenditure of £267,000 only £20,000 extra remains to be provided.

Under the heading "Social Assistance" substantial additional amounts are required in respect of old age pensions, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and miscellaneous grants. In the case of non-contributory old age pensions the improvements effected by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1967, are expected to cost £978,000 in the current financial year. A saving of £132,000 is, however, anticipated on the original estimate so that the net additional requirement is £846,000. The extra £1,485,000 required for unemployment assistance is attributable to increased rates of payment, abolition of the Employment Period Orders and an increase in the number of claims over the level on which the original estimate was based. The excess of £171,000 on widows' and orphans' pensions is due to the increased rates of payment in operation since last August.

With regard to Subhead K—Miscellaneous Grants—the additional sum of £246,000 is required to meet the cost up to 31st March of the free travel concession and the free electricity allowances for pensioners announced in the Budget Statement. The free travel scheme was introduced on 14th July, 1967, and the free electricity scheme on 1st October.

I am confident that Deputies will readily agree to provide the additional moneys I am seeking in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister is correct in assuming the Fine Gael Party will give its blessing to the provision by the Dáil of the additional money required to maintain the social welfare payments at present made. Our only regret, on the Fine Gael benches, is that the Minister is not seeking a great deal more in order to provide for our people a standard of living in keeping with what our Christian obligations should make it incumbent upon us to provide for the less privileged in our community.

On the first occasion on which Dáil Éireann met in 1919, there was a democratic programme proposed. It was passed unanimously. In that programme there was a specific declaration of intent on the part of our predecessors to provide for the underprivileged in our community a standard of living which would relieve them of the burdens compelling them to live less useful and less valuable lives as compared with the more fortunate in the community. I do not think that, now that we have just reached the 50th Anniversary of the first meeting of Dáil Eireann, we can be at all satisfied that we have fulfilled the declaration of intent made on the occasion of the first meeting of the Dáil.

The time has certainly come when we should not expect old age pensioners to survive on 57/6d a week which today is quite insufficient to provide for them a diet sufficient to free them from the imminent danger of malnutrition. It is because we provide such a miserable sum that we have a situation in which so many of our old people are decaying of malnutrition, through sheer neglect, through inability to maintain their bodily health because they are unable to feed themselves properly. This has led us to the unfortunate situation in which we have such a high number of our old people in hospitals. Of course, we can discuss this more appropriately on the next Supplementary Estimate, but in passing, it is pertinent to say that the colossal health bill, particularly for old people, arising out of the grossly inadequate social welfare payments which we make to the underprivileged, particularly old folk, is an indication of the Government's incapacity to understand the realities of life.

This was indicated peculiarly during the recent by-election in Wicklow when the Minister for External Affairs, during one of his brief sojourns in this country, went to the dormitory town of Greystones and boasted that old age pensioners could get 57/6d a week and that this figure could be increased to 77/6d a week if an old age pensioner had two schoolgoing children. I do not know whether this was an exhortation to people in their sixties who had stopped having children to breed again so that they might qualify to get an extra 20/- a week. That, in effect, is the crystallisation of the social outlook of the Fianna Fáil Party when their deputy leader exhorts people in their seventies to take such steps as may be necessary to increase their families so that they may get an extra 20/- a week, as though 20/- a week would maintain the children. This is a sad but unfortunately true reflection on the social outlook of the Fianna Fáil Party.

We in the Fine Gael Party are committed to giving old age pensions to people at the age of 65 years. At present we oblige a large number of people between the ages of 65 and 70 to be classified as unemployed for the purpose of receiving unemployment benefit. Why we maintain this Gilbertian situation when we ought to realise that they are in fact retired is something we in Fine Gael find difficult to understand. Again, we interpret it as a reflection on the incapacity of the Fianna Fáil Party to move into the progressive social age in which we live and of their failure to realise that social rights are just as important to people as the more theoretical political rights which have been long established in our midst.

We need to establish social rights just as primarily as political rights. I realise it is not appropriate to suggest here legislation or an amendment of the Constitution, but, as we are preoccupied at the moment with an amendment of the Constitution, I suggest it is only fair that I be allowed to say in passing that we will not be a truly just society until Article 45 of the Constitution is as mandatory as every other Article of the Constitution which specifies fundamental rights. Article 45 is not cognisable in any court of law. It is only the Legislature, this House, which may have regard to Article 45, which imposes an obligation on us as legislators to bear in mind the obligation of maintaining the standards of our people, irrespective of their wealth or their poverty. It behoves us, as nobody else refers to that Article, to be always conscious of it. If we are, we must admit we are not fulfilling it.

The Supplementary Estimate and the Minister's opening statement reflect two very important things. One is that the State is contributing, as one year follows another, a smaller share of the cost of our social insurance. The Minister will note that the social insurance fund has an increased contribution of £817,000 from workers and employers, which works out at £408,500 apiece from the employer and the worker with, perhaps, a somewhat larger sum from the employer. The State is paying only £267,000. There was a time when it used to be on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis, but the State's contribution is becoming progressively smaller. In an economy like ours where so much depends on the State and on State policies, we do not think the State should be welshing on its obligations in respect of the contributions it should make to the social insurance fund.

Again, the increased amount which has to be paid by way of unemployment assistance is a reflection of the increased and growing unemployment rate, which now stands at almost 4,000 more than at this time last year and about 7,000 more than the year before. If we were to estimate unemployment on the basis of the calculation which was used in this country during the past 45 years, we would find that the true figure is 78,000, though the official statistics put it at 65,000. If we were to calculate it on the traditional basis, the figure would be 78,000 and that is on the basis of the figures we had last week without taking cognisance of the amount of unemployment we unfortunately have this week.

The State is doing nothing practical to relieve this situation and we think that is most unfortunate. It is proper to complain that at the moment ratepayers are being called on to pay a couple of million pounds in rates in respect of payments which ought to be made out of the National Exchequer. Taking one area with another, we find that the amounts paid out in public assistance have almost doubled in the past four years. This is due principally to the need to subsidise the grossly inadequate social welfare payments.

All local authorities discover that pensioners of one kind or another— widows and orphans, old folk—are unable to maintain their standards of living, unable, indeed, to purchase the necessaries of life out of the social welfare payments they receive from the State. The result is that local authorities are obliged to an extent greater than ever to meet the colossal deficiencies in State payments. The Minister may be able to point to the increased nominal amounts being paid by the State under all social welfare payments. If he does that, we can also point to the growing gap between what the State is paying and what the people must pay in order to purchase the necessaries of life. The tremendous growth at an unprecedented rate of public assistance proves the point which the Fine Gael benches are making for years that past the State's share of social welfare is getting less and less compared with the total income of those people.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is not.

