Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Nov 1971

Vol. 256 No. 6

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy R. Barry).

Dr. O'Connell

Earlier I was discussing the question of flexibility in the deserted wives allowance scheme. When the Bill was introduced we were assured that there would be flexibility and that the scheme would not be operated rigidly. We were assured that every case would be considered sympathetically and that regard would be had to the circumstances of each case. We were told that the Minister realised that many of these cases were of a delicate nature.

Recently a woman came to me and told me she had gone through a marriage ceremony in a registry office. She had three children. When she followed her husband to Africa she found that he had already been married so she returned home. I thought she should qualify for a deserted wives allowance but she was told she did not qualify because, in the view of the Department, she is not married even though she went through a form of marriage. Such cases do not occur every day of the week. The Department will not be inundated with women who were married bigamously and who are deserted. They will not be an excessive charge on the Exchequer. Cases like this are really deserving of help. She should be regarded by the Department as a deserted wife and she should be granted an allowance for herself and her three children. It was enough of a shock for her to find herself in that predicament. We should be a little more humane and sympathetic towards a person in that situation. The Department should have said they knew this case did not come within the framework of their scheme. I appeal to the Minister again to give sympathetic consideration to this case.

I come now to the question of insured employees—and this is happening especially nowadays with redundancies and with small firms closing down—who find that their insurance cards are not stamped. In many cases they find that their employers have not stamped their cards for years. This is deplorable. The system in the Department is wrong. It is not working properly if an employer can escape the notice of the Department and not stamp cards for two or three years. It should be very simple for the Department to ascertain if an employer is obeying the rules and stamping cards. An employee takes an employer on trust and in good faith and pays his share of the contribution and it should be possible for the Department to guarantee to the employee that the employer will pay his contribution.

It is not good enough for the Department to say to an employee: "That is your tough luck. You had better sue your employer. If it goes on for a few years and you are not successful, we will then consider sueing him on your behalf". That is the system which prevails at present. It is most unjust. There is laxity in the Department. I often find that the inspectors investigating these cases are inclined to be a little lax too. I find that when employees go to the Department, the Department are not very sympathetic and not very helpful in cases like that. The Minister says he will be bringing in legislation but we have been asking him about this legislation for a long time. It is now overdue. During this session the Minister should bring in legislation as quickly as possible to protect the worker. It is not good enough for a man to find that when he is unemployed he has to depend on unemployment assistance or home assistance.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Geoghegan)

That is the regulation, I understand.

Mr. Tully

The Parliamentary Secretary understands incorrectly.

Dr. O'Connell

I should also like to bring to the attention of the Minister and his Department the long delays in the case of returned emigrants who must sign on at the employment exchange while they are waiting to get employment They have to wait for weeks and weeks while the Department check with their opposite number in England to verify their insurance number. This is time-consuming. In the meantime a man and his family must live on home assistance. The Department say that he signs on for 12 days, but in practice this does not happen. I phoned the Department about this and I was told that he signs on for 12 days and then he will be paid. I know a man who has been home since 6th September. This is now the 3rd November and he has not been paid yet. Some forms get lost or something happens and one section say it is the fault of another. The system is wrong which allows delays like this in checking these facts. It should be possible for the Department to send the printed form to Britain and there should be no need for this excessive delay in the payment of unemployment benefit which a man has earned and paid for in Britain. The reciprocal arrangement should operate much more quickly and satisfactorily in the case of workers who return from Britain.

Mr. Geoghegan

What do you do if they do not return the form from Britain for 3, 4, or 5 weeks?

Dr. O'Connell

With all due respect, we are always hearing about the delays in Britain but I find when I write to the Department over there that I get a prompt reply. It is easy to say that the delay is in Britain. I find that they are very prompt. I had a case last week and I was surprised to get a reply back in two days. They had investigated the lot for me. We are not able to do it here as efficiently and they have a lot more to deal with.

These are people who are in need. They are the people who are least capable of articulating their grievances and explaining their cases and this is where we should have a really efficient Department geared to helping them and ensuring that they get their assistance promptly. These are people who do not have savings. They cannot call on reserves in the bank to tide them over days or weeks while they are waiting on replies from the Department. These are people who are on the poverty line. It would be all right if we were dealing with people who had bonds or shares and who were not in urgent need of money. It is very hard to see a family hungry at the week-end because a cheque does not arrive. You ring up the Department at ten to five on Friday and get an engaged tone. It is very hard to tell a fellow: "They are off until Monday and we will have to wait until Monday to investigate your case". Cheques should be sent out in ample time especially when people are waiting on the money for the weekend.