Mr. Ryan

I know the Minister can point to the percentage of GNP, but if one leaves aside the statistics which the Minister can produce for the moment, it is fair to point out that if public assistance is growing and multiplying at the rate at which it is, it must reflect the fact that the standard of living of welfare beneficiaries arising from State welfare payments is so low that it has to be made up out of some other fund. How can the Minister explain the fact that local authorities are obliged to pay public assistance at such an unprecedented rate to social welfare beneficiaries? I do not think it is because they have suddenly lost all sense of the burden which paying this places on the rates. I think it is something they realise has to be done because the State social welfare payments are grossly inadequate in relation to the needs of the people.

I should also like to direct the Minister's attention to the fuel scheme. The free fuel scheme operates in the urban areas and the State is paying the cost of it, with the exception of the cost of administration, which falls on the local authority. However, an increasing number of people in Dublin are now being——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would refer the Deputy to the fact that that is outside the scope of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Ryan

I think it comes under the heading of Public Assistance. I am in your hands here, Sir, and I must——

Mr. J. Brennan

There is nothing about fuel in it.

Mr. Ryan

There is nothing about fuel in it. Is the Minister not very lucky because what I was going to point out was that at the moment in Dublin we have to pay 15/- a week to old age pensioners in the new Ballymun scheme to pay their heating costs, whereas if they lived elsewhere the Minister would have to pay for a bag of free turf for them? He would have to pay 5/- or 6/- a week, but because they live in the better housing the corporation has provided, the Minister pays nothing. The corporation has to pay 15/- to provide these people with heating. As you say, Sir, I cannot mention that. I will not.

There are two other matters on which I have spoken here before and I want to speak again very briefly on them. These are provided for certainly in the Supplementary Estimate. I have spoken again and again on the stupidity of requiring that in an urban area old age pensioners collect their pensions at the local post office and nowhere else, and that they attend in person or through their duly appointed agent to collect their pensions. The only justification given for this system is that it reduces the possibility of fraud because it allows the post office staff to identify pensioners before payment is made. The truth is that in urban post offices, some of which pay as many as 3,000 pensions in a day, the possibility of identification is negligible because the numbers are so great the post office staff could not possibly know the identity of many of the people attending. In fact, it is not uncommon for people other than pensioners to get paid at these post offices.

It is a pitiable sight to see long queues of old age pensioners and other social welfare recipients outside post offices in Dublin, and it is a very common sight. It would appear that the only difficulty is the incapacity of the Minister to tell his Department that this nonsense must stop and that we should allow old age pensioners to cash their pension orders at places other than post offices. I know this system was built up at a time when we had not the large, sophisticated urban areas that we have at the present time. The system which is in operation may be all right in a rural district where the postmistress knows everybody, and sometimes knows more about them than they know themselves, but it is not applicable in an urban area. It has no value from the point of view of preventing fraud. In fact, quite the reverse: the system incites people to practices which the Department does not approve of.

In relation to children's allowances, I would like to know why it is that the Department changed the system. At one time children's allowances were negotiable through banks but some years ago this concession was withdrawn. Now an increasing number of our people are using bank accounts. Many workers are receiving their wages through bank accounts and every other day we are being bombarded on the radio with advertising announcements from several banks telling us that we cannot start too young and that no account is too small. I would say the development here in this country would be similar to that in other countries and we will have an increasing number of people using bank accounts. If children's allowances are still to be paid to all people irrespective of income, I feel we should certainly allow their children's allowance payment orders to be negotiable through banks. To do this would relieve the burden on the post offices, would reduce the length of queues at post offices and, I believe, would expedite clearance of all these orders through the several agencies. I would hope that the Minister and his Department would apply their minds to these badly-needed reforms.

Finally, I should like the Minister to answer a question. At paragraph 3 of his opening statement, he referred to a saving of £132,000 but he did not tell us how the saving arises. I would be very glad if he would let us know.

Mr. Cluskey

The Labour Party will undoubtedly support the Minister in seeking this money. We are, however, greatly disturbed by the way this alleged increase of 5/- has been given out. A very large number of people who rightfully expected to receive this increase found that, despite the headlines in the newspapers, on television and radio, the Minister's Department went around ferreting out any and every excuse for not applying the increase. This can only be described as a cheap political confidence trick on one of the most underprivileged sections of our community.

Let me briefly illustrate how this has been applied. This week in Dublin three old ladies living in a home, a charitable institution run by a minority religion—it was established originally in 1720 as an almshouse—have been deprived of this increase by virtue of the fact that they are inmates of this charitable institution which under the law and under its charter cannot accept payment because they provide accommodation only for the really destitute. This is the way in which this increase has been administered. I would even at this late stage again appeal to the Minister to stop allowing himself and his Department to be the Cinderella of the Cabinet and try to use whatever influence he has on his colleagues to bring to an end this practice in relation to very unfortunate, very underprivileged and unfortunately inarticulate, as far as political pressure is concerned, sections of our people.

It is disturbing to learn from the Minister's statement that more money is required for unemployment assistance. This is an unfortunate indication that even more of our people than was anticipated find themselves in the position that they are relying solely on social welfare to keep both themselves and their families. While we at all times have, and will in the future have, no hesitation in supporting the Minister in seeking more money for social welfare purposes, we would hope that the increases sought were not merely to provide money for more people becoming entitled to unemployment assistance. It is not our idea of catering for social welfare recipients to increase the number who qualify but not to increase the benefits. We in this country have old age pensions paid at 70 years of age. Undoubtedly we must be one of the very few countries that keep it at such a high level when it is commonly accepted that 65 years is the maximum age at which people should qualify for pensions.

One could go on about social welfare benefits, repeat all over again what has been said here so often, but I do not intend to do so. I would ask the Minister to take the opportunity that now offers, in the form of the Budget, to ensure that even at this late stage, after nearly 50 years of ruling ourselves, our conscience and the conscience of the Government will be awakened and positive action will be taken in the forthcoming Budget to provide some sort of decent living for those people whose only means are those which they have earned by virtue of their service to the country and for whom we have so shamefully neglected to provide.

Mr. Crotty

My principal reason for joining in this discussion on the Supplementary Estimate is to ask the Minister to examine his Department and overhaul it. I know the Minister's Department is expanding, with occupational injuries benefits and all the other claims, and I also know there is a lot of work to be done in the various sections of the Department. However, I would ask him to have it over-hauled and try to get claims through much faster. There is a delay in getting claims through which is much too long.

I have had several cases in the past year of people having to wait up to six and seven weeks to get claims put through, especially unemployment claims. Those people find their employers have not submitted their cards in time and there are long delays until the local agents go to the various employers to clear those cards. As a matter of fact, I have a case at present, and I am waiting to ring the Department again after lunch, where the delay is seven weeks. This man has been signing on for unemployment benefit for seven weeks and has received nothing. I would suggest to the Minister that in such cases, where a person is genuinely unemployed and signs for unemployment assistance, if there is a delay in getting his card right and cleared up, he should be paid unemployment assistance during that period.

These are all decent working men and they should not be compelled to seek home assistance, which at the moment some of them do. They go to the various shopkeepers where they are customers and raise credit to carry them over the period. In the case I have, the man has been waiting for unemployment benefit for seven weeks. He is fully entitled to it from the information I received yesterday. Such a person should not be forced to go to the home assistance officer. People just do not like to go to these people if there is any other way possible.

My suggestion would be that while a person is genuinely unemployed and claims benefit, if the claim cannot be cleared up straight away, he should be put on unemployment assistance during that time so that he will not be left without a shilling in his pocket. I sincerely ask the Minister to do that and to ensure that all unnecessary delays are cleared up.

Likewise, when a widow is drawing a widow's pension and reaches the age of 70, she is put on the old age pension. I had a case recently of a person of 72 years of age to whom the assistance officer came to tell her that she was to go on to the non-contributory old age pension. The result of this is that for the past ten weeks, since the investigation officer came out, she has received nothing. There is some dispute about whether she is entitled to the full pension. When such a person reaches 70 years of age, she should automatically go on to the old age pension. I know there is a difference in the means test as between the two pensions but that difference should be removed straight away.

When moving the Second Reading of the Third and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution Bills, the Taoiseach said that people will get their statutory rights, that there was no necessity for them to go to their Deputies, that they will get them in the ordinary way. I disagree with that: the truth of the matter is that they have to come to Deputies to look for their rights. I was at a meeting of St. Canice's Credit Union in Kilkenny. We had an address by Mr. Rosengrave and he said the census taken in England of 700,000 old age pensioners showed that not all of these were getting the full benefit to which they were entitled. They do not know how to inquire or make application. Of those 700,000, only 400,000 were getting the full benefit. Our people here are slightly more enlightened than in England. I would not go so far as to say that that much difference exists in relation to the people who are entitled to this benefit here and that there are over 400,000 getting benefit. I think the figure would be nearer 500,000 or 600,000.

These people should get more information on the benefits to which they are entitled and there should be a more sympathetic approach to unemployment benefit and to sickness benefit in general. If a person in the Civil Service does not get his pay until the middle of the next month, if it runs to three weeks and comes to the 23rd or 24th, I am sure he would resent it. If such people resent this so much, why would the normal person who is forced to draw these social welfare benefits to which they are entitled not resent it also? I think they should get the benefit as it becomes due and I appeal to the Minister who looks after this Department and its various sections to look into this matter. I know the Department is expanding but still I think these are people who should not be delayed so long in getting their benefits.

I come now to old age pensioners living alone. In Kilkenny there are people who should get assistance so that they will have some measure of comfort in their old age. A person living with his family may not be so badly off but a person living alone should be given an allowance for rent. It is not fair that that should be put on the rates and the ratepayers called on to pay a supplementary allowance to old age pensioners. I should like the Minister to look into those points.

Mr. Treacy

I merely wish to avail of this opportunity to join with my colleagues in appealing to the Minister to take all possible steps to ensure that the long delays which we know exist in relation to the payment of so many social welfare benefits will be obviated. The Minister will surely appreciate that the delays involved in the payment of disability benefit, or sickness benefit, as it is more commonly known in this country, and indeed also in respect of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance, are a source of great hardship, worry and anxiety to the families of the persons concerned.

My appeal to the Minister is to look into this matter very carefully and see if he can simplify the present procedure for the payment of disability benefit in particular. I understand that all claims for social welfare benefits are siphoned through Aras Mhic Dhiarmada. Here we have a case for the decentralisation of so many benefits. Unemployment assistance, old age pensions, widows' pensions, non-contributory pensions, children's allowances, and the contributory schemes for old age pensions for widows and orphans and the like, are all channelled through the one Department, so you are bound to have delays and confusion and sometimes duplication.

Those of us in public life are well aware of the tremendous hardship and privations which so many families have to endure in order to secure the benefits to which they are entitled. They are obliged to resort to home assistance and humiliate themselves to this extent. We know, too, that there is reluctance on the part of home assistance officers to pay home assistance until they are completely satisfied that the applicant is making a factual statement and there is the embarrassment and humiliation of the applicant being told to go for particulars to his local employment exchange and take them back to the assistance officer and then he may decide to grant assistance or he may not. If he does grant the benefit, he can insist on the applicant signing a notice of intention to repay the assistance granted in certain circumstances.

In the meantime, the standard of living of this applicant, and possibly his wife and family, is dragged down to a subsistence level of existence and the Minister and his Department and officers seemingly do not give a damn how this family exists. No one seems to care about the human suffering involved in the delays in the payment of social welfare benefits. These people are thrown on the support of the local TD or county councillor, or the like, and they have to fall back on home assistance.

The Minister must find ways and means of simplifying and shortcutting this procedure, especially where it is clear that a person is entitled to benefit by reason of the number of stamps accredited to him over his working life. Here there may well be a unique opportunity of decentralisation, for conferring more power and authority on the local officers in our employment exchanges, the local health authorities, county councils or assistance officers, as the case may be. The conferring of power on some local employees would assist in the administration of our Social Welfare Act so as to eliminate the hardship, the suffering and the privation which we know exists because of delays which the red tape involves before the recipient receives the money to which he is entitled.

We are particularly happy to support the Supplementary Estimate on this occasion in so far as it does not include the odious and unfair means test which applies to increases in social welfare assistance allowances in the past few years. We have had increases granted to all intents and purposes, or purporting to be granted, by way of 5/-increase, only to find there was a means test applied which stipulated that the applicant must have no means before he can get the increase, or not more than 10/- per week as provided in a previous Budget. This was appalling procedure and negatived in very large measure the whole intention behind the increase in pensions. It was tantamount to a confidence trick, a very grave fraud, being perpetuated on the most helpless section. It is about time that the Minister liberalised the approach to this matter.

I would hope that the Minister would avail of this opportunity to make a statement to the House and to the country as to the up to date position in regard to his obligation to bring the social welfare code into line with that applicable in the EEC countries.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that this Supplementary Estimate does not open up a full-scale debate on social welfare. We have to deal with the various subheads, and nothing else. The question of the policy of the Department does not arise on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Treacy

Very good, Sir, I was merely indicating that this would be an opportunity for the Minister to make a statement on these lines seeing that he has said that he had the matter under review.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister will get an opportunity on the main Estimate to deal with that matter.

Mr. Treacy

I thought that this was as good an opportunity as any for dealing with the matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

No; it would not be relevant.

Mr. Treacy

The provision of free electricity allowances and free travel allowances has been adverted to by the Minister. A number of persons are excluded. I refer, in particular to persons over the age of 70 who are in poor circumstances and depending on very small pensions of one kind or another from the British Government, such as British retirement pensions or British widows' pensions, and so on. Because the pension happens to be a British Government pension, which in some cases might not exceed the corresponding Irish pension, the applicant is not entitled to the free electricity allowance. The number involved is not very great and I would ask the Minister to apply the provisions I have referred to to this category of persons irrespective of the source of the pension. I do not see why there should be discrimination merely because the pension is a British pension.