I brought up the question of pension books at a health board meeting. I wonder have the Department looked into this question. A person's pension book is his property. I wonder why the Department have not taken action in cases where the local authority or the local health board demand the pension books in respect of people who are receiving medical or surgical treatment in some of our local authority hospitals. I am speaking of people in receipt of old age pensions who are holders of medical cards. They are admitted to a local authority hospital for treatment. The ruling is that after four weeks the hospital demands the pension book despite the fact that the medical card provides for medical and surgical treatment and maintenance while they are in hospital. I do not think a local authority hospital has the right to demand the pension book. This has been happening too often. Could a local authority have the right to take a person's pension book? This is illegal. I wonder why the Department have not taken action in all these years on this matter. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would look into it. I have been successful in the Eastern Health Board in having a resolution passed saying that this must not be done.

Mr. Geoghegan

I would be delighted to get the names and addresses of people to whom this has happened.

Dr. O'Connell

Names and addresses are not necessary. It is a ruling and an illegal act being carried out by health boards at the moment. It applies to old age pensioners with medical cards. After four weeks they are having their pension books taken from them. I have seen the printed letters that come demanding their pension books. The Parliamentary Secretary does not need individual names and addresses. If I were to start going through my files I would provide him with too many. Deputy Tully, who knows the business better than I do, will vouch for this.

Mr. R. Barry

Would the Parliamentary Secretary clear this for us? This is a very important question. Like Deputy O'Connell I think these are being unjustly taken from people. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say that they should not now be taken?

Mr. Geoghegan

To my knowledge they are not being taken. I would be delighted to get information and I will look into it.

Mr. Tully

The country is full of cases.

Mr. Geoghegan

I have no knowledge of it.

Mr. Coughlan

I have been a member of a health authority since its formation and I am a member of the Western Health Board. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that, as far as we are concerned in the old health authority and now in the health board all old age pension books are taken up and a sum of 10s is given back to the patient to supply him or her with cigarettes or sweets. The pension is withheld, less 10s, within my area and that is Limerick, Clare and Tipperary.

Dr. O'Connell

Need I say more? I wonder why the Department have not taken action.

Mr. Geoghegan

All I am saying is that I have no information about it.

Mr. Tully

The Parliamentary Secretary may be getting a bit mixed up on this because it is legal to do it where a person goes in for shelter only. If he goes in for treatment it is a different thing and that is where the mix-up occurs.

Dr. O'Connell

This is where the illegal act comes in. It will not happen in the Eastern Health Board any more but I should like to see that extended to the whole country and ensure that pension books are not taken from these poor people. It is discrimination against these people. If you are 64 you do not have to bother, you can have your social welfare benefit because your medical card provides the treatment but if you are 65 your pension book is taken. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this immediately.

I brought a particular case to the attention of the Minister for Social Welfare not so long ago. It is the case of a person in receipt of an income of £2.6 a week from investments left by her husband. As a result she cannot have a non-contributory widow's pension because by virtue of some Act of 1908, I understand Lloyd George was associated with it, she is considered to be in receipt of 10 per cent interest when, in fact, she is only in receipt of 5 per cent interest on the stocks. This is an anomalous situation. The only answer which the appeals board of the Department of Social Welfare had was that she get the stock out, reduce her income and then they would give her a pension. She got her room decorated and as a result she got 25p a week pension. This is an unjust law. I should like to see an amendment to this Act passed rapidly in order to help people such as this. The head of the old age and widows pensions section in Mountjoy Square will explain to the Parliamentary Secretary the anomalous situation which exists.

Widows in receipt of pensions to which their husbands contributed through social welfare contributions before their death find if they go out to work that they have to pay full stamps but when they are ill they only collect half the social welfare benefit. For the past six years I have asked successive Ministers for Social Welfare to bring in amending legislation to stop this discrimination against widows by the Social Welfare Act, 1932. I do not think it would take up much of the House's time to bring in such amending legislation because I doubt if anyone would criticise the Minister for bringing it in.

I turn now to the question of medical certificates and national health certificates which pose a big problem for every doctor. If we were to have a fresh look at the problem of certificates we might well save the country thousands of pounds every year. Employers insist on a medical certificate which is followed by a national health certificate. It would be a good idea if the Department of Social Welfare, Department of Health and the medical profession were to study the problem of medical certificates and national health certificates because as well as saving a great deal of money we might reduce absenteeism.

I want to mention another case of social injustice. I come up against such cases every day of the week. There are some people in institutions in this country who are destitute and depend for bare essentials on the charity of neighbours and friends. One case of which I am aware is a woman in a Cheshire Home who is completely disabled; she is a deserted wife and gets nothing because she is so disabled that she cannot have even one child with her. She does not have a penny in this world and there is not one scheme which will give her even one penny per week. She does not get the deserted wives allowance because she has no children under her care; she cannot get home assistance because she is being maintained in the Cheshire Home and she cannot get a disabled benefit because no one can trace her husband's insurance. This woman of 32 is dependent on the charity of people in the hospital for a bottle of lemonade.

It galls me to hear the Minister talk about people obtaining money by fraud. The Minister says that we have to make sure people do not obtain money by fraud. What is wrong with the Department of Social Welfare is that there are too many people employed checking up on people and not enough people looking after the genuine cases. The Government are penny pinching. Too many people are engaged in checking to see if anyone is drawing a penny to which he is not entitled. The Department of Social Welfare are negative in their thinking. They are not thinking how they can help people. They are thinking how they can deprive people of their small benefit or allowance. I want to see a change in government so that the Department of Social Welfare can have a new Minister and can become a dynamic Department with a breath of fresh air running through it. We want a humane approach towards people. I do not think it is a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary to smile about. It is a bad state of affairs when a young crippled girl cannot get one penny. The social welfare code should have provisions to help people like her.

Mr. Carter

Did the Deputy look for a health allowance?

Dr. O'Connell

I would appreciate the help of Deputy Carter, Deputy Andrews and Deputy Geoghegan in trying to get even 25p a week for this person.

Mr. Carter

Did the Deputy advise the patient to apply for a health allowance?

Dr. O'Connell

The Minister has written that there is no way, not even through the health board, in which anything can be done. I would love to hear this. If Deputies over there could come up with something they would be doing a very humane act. She is a deserted wife. She is completely disabled and living in one of the Cheshire Homes. Because she is disabled she will not be allowed to have a child there. She has four children. Because she has not one child under her own care she cannot get one penny a week.

Mr. Carter

There is an allowance in such cases.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputy Carter will cease interrupting.

Dr. O'Connell

In essence, what the Deputy is saying is that the Minister for Social Welfare and the Parliamentary Secretary are not doing their job, because I brought this to the attention of both and I was told nothing could be done. The Department of Health, the Eastern Health Board and everyone else all said it was a sad case but nothing could be done. It seems to me incredible and if anyone can come up with an answer to the problem I would certainly appreciate it and so would this poor woman.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Dr. O'Connell

I never mentioned this case before.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. The Deputy has covered the matter pretty well.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputy Carter please cease interrupting?

Dr. O'Connell

Every time there is an increase in social welfare benefits the burden of that increase falls on the insured workers. I should like to know what percentage is obtained by way of increases in social welfare contributions. The one group which pays all the time are the insured workers. Perhaps the Minister might be able to give us an indication of the percentage provided by them by way of increased contribution.

The ceiling at the moment is £1,600. We should have a comprehensive social welfare scheme to which everybody would contribute. That would be the ideal solution. If certain people did not want to avail of the services provided that would be their look-out. They should be at liberty to reject the services, but they should be compelled to pay for them. In that way we could get the revenue necessary to put our social services on a par with those in Northern Ireland.

Has any study been carried out into this? It is possible that we will have a situation in which we will have to provide for our people in the North and I should like to see one section of the Department of Social Welfare geared to working out a scheme embracing both North and South and finding out what the cost would be. We do not want a wild guess by the Minister like the one he made yesterday. Deputy FitzGerald very rightly told the Minister he had not got a clue. The Department of Social Welfare should be examining this so that those in the North will be able to tell themselves they will not lose out if they unite with the people in the South.

Mr. Carter

I have been reading the Minister's introductory speech and thinking over social welfare for the past number of years. Despite what Deputy O'Connell says, the Estimate for this year is £11 million over and above what it was last year. The total Estimate is £75½ million as compared with £64 million-odd last year. One can very easily, in the light of those figures, contradict those who argue that we are not dispensing a reasonable share of the national cake to the social welfare classes. I have heard similar statements made here. If we look at the Minister's brief, we shall see that not merely has spending increased under the heading of social welfare but that a number of new schemes have been implemented in extension of the social welfare range of payments. Together with that, we have a number of extended services and we hope that a number of those services will tie up with voluntary arrangements later on.