I am also concerned about the procedure laid down for the qualification certificate and for qualification, generally, in respect of unemployment assistance.

An Ceann Comhairle

That, again, would be a question of policy, which would relevantly arise on the main Estimate but not on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Treacy

The Minister adverted to this matter in his introductory statement this morning. I do not wish to put myself out of order, but I do think we are entitled to some little latitude so as, at least, to reply to the points made by the Minister in his speech. The Minister has referred to the moneys available and the reason for the increase in respect of unemployment assistance and, surely, therefore, we would be entitled to comment on that statement and also on the fact that an additional sum is required for unemployment assistance, which would indicate that there is an increase in unemployment and also to refer to the procedure laid down for qualification?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. Procedure would not arise on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Treacy

Very good. I see that I am extremely limited as to what I may discuss.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. On all Supplementary Estimates we are limited. The Deputy will get an early opportunity, I take it, of discussing these points.

Mr. Treacy

I hope so. With regard to the payment of social welfare contributions, especially in the case of old age and widows' pensions, I would ask the Minister if, after the very great consideration which I know he has given to the oft-repeated pleas in this House, he would now say whether he feels that he can at last make payment of old age pensions, in particular, at the age of 65? Would the Minister like to avail of this opportunity to comment on that? I do not have to elaborate on the vital necessity for this reduction in the age limit.

The Chair has informed us that we will get an opportunity later on of dealing in greater detail with the social welfare code. Naturally, I am inhibited and restricted on this occasion. My main reason for rising was to draw attention to the hardship involved in many thousands of cases by reason of delay in the Department of Social Welfare in dealing with applications for unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and disability allowance. I would ask the Minister to do what he can to simplify the procedure so that time-lags could be reduced or eliminated. It is patently unfair to county councils and health authorities that they should be charged with the responsibility of maintaining applicants and their families over long periods, in some cases over a number of weeks, as a result—I will not say of dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister and his Department—but of the cumbersome procedure that must be followed before payment is made. I would hope that the Minister would have some good news for us in that respect because the human suffering, frustration and deprivation involved is too great to be ignored any longer.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Most of the Deputies who have spoken in this debate have adverted to administrative delay in the payment of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, old age pensions, and so on. I should like to point out to the Minister that administrative action over the past ten years has meant centralisation, probably with the idea of securing greater efficiency. I would submit to the House that it has had the opposite effect. Deputies, who get hundreds of applications, have to approach the Department in Dublin and the question has then to be transmitted to the local office. The local officer has to investigate the matter and make a report which is returned to the central office. That means a time-lag of a minimum of three weeks to a month, at a conservative estimate.

There are social welfare officers in all parts of the country. Actually, a new building was opened in the town of Wexford some time ago by the Minister's predecessor. But it is of no use whatever to the local Deputy. He cannot go to this office and make representations there. He can do it but it remains in effect the same thing—the local officer has to send it to Dublin, making the whole procedure longer. It is quicker for us just to go to Dublin. We are not getting the effect we should get.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now discussing administration.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter does not arise relevantly on a Supplementary Estimate. The question of policy of the Department is one for the main Estimate.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

What else am I to discuss except what I am trying to talk about—that there is a delay of three weeks? I am trying to give my reasons to the House why I think that hiatus could be abolished.

An Ceann Comhairle

The policy of the Department is a matter for the main Estimate and does not arise on a Supplementary Estimate.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

What can I talk about, so? I am talking about the delay in payment of old age pensioners. I am not blaming the Department; I am blaming the system. If I cannot talk about that, I might as well finish and go out.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not relevant on this.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

With respect, Sir, administration is relevant on any Estimate.

An Ceann Comhairle

No, not on a Supplementary Estimate.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

If so, I will sit down. I might as well pack up. It is no good trying to discuss anything when you are muzzled like this.

Mr. Kyne

I may be slightly out of order on this, but is the Minister aware that occupational injuries claims are being included by all the agents in the general envelope containing the ordinary disability benefit certificates? As a result, there is a delay of two or three days in occupational injury benefit claims being paid out on the week they should be. Would the Minister instruct all the local agents to send a separate claim for occupational injuries addressed to Floor 1 at Árus Mhic Dhiarmada instead of having them go in the general envelope? I have fair experience of the Minister's Department and I think that would speed up matters considerably.

Mr. Dillon

I refer my observations, Sir, to Subhead G of Supplementary Estimate No. 47, a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1968, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the social insurance fund and for sundry grants. I assume, if we are being asked to vote £846,000, one of our principal pre-occupations should be to ensure that the money expeditiously reaches the beneficiary. In reciting the following story to Dáil Éireann, I want to lay special emphasis on this: in respect of each officer with whom I came in contact, I received nothing but courtesy and all the help each individual officer could extend to me. But I have been now 36 years threading my way through the labyrinth of Government and municipal offices and therefore it presented no serious problem to me on the telephone to move from one centre to another. But compare my situation with that of the constituent on whose behalf I was acting. I have a constituent who was laid up in hospital in the city of Dublin. He is a contributory old age pensioner with his card stamped up to the date on which he received the old age pension.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Supplementary Estimate deals with only noncontributory pensions and the question of contributory pensions does not arise.

Mr. Dillon

This poor fellow might have had the same experience if he were a non-contributory pensioner. When he got home, he found £46 15s taken from his pension. I started on my saga. I rang up the almoner of the hospital, and a very civil lady she was. She said she remembered him well but that, as far as she was concerned, it was no concern of hers and I had better get in touch with Mr. A., we will say, of Dublin Health Authority. I rang up Mr. A. and, as far as he was concerned, it did not seem to come within his particular sphere of influence, but maybe Mr. B., who was in charge of the patients' personal property division, might be able to assist me. So I rang up Mr. B. Nothing could be more civil than Mr. B., but Mr. B. said it did not come within his sphere of office but possibly if I would ring up Mr. C. he might be able to lend a hand. Right enough, when I got in touch with Mr. C. he said, yes, he had got the £46 10s and was not inclined to part. I said: "But surely an old age pensioner is not to be charged for treatment in a hospital to which he is referred by a public health authority?" Mr. C. is still investigating the matter for me and I have no doubt will ultimately resolve the matter for me. But surely there ought to be some less devious method by which an old age pensioner who finds £46 10s deducted from his old age pension in respect of hospital treatment could discover how to get it back?

Mr. James Tully

This is the sort of fellow the Taoiseach said should not be bothering a Deputy with his little troubles.

Mr. Dillon

My experience with the Department of Social Welfare has testified to this before. I find them consistently anxious to get for the beneficiary the last farthing which the law entitles him to recover. There is no lack of sympathy, no cold, bureaucratic approach to human problems in that Department, from my experience. But I do suggest we are failing effectively to resolve problems of the kind I have described here partly because of the decision taken some years ago to withdraw social welfare officers from their country offices and to centralise the service more than it had been hitherto.