As I said, it is very easy to come into this House and talk big. I have listened to a range of what I might call big talk. When one has not to levy the taxation, when one has not to increase the contributions payable by those who pay insurance, it is easy to talk and to say that we should have more. I am not satisfied with our range of social welfare services, far from it. I should like to see much more accomplished, but we will not be able to accomplish a better social welfare system by condemning the system we have. I have time and again in this House heard speakers indulging in what one would call over-kill in the sense of the services not merely, in relation to the Department of Social Welfare but also in relation to the Department of Health. I have heard cases quoted here now and again and, strangely enough, on a number of occasions on which one asked for the facts in support of those cases, one found it hard enough to discover the facts.

I want to say at the outset that Deputy O'Connell may be interested in social welfare and so am I, not merely as a Deputy for my constituency but outside it. I happen to know something about the system because I have been working and living with it for quite a while. We all object to means tests because a means test is a barrier on the road towards social welfare, but, unfortunately, we have not been able to increase the size of our national cake to such an extent, for example, that we would be able to wipe out the means test, especially in relation to non-contributory schemes. Every year here for at least the past ten years in every Budget we have devoted a share of the Budget to the recipients of social welfare, and especially recipients in the non-contributory branch of the scheme. I think that it is a bit too thick to say at this stage that we have not the compassion or humanity to care about the sick, the old and the widow and orphan.

I want to refute straight away the suggestions of Deputy O'Connell that there is gross neglect in regard to this matter in our Department of Social Welfare. I am not going to sing the praises of the Department. I have my differences with the Department, but I have never found yet in any section of it a reluctance, a harshness or a refusal to recognise the basic facts of life here, and this applies more particularly in the case of non-contributory benefits. I could go further and say in relation to the non-contributory old age pensioners that if the means test were rigidly enforced there, we could pay a much higher pension.

When on this point, I should like also to make the point that a few years ago—I have not got the date by me, as I have not had too much time to look up the Book of Estimates, or the book for the year before, but I recall that we implemented a supplementary old age pension scheme for non-contributory pensioners living alone, and if I remember aright, we named in the scheme seven people as being eligible to participate in the scheme as representing caring for the pensioner. The point I am trying to come at is that we must take this in the context of care of the aged, and care of the aged happens to be at the present time, and I think will continue to be and should continue to be, more a local matter than a matter for the administration at the top, although I quite recognise that the administration at the top have a lively interest in this subject. If this scheme of the care of the aged is to be carried out as it should be and if we are to take an interest in the aged, we must not merely have more money but we must have voluntary help as well because I do not know of any system which will work as well as where a community is willing to give a little help in a voluntary way to this group. We have many people today marching in protest; we have placard bearers at every corner. I would say to these placard bearers to go back to their respective areas, to look around them and to join up with their neighbours in trying to do something, if nothing else, under the scheme of the care of the aged. If they devoted as much time to giving a little voluntary help to this scheme, we would not hear as much criticism of the men who are trying to promote it.

Mr. R. Barry

Will the Deputy not agree to give credit to those who are doing it, as many are?

Mr. Carter

I give them full credit.

Mr. R. Barry

I think we should place on record our appreciation of those who are doing it.

Mr. Carter

I am sorry I did not refer to them but I was coming to the point by degrees. I quite agree with Deputy Barry that in a number of areas the scheme has worked well, and, as Deputy Barry reminded me, we should extend our gratitude from this House when speaking on this Estimate to the people who have sacrificed time and money and who have given freely of their time to help promote this worthy scheme. There are many other matters connected with social welfare which I would like to mention. A few years ago I helped to initiate a resolution at a political convention advocating that deserted wives should be included under some scheme. This was fully discussed at the time. The arguments about this were well put by people of considerable experience. Subsequently the Minister accepted the idea and later extended the allowance to deserted wives. We feel grateful to the Minister for this attitude. This is a sad subject to speak of but there are women who have been deserted and we should all feel obliged to do what we can to relieve their suffering.

There are a number among us who would like to see the supplementary pension scheme extended to cover those who are being cared for by families. There will be another occasion to discuss this subject. In dealing with the non-contributory schemes such as social assistance, as apart from social insurance, I must say that this Vote has increased in amount considerably. The Minister mentioned that a survey is being carried out into the payment of home assistance to try to evolve a better system for its administration and to ensure that home assistance may not be rigidly tied to the local authority. We are all aware that the administration of home assistance is a difficult task. I have always admired the men working in this field. They have sometimes to inquire into delicate matters and those of them whom I know have succeeded in administering the scheme in a very humane way. When assistance is applied for it is a time of emergency in a family and the result may depend on the outcome of some other claim. When a person or a family has to resort to a home assistance claim then those administering the scheme must know the person, the area and the background and also the social conditions of the family as well. I invariably find that the men working in the administration of home assistance provide an excellent service.

I, for one, would be grateful if the Minister would make available to the House some idea of what he proposes to do in changing this scheme. I said at the outset that the cost had risen and that the amount of the Vote had risen for both social assistance and social insurance. According to the Minister expenditure last year was £128 million. This year it is £134 million. That may not be enough. I do not believe it is enough but I am not able to point to any area where we could get more money either by taxation or the levelling of increased contributions. The figure of £134 million is a large slice of our budget. We hope that our budget will grow and that that figure will increase also. In the meantime the means test must remain in non-contributory schemes and in schemes of national assistance. This is one of the aspects of the whole scheme which gives us considerable trouble. Some time last spring a parliamentary question was asked about the cost of administering the means test. My recollection is that the figure was £175,000 but that figure may not be accurate. The cost of abolishing the means test for non-contributory old age pensioners, and the cost of payment in full to everybody applying for a pension at the age of 70 was given and I think it worked out at something like £22 million or £23 million.

Mr. R. Barry

On a point of correction: the Deputy is estimating and I am also estimating but my figure is much less for the cost of administration and giving this money, abolishing the means test for the old age pension. Would the Parliamentary Secretary have that figure? In my opinion it is less than half what Deputy Carter said.

Mr. Carter

I do not remember. We shall be able to get the figure which, I am sure, is on record.

Mr. R. Barry

It should be here this evening.

Mr. Carter

This is a Supplementary Estimate with which a motion is being taken and it is not so long ago since we debated the other motion. I hope we shall get the figure. There is the daunting problem of finding sufficient money to pay non-contributory pensions and other pensions also.

Mr. Geoghegan

The figure the Deputy asked for is £13 million.

Mr. R. Barry

I was not too far out. My figure was nearer than the Deputy's.

Mr. Carter

Yes. I am sorry about that. That referred to the non-contributory means test old age pensions. I was referring to the marginal aids provided for pensioners such as a percentage for light, radio and TV licences and free travel. All this ties in with the general aim of making the lot of the upper age group a little better and even the smallest step in this direction is welcomed by the whole community but the community is not always aware that if old age pensions were increased by only 50p a week, which is not very much nowadays, the cost would be enormous in the Vote. The final figures always impress me when I realise that this money must be provided by taxation and other means.

I would regret that anybody should be destitute, poor or sick and not helped. I think there is no Deputy who would not go a long way—and I know most of them—to help anybody in such circumstances. Sometimes Deputies indulge in dramatics in this regard. Here and there, there are difficult cases and one must have considerable experience and knowledge to even attempt to work out a solution. We have certain do-it-yourself merchants, some attached to newspapers, concerning themselves with social welfare——

Mr. R. Barry

Not TDs?

Mr. Carter

They are bad enough but the do-it-yourself man is worse because he helps to sell his paper by publicising the results of his efforts which results he sometimes inflates enormously. One finds it hard to swallow the arguments advanced. The TDs work quietly and do not publicise their efforts to help those in the social welfare class.

The level of income for participation in the contributory scheme was raised from £1.200 to £1,600 and it has been suggested that the limit should be put higher. This limit applies also in regard to health and local government services. People are apt to forget that the limit does not merely relate to social welfare but relates to other Departments also. It might be thought that raising the qualification limit would not cost very much but the cost is greatly increased when the limit is applied over the range of other Departments.

Another very desirable trend in social schemes in the past year or so is the move to pay retirement pensions. I know that a number of those receiving contributory pensions welcomed this move and especially in the country they welcomed it from many points of view. They welcomed it in the first instance because they have not got to report and to sign documents as they had to do when they were drawing benefit. To this extent the pension in lieu of the social benefit is a much better proposition. There are some qualifications but I have not come across any reluctance on the part of anyone in the section to trace and locate any case and to give it the full benefit of the doubt. The death scheme is also an excellent scheme and one to which we should all subscribe.