I think that was a mistake. It reacts on the effectiveness of the money we are now providing for the relief of the poor. I can very well understand, as the number of beneficiaries of the various social services multiplies, the strong pressure that administration must bring to bear on the Department of Social Welfare to computerise the whole business and to try to do a great deal of this work through computers in the Department in Árus Mhic Dhiarmada. From an administrative point of view, one can imagine that that is a course to be commended. But when you come in contact with specific cases, you recognise that, if social welfare benefits are to yield their real value, it is not only the distribution of money that counts, because it is some sympathetic officer who will resolve the social beneficiaries' specific problems.

I offer the Minister an example from my own experience. I remember that when the Land Project was inaugurated, I insisted that the form the beneficiaries under the scheme would receive should contain nothing but: "I want my land rehabilitated—Signed, Patrick Walsh," or whatever the applicant's name was. The moment I got that form from the Department, I said that my officials should go to Patrick Walsh with all the details we required and fill up the detailed form. We wanted a lot of detailed information in order effectively to permit him to benefit under the scheme, but if we sent out the detailed form and asked him to fill it up, he would immediately be lost in a maze of bewilderment, whereas experienced officers of the Department could fill up the form without the slightest difficulty. Because they were experienced officers, they would not be in the least intimidated in a maze of essential information which would enable them to handle the problem expeditiously.

In so far as we have failed to maintain an adequate network of social service officials throughout rural Ireland, I think we have failed to provide the people with the full benefits which are available from an annual expenditure of £13,863,000 which we are appropriating in respect of non-contributory old age pensions. Quite honestly, in discussing this Supplementary Estimate, I cannot make any complaint on the grounds that I feel the approach of the Department of Social Welfare was bureaucratic, unsympathetic or reprehensible. The very reverse is the case in my experience, but I do think we are in danger of becoming involved in a mass of impersonal administration of red tape, for want of a better word, which is possibly frustrating the genuine desire of the officials of the Department to give the people the kind of human sympathy and service which ought to constitute a very substantial part of the work of the Department over and above the money we are now asked to provide.

Mrs. Desmond

None of us can have any objection to this request for a sum of £2,681,000 extra for this section of the community. I should like to begin by making the point which has occurred to most other Deputies. This particular field of the social services is one to which Deputies devote a great deal of their time. When we speak on this Supplementary Estimate, we are reminded of the Taoiseach's remarks a few weeks ago when he said that a lot of the time which we should be devoting to passing legislation in this House was being devoted to obtaining what I think he called favours for the people we represent.

In no other sphere is our presence among our constituents more needed than in the sphere of social welfare, because the whole system of social welfare is so inhuman, and bears so little relation to actual need, and is so difficult for our constituents to understand. So, a great deal of our time is taken up with this problem. We have been promised that social welfare will receive a new look in the very near future. It requires rationalisation, simplification, humanising and being brought into line with the needs of the people. It is an elaborate mass of regulations which people cannot understand, and because they have no relation to need, they should be eliminated as soon as possible.

In relation to Subhead E, the Minister said:

This is met to the extent of £817,000 by increased income of the Fund, due mainly to the increase in contribution rates from 1st January last.

I want to appeal to the Minister on behalf of people who are drawing widows' contributory pensions and who are also employed, and who when they become unemployed, by virtue of their jobs being no longer available or through illness, do not draw unemployment or disability benefit on the same scale as other people in the community—men, single girls or married women. This is something which people fail to understand, and which brings people to Deputies in large numbers. I do not blame them for not understanding it. These widows pay the same contribution rates as other people in our society, and I do not blame them for not understanding why when it comes to the payment of benefit, they cannot receive benefit at the same rate when they have paid their contributions at the same rate as other people. Some widows who become unemployed get half the rate of benefit which a married woman next door gets. They cannot understand how such a scheme can be in existence in this country, and they come along to their local Deputies. That is part and parcel of the kind of work the Taoiseach says we should not be doing, and which we would not have to do if the system were rationalised and organised so that people could understand it.

Under the heading "Social Assistance", the Minister said:

The excess of £171,000 on widows' and orphans' pensions is due to the increased rates of payment in operation since last August.

I want to appeal for perhaps the hundredth time inside and outside the House for the payment of children's allowances to the children of social welfare recipients who are over 16 years of age and still being educated. I cannot understand the persistence of the Department in refusing to pay these allowances to the parents of these children. There is now a more enlightened attitude and with the advent of free education, children in all walks of life who are being educated over the age of 16 years are now being considered for the purpose of differential rents and for various purposes where managerial discretion is exercised under the Department of Health and so on. Social welfare should also be considered and I think this figure of £171,000 should be larger to make provision for these children whose parents are the only people in the community who must now make a definite sacrifice to maintain their children over 16 years in full time education.

Finally, I want to refer to the provision in Subhead K of £246,000 which is required to meet the cost of the free travel concession and the free electricity allowances for pensioners announced in the Budget Statement. I appeal to the Minister whose Department are subsidising this free electricity to add his voice to the voices of many others on behalf of those people who cannot avail of it. My colleague, Deputy Treacy, referred to some of them. I do not want to refer to that category. I want to refer to people in isolated rural areas who are not served by the electricity supply because they live, in ESB jargon, five, six or seven poles from the source of supply. They are asked to pay a special service charge which is completely outside the scope of the ability of old age pensioners to pay, and therefore they are precluded from benefiting under this scheme. I would ask the Minister to add his voice to the plea on behalf of these people.

Mr. Corish

Needless to remark, we do not oppose this Estimate. When the proposals were made by the Minister for Finance in his Budget of last year, the Labour Party spontaneously agreed to the provision of the money for these improvements in social welfare. The Minister had a relatively easy task in the distribution of the moneys made available to him by the Minister for Finance. I do not wish to take from the improvements that have been made. However, we should be conscious of the big change in the distribution of the moneys by reason of the introduction of contributory schemes for old age pensions, widows' pensions and retirement pensions.

I remember when it took over £1 million to give an increase of 2/6d per week. I know that some Fianna Fáil Deputies are bursting to tell me what I did or did not do when I was Minister for Social Welfare. It is relatively simple for the Minister to give benefits with the £2½ million he has this year compared with the system which operated when it took over £1 million to give an increase of 2/6d a week in the old age pension.

As against what has been said in recent debates and what will be said ad nauseam by the Fianna Fáil Party when they compare the administration of this Government with that of another Government, not alone must we think in terms of the rates now being paid but we must also think in terms of the increase in the cost of living and of the fact that, at a particular time, we had food subsidies which were of tremendous benefit to those depending on social welfare. I do not want to take from the improvements the Minister has made but merely wish to point out the difference between present conditions and those obtaining ten or 15 years ago.

I do not think the Minister has given the fullest information to the House: I do not say he has deliberately concealed it. In respect of the Social Insurance Fund, I should like him to assure us that there is the same division as far as contribution is concerned. For years, the pattern has been that the Exchequer would contribute one-third, the employer one-third and the employee one-third. In this Estimate, the actual contribution from the Exchequer is £20,000 because, as the Minister says, there was an overdraw from the Exchequer in previous years. Perhaps he would go into a little more detail and tell us how that happened. The net position is that to increase sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, contributory widows' pensions and contributory old age pensions, cost a mere £20,000 this year. Are we still maintaining the one-third contribution from the three different sources I have mentioned?

The Minister must also give us a breakdown in relation to the extra £1,485,000 required for unemployment assistance which, he says, is attributable to the increased rates of payment, to the abolition of the Employment Period Orders and to an increase in the number of claims over the level on which the original Estimate was based. I think we should get a breakdown of that. It should be known that some of this money—I do not know how much —has to be provided because there is an increase in unemployment.

It should be mentioned here also that, in recent months—and it has been consistent for very many months —there has been an increase in the number of those not in employment to the extent of 3,000 and sometimes 3,500 per month. The Minister should give us a breakdown of this to see what the increase in the number of unemployed has cost in unemployment assistance.

We all approve of and welcome the scheme which provides free travel for old age pensioners, the blind and certain other people and also the free electricity. I do not know whether this £210,000 for free travel could be regarded as a further charge on Government. It appears to me that it could be regarded as another subsidy to CIE or maybe it would mean that the ordinary State subsidy to CIE is reduced by £210,000. The fact that people now have free travel does not mean any extra income or expenditure as far as CIE is concerned.

The Chair has said we must not talk of anything other than what comes within the Estimate and certainly we must not talk about administration. I do not intend to transgress the ruling of the Chair, but I want to say that, in my dealings with the Department of Social Welfare, I have received nothing but help and courtesy, without any exception whatsoever, so far as the personnel is concerned. However, we could all criticise the lack of system. I can corroborate what Deputy Mrs. Desmond has said. The bulk of the representations I receive concerns the Department of Social Welfare. The Department do not appear to be wrong in respect of the majority of those representations or approaches I receive, if there is a deficiency as far as the filling-in of a form or the proper making of a claim by an individual is concerned. Over and above that, the Minister should now concern himself with streamlining his Department. He should endeavour to cut out a lot of unnecessary red tape which binds the excellent personnel in his Department.

If a complaint is made and it is alleged that some unfortunate person in receipt of unemployment assistance is working—a complaint by an anonymous writer or by a jealous neighbour, and so on—the unfortunate man concerned is debarred from receiving unemployment assistance. That decision is made at the local exchange by some local officer and the matter is then referred to the Department. It could be up to two or three months before a decision is made on the man's case. If he is single and is entitled to unemployment assistance and if he goes to the local authority, he does not receive one penny because he is single. He is debarred from receipt of unemployment assistance. It may take anything up to two or three months to get a final decision. If he is in the right, he gets his back money. I suggest that that is not the correct procedure.

Officials in the various employment exchanges should be told by the Minister not to refer all these trivial cases to the Department because, if they do, it inevitably means they must go before an appeals officer and this takes far too much time. The same may be said in certain cases of sickness benefit and other benefits paid by the Department. The Minister should streamline his Department so that quick decisions can be given. The people depending on the payments given by the Department are the poorer people in our community who cannot afford inordinate delays. The Minister should give a breakdown of these moneys in greater detail than he has given in his opening statement or than has appeared in the Estimate for his Department.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister need not frown: I shall not delay him. In regard to my interruption when Deputy Dillon was speaking I said that the people he was talking about were the people the Taoiseach said should not bother Members with the trivial things they should be able to get themselves. I agree with Deputy Dillon that Deputies do spend a lot of time trying to straighten out small matters relating to social welfare, particularly the contributory end of it. I am not complaining, nor am I sure were other Deputies, about the officers of the Department. I find most of them courteous and very anxious to ensure that people get what they are entitled to get. The Minister himself, on a number of occasions when I had to bring matters to his notice, was also very courteous. We are not complaining about the personnel but about the system.

I know that I am skating on thin ice in speaking about this matter on a Supplementary Estimate but I shall be very brief. It concerns people who have been on occupational injuries benefit and are switched, as a result of examination, to ordinary disability benefit. In the case of the first, whatever the amount is, it is usually paid regularly but the other one is not so paid. The man concerned gets the 23/-for a period of 14 or 15 weeks but he is also entitled to £5 11s 0d for his wife from the disability benefit and, of course, he usually gets nothing at all until somebody kicks up a row. This is probably due to teething troubles in the new system but I suggest that it should not happen, and I hope the Minister will take care to ensure that it does not continue to happen.

The second point I want to raise is the question of investigation and appeal. It appears that when an investigation, particularly of the assistance sections, is carried out, the delays are far too great. Deputy Corish has mentioned this and it is ridiculous that somebody applies for benefit through the assistance end of the Department and for some extraordinary reason, can be literally months waiting for a decision. In many cases the argument is made: "We thought they were not entitled to it and there was no urgency." If it turns out that they are entitled to it, surely there is every urgency. If they do not get it, it does not seem to matter a damn. It seems that they prejudge these cases and I think that is wrong.

I want to complain bitterly about the fact that on 19th December last, social welfare investigating officers from the DB section—doctors, I presume—went out to examine patients in my constituency, a big number of them, and declared them not unfit for work. This was on the 19th of December and what these people had for their Christmas dinner can easily be imagined. It is a disgraceful situation that any Department of State should stoop to that sort of thing. It meant that even if these people were to seek work and were fit for work, there was no possibility of them finding employment between the 19th of December and Christmas. Neither could they get unemployment benefit. It simply meant they got no money whatever. Many of them were, on appeal, found unfit for work, afterwards. I ask the Minister to ensure that does not happen again. Christmas is a long way off yet but this should not happen in any circumstances and particularly at the festive time of the year when everybody tries to have a little extra. These people were left literally without a shilling in their pockets.

Again, this may be a matter for the main Estimate, but I should like to mention it now as I cannot raise it on the main Estimate. I did raise it last year. I ask the Minister when preparing his Budget requirements to do what I suggested last year and provide some type of disability assistance, just as there is unemployment assistance. The man with stamps may not be so badly off, but the man who is short of stamps, whose stamps have run out or who has not sufficient of them, is usually left in a position of having to apply for home assistance and he may be very hungry and ill before anything is done for him. Therefore, I ask the Minister, if at all possible, to squeeze in a few shillings for that purpose when preparing his Estimate for the Minister for Finance this year.

Mr. McLaughlin

Sometimes a widow who finds it difficult to live on the widow's pension tries to find some other means of supplementing her income and immediately that happens, the social welfare officer makes inquiries, with the result that the widow is deprived of her pension. That is wrong. She has only sought the employment in order to help her to live more comfortably. A few such cases have been brought to my notice. The Minister should also consider mentally retarded people of 17, 18 or 19 years——

An Ceann Comhairle

I fear that would not be in order on a Supplementary Estimate. We are confined to the various subheads. The Deputy will get an opportunity of making his point on the main Estimate.

Mr. McLaughlin

Very well. I heard another Deputy say that a special charge was being imposed on some of the old age pensioners who were considering getting in electricity. It would be beyond their means to meet such a charge. If the amount involved is at all reasonable, I think the Minister should try to make it possible for these people who have worked hard all their live to get the benefit of electricity in their homes.

Yesterday I mentioned this problem to the Minister and it is no harm to refer to it again. Sometimes husbands and wives find it difficult to make a living in the country on one pension and possibly, through lack of employment, the woman will decide to go to England to get work. She may be a nurse or an ex-civil servant but in any case she goes and gets employment there. The Social Welfare Department finds out what her income is over there. Some of what she is earning in England may be contributing largely to the education of a boy or girl and that is a big demand on the income. She has to live over there and what is asked of her in such cases is to maintain the husband also. I am sure there are not many such cases and I would ask the Minister to allow the husband to continue to draw the pension. This will leave him with his own allowance and I am sure the husband could also do with an allowance from the wife. In addition, some of these people are helping out members of the family and for that reason I am sure the Minister will be sympathetic towards them.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I did not anticipate that the debate would range over such a wide field on a Supplementary Estimate. I am not objecting to the latitude in relevance that has been permitted but because of this, I might not have at my fingertips replies to all the points that were put to me and which might be more appropriate on the annual Estimate. However, I shall try to deal with all the points as far as possible.

I should like to point out that I am happy in the knowledge that there is general satisfaction with the upward trend in the social welfare code in recent years and I am grateful to the Deputies who acknowledged that fact and paid tribute to our efforts, and to say with them that I, too, would like to see all rates higher. I suppose no Minister—and I have said this here before— would ever come into this House and be in a position where the Opposition Deputies would stand up and say that the rates are too high. I never anticipated that that was likely to happen. This is a particular type of payment where one can be very emotional. One can always induce the greatest possible sympathy in advocating better rates, better conditions and an extended scope for the entire code. However, I think the £45 million which the Exchequer is contributing to Social Welfare in the current year, a total disbursement of over £63 million, is in relation to our GNP or to the national income, by any test, very generous. Certainly if we do make comparisons with the increases made some years ago, the progress made is quite satisfactory, so much so that if the same trend continues in the years ahead we will very quickly reach the stage where we can make favourable comparison with any other country in Europe.

I do not want Deputy Corish to take the wind out of my sails to a certain extent by anticipating the things which should be done or making comparisons with the rates applying now and those that applied years ago. I do not want to score any points against the unfortunate people who are at fault in an estimate of this kind. I should like to point out that in an examination of the entire social welfare code one can see a great many areas in which improvements can be and should be effected. But there again social services cover a very wide range. Social welfare is only one branch and we must have regard to what other Ministers may do in their respective Departments in the way of social services. We must have certain priorities and, of course, have regard to the amount of money we can take from the people at any particular time to help the weaker sections. However, I think it is right to admit that the public conscience has in recent times become more and more awakened to the need to do better for these sections. The standard which I am inclined to apply is not what the cost-of-living index figure has shown over a particular period. It is inevitable that we cover these increases, but I would rather be inclined to make a comparison with the improved standard of living of the people generally in considering the rates which I should like to see payable as time goes on. The pittance payable years ago to the welfare classes might be regarded as generous in the context of what the general standard of living of the people was at the time, but the standard of living has improved very considerably, and this tends to highlight the need for doing more and better for the weaker sections, particularly the aged, the widowed and the disabled.

I do not think it would be wise at this time to anticipate anything I would say in my Estimate speech or what social welfare improvements are likely to be made in the near future, but I want to repeat that I have had examined and, for my own benefit, been examining the entire social welfare code. One would have no difficulty whatever in producing a White Paper to outline the trend which we should follow, and I am not anxious to do this lest it would create the impression that here was a complete, new plan which would be implemented overnight. I prefer to set out the course on which social welfare should develop in the future and establish priorities as far as possible for the implementation of benefits in the necessitous areas as time goes on. We are conscious of all the anomalies there are and of the course we should follow not merely in relation to improvements which are obvious but also in relation to what is being done in other countries.

Let me say at this stage that if we examine, as we are frequently reminded we should, the social welfare code in the different countries of the EEC or in Europe generally, the first thing we find is a complete lack of harmonisation. The Treaty of Rome does not impose any direct obligation on the member countries immediately to harmonise their systems. It advises them to move in that direction, and I do not think much progress has been made. I am not using this as the reason why we should fail to improve and expand our services, but I merely say that to point out that anybody who may be of the opinion that there is a glorious harmonisation taking place in the EEC as of now would be disillusioned if he examined all the codes of the different countries. That is not to say that many of them are not much better in individual cases than those which we operate, but there are other cases where in a comparison we would come out very favourably.

Deputy Corish asked for a breakdown of the figures in relation to the increased amount required for unemployment assistance, and I give him these as far as they are available in my brief. The extra amount sought is £1,485,000; the original estimate was £2,865,000; and the revised estimate is £4,350,000. Of this, unemployment assistance under the Employment Period Orders amounted to £620,000. The increase in rates as operated from 2nd August last amounted to £350,000. The increased number of application grants amounted to £515,000. I think that is the figure he was trying to extract in order to demonstrate that the unemployment figures had gone up. It is true that many people have applied for unemployment assistance who heretofore were not interested. Many of them have been encouraged and induced to apply owing to the change in the system of assessing means on the owners of small farms where the means test is now based on the valuation of the land rather than on what their income was or their earnings from the land were over a specific period. The means test being based on the valuation of the land does enable the smallholder to improve his holding or to improve the earnings from his holding as much as he wishes without having the amount of UA of which he is in receipt being in any way reduced or interfered with. This has resulted in extra applications and indeed the easing of the means test generally and the improvement of rates have also been responsible for more applicants coming along.

I should like to remind those people who continually point to the unemployment figure to remember that when from March each year the Employment Period Orders came into existence, they reduced immediately the numbers on the unemployment register. These EPOs, as we know them, are not now being made and as a result these people can continue in receipt of unemployment assistance all the year.

Most people who spoke referred to the administration of these schemes generally. I am not going to take a long time replying but while all of them paid tribute to the officers of the Department, many of them referred to the undue delays and harsh decisions taken in some cases. Deputy Tully pointed to medical referees and one would almost think from what he said that they were sent out deliberately to make sure that people had their disability benefit discontinued before Christmas. This can happen at any time in the year and indeed, I would say in all sincerity, from experience in the Department in regard to disability benefit, that if we could reduce the number of malingerers to the minimum, we could afford to pay considerably more to the genuine cases. Very often the people who have been proved to be malingering and abusing the system are the cause of the genuine case being unduly severely investigated. If sometimes the officers, or the medical personnel appear to be harsh in pursuance of an examination or of spot checks, it is due to the fact that experience has proved that we have had, to use a slang term, our eye wiped many times. If we could eliminate or reduce to the minimum these abuses, it would leave us with considerably more money to improve the rates we are paying generally to this type of individual.

The question of extending free electricity to British pensioners was raised by way of question in the House yesterday. I did not agree with Deputies who pointed out that many cases of hardship arise in respect of these pensioners. If a recipient of a British contributory pension residing here is in a particular state of hardship, if his pension is particularly small, then he would qualify at least for a part Irish non-contributory pension, as many of them do, in which case he would already have a pension book which would entitle him to the free electricity, if he is otherwise qualified, and also to the free travel which we have now extended to many of them. This was a point missed by most speakers who referred to the most necessitous type of British pensioner. Many of them have a part Irish pension and they would be eligible to apply for the free electricity.

Mr. Harte

Would they get it if they applied?

Mr. J. Brennan

Yes, if they qualify otherwise, if, for instance, they live alone with a dependent or with a person who is necessary to look after them in their infirmity and provided they have at least a part pension from the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Harte

If they had not a part pension from the Department?

Mr. J. Brennan

If they have only a British pension they will not qualify.

Mr. Harte

Even if they have only a small general allowance?

Mr. J. Brennan

If they have a small British pension allowance, they should qualify to receive an Irish non-contributory pension.

Mr. Harte

It does not follow. If they are in receipt of approximately £3 per week, they cannot get anything by way of Irish pension.

Mr. J. Brennan

No, but many of them are getting Irish pensions if they are on the lower rate.

Mr. Harte

As I said yesterday, if a Donegal person who had been working in Tyrone or Derry retired and is in receipt of a British pension which just deprives him of Irish pension rights——

Mr. J. Brennan

He will not get anything if he is not qualified.

Mr. Harte

If he is in receipt of more than £156 per year, he is not entitled to an Irish pension on means, but if he receives £156 by way of British pension, or £155 would he qualify?

Mr. J. Brennan

He might. There are other considerations. He might have property. If the Deputy has specific cases, he can send them along and we will deal with them. I was dealing with the question of administration and reference was made by some Deputies to this problem of what is described as red tape. This is something everybody would like to eradicate completely in every Department. We talk glibly about this and in my time over on those benches, I talked about it too, but when you get down to an empirical examination of this problem, you find that it is not just as easy as that. While payments are made and schemes operated, there must be regulations governing the entire administration of such schemes, and particularly if there is a means test, there must be an investigation and the applicants have to show that they are qualified and in order to do that it just is not possible to have the money sent out the next day.

Deputies referred to the Taoiseach as saying that Deputies intervened in cases where they should not. All the people who make the representations are not Deputies; schoolteachers and other people make representations on behalf of these people, very often by showing them the right way to go about it. While there is a certain amount of what has been commonly called red tape, it is nothing more than the minimum required in order that the applicant may state in the simplest terms possible what his qualifications are, in order to conform with the Department's requirements to qualify for a certain pension. It is absolutely impossible to dispense with these minimum requirements.

The format of the application form for old age pensions at present is as simple as it possibly could be. Indeed, I can safely say that if an applicant merely puts his name and address on the form, the investigating officer will do the rest when he comes to investigate. I should like to see these claims dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I know that the officials of the Department are always straining to ensure that there is the minimum delay. If you take any individual case, however, and examine it, you will always find that there was a good reason why it was not possible to avoid delay. There are very few exceptions where there is undue delay in this regard.

I should like again to refer to something I mentioned in the House the other day in answer to supplementary questions about applications for qualification certificates for unemployment assistance. We are often accused of undue delay in respect of these and people are not generally aware that the qualification certificate can be applied for and obtained even while the person is employed. It need not necessarily be accompanied by an application for assistance. Persons who may at some time, in order to fill a gap before unemployment benefit is paid and who might, therefore, need unemployment assistance, should take the precaution to ensure that they have a qualification certificate before they make application for unemployment assistance. If they take that precaution, it will eliminate a good many of the complaints about delays in applications for qualification certificates.

I shall not attempt to reply to any of the subtle questions posed as to what may be done in the immediate future for the social welfare classes. Deputy Ryan implied that we are now getting away with less than one-third from the Exchequer in the case of the Insurance Fund. That is not correct. In the current financial year, as the figures show, we have actually had a contribution from the Exchequer to the Social Insurance Fund of 37 per cent. In fact, the Exchequer contribution tends to go higher than the 33?, which is the figure aimed at, and, if the amount we are seeking here tends to imply that it was less than one-third, it is because this is designed only to make up for the amount the Fund is short. We take credit here for the extra payment from the Exchequer in 1967 just as we take credit for the over-estimation of £132,000, to which the Deputy also referred. It should be easy to understand. I think, that it is not possible in my Department to anticipate the numbers of unemployment beneficiaries there may be as a result of displacement, stoppage of work, and so on, and the wisest thing to do, therefore, is to estimate on the right side; the £132,000 was due simply to over-estimation.

Deputy McLaughlin referred to specific cases. I do not think he would expect me to deal with all of these. In particular I do not think he would expect me to deal now with the case about which he wrote to me yesterday. He referred to the special service charges vis-á-vis old age pensioners. We are looking into this. There is more involved here than meets the eye. There are many cases in which people did not accept rural electrification because the extra charge was prohibitive. Our payment meets the normal bimensal charge based on the area of the dwelling and, to a lower extent, on the outoffices. We do not pay the extra charge imposed in the case of isolated dwellings. However, I am looking into all this. The difficulty is that people would accept installation if they were sure we would pay this abnormal figure, but even the ESB advised it would not be wise to do this or even to introduce bottled gas as a substitute for electricity. I appreciate that many people find themselves at a disadvantage. I am looking into the whole question to see if it might be possible to do something in the future. I make no promises.

The simplification of application forms and the short-circuiting of decisions on claims are matters upon which the Department are always working in an effort to ease the position, but it is not always possible to achieve these aims. One cannot computerise a system in which the human element is so deeply involved. Direct contact will, I am afraid, always be essential. If we are dealing only with saints it might be much easier; unfortunately, experience here, as elsewhere, does not justify discarding the necessary investigations which must take place to find out whether or not persons are entitled to benefit.

As I said earlier, I did not think the debate on this Supplementary Estimate, which covers moneys granted really in last years' Budget, would range over such a wide field. I have tried to cover most of the points raised. There are many other points requiring reply, but I must have regard to the fact that this is not the time to deal with these, but I hope to have an opportunity of doing that in the not too distant future.

Vote put and agreed to.