I want to come now to the question of cheating. It has been said that under some of our schemes some claimants are inclined to cheat. Unfortunately, this occurs in our range of schemes. Advantage is taken of the various sections of the various Acts to cover up this cheating. While the administration are aware of this and do everything possible to provide against it, it still happens. Those who are cheating have no regard for the fact that they may be depriving some genuine claimants of social assistance, or national assistance, or insurance. They cannot very well deprive them of insurance but they can rob the insurance fund. It would be a pity if the idea went abroad that the insurance fund could be raided with impunity. We would all like to see a good national assistance scheme and a good social insurance scheme, but this cannot be achieved without the co-operation of those people who are deemed to be claimants under such schemes. Making appeals to them will not deter people who misrepresent the position and who attempt to draw money to which they are not entitled.

I do not propose to monopolise the debate. I hope that the various schemes will continue to be supplemented from the Exchequer. I also hope that we will be in a position to increase the allocations under those schemes and that a good system of voluntary health will be available to back them up and that we will make the lot of the sick and the old as comfortable as each one of us would like to be at the end of our lives.

Mr. O'Hara

The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Brennan, has a very poor record so far as social welfare benefits are concerned. In my constituency of East Mayo, and in all the congested areas in the western region, there is very little confidence in him. I am not surprised at that because of the action he took last April in taking the dole from rural dwellers. It was not a very generous benefit at any time, but it was a benefit that should have been paid to those people. It should have been more generous. When the Government found themselves in difficulty for money the Minister was told, no doubt, by the Minister for Finance, that there was to be a credit squeeze, that money was tight, and that things were not going too well and the first people he attacked were the people who were in receipt of unemployment assistance, people who went over to England down through the years to try to supplement their meagre incomes with their earnings in the hayfields in England, perhaps, or in the potato fields in Scotland which we have heard so much about in recent times.

Mr. Coughlan

So we have.

Mr. O'Hara

That was scandalous when we think of the hardship and the difficulties under which these people laboured in the past, not just the present generation but generations in the past. It was the fate of the males of the families, the breadwinners, to have to leave their homes and their families and go across the water for seasonal work. Some of them went permanently. The Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Geoghegan, and I come from congested areas. We have lived among our people all our lives. We have seen their hardship and difficulties. We have witnessed the weeping and the mourning of the breadwinner who had to take the train, bus or taxi to Dublin and cross to England on the boat. On many of these occasions the cost had to be borrowed. The little bit of dole was a great help in keeping them on their little holdings. The dole scheme had the blessing of their lordships, the bishops—Catholic, Protestant and Methodist—particularly, I think, the blessing and approval of the Catholic bishops. Of that I am sure because they made it known at meetings in my home town of Foxford, at meetings of the "Defence of the West" group at Charlestown and other centres, that those benefits should be continued in the hope that it would be possible for those families to eke out an existence from their smallholdings on the mountainside. It certainly came as a shock to me that the gentleman responsible for moving along those lines in a Fianna Fáil Government was a man who himself came from a congested area, as did his Parliamentary Secretary.

However, due to the action of the Fine Gael Party at the time, supported strongly by the Labour Party, and the publicity given to it and the criticism of such a dishonest and mean action on the part of the Minister and his Government, the Fianna Fáil Party had second thoughts. They continued payment of the benefit to the urban dwellers but excluded the rural dwellers with smallholdings.

We in this House are very fond of paying lip service to the people in these regions who have held on to the Gaelic tongue and to their culture, who have been in the front line of trenches in every good fight. It was from these regions that the real Irish came. That fact is well known to city dwellers and country dwellers alike. It should also be borne in mind that millions of pounds of the earnings of these people who emigrated came across from England, from America, from Australia. As one who engaged in business with these people and who dealt with them in many lines, I am well aware of the amount of money that came in to supplement the meagre incomes from smallholdings. Millions of pounds have come into this country from them. Nobody knows the exact figure. They sent money home to help to build schools, churches, roads and many other things. If we travel on the roads of Ireland today, we see the fruits of their labours. Let nobody tell me that it was an Irish Government that achieved these wonderful things.

The census of population figures were released some time ago and the figures in relation to the West of Ireland and to Mayo in particular proved the point that due to economic stress and the hardships with which these people were confronted the population decline has gone on. It is certainly no credit to an Irish Minister for Social Welfare, his Parliamentary Secretary or anybody connected with him that these people should be the first to have their meagre allowances taken away. It was disgraceful. This Government will never be forgiven for it. I know well that in my constituency and in the province of Connacht and in all the congested areas they will forever hold it against the Minister and Government who struck that hard and deadly blow.

However, on second thoughts they gave way a little and continued payment to certain classes of people in urban areas. They fail to realise that they have driven many more families out of this country by stopping the benefits. They created a panic situation. The people became worried and despondent and the rumour went out that all these benefits would be stopped. Many people have gone to England to try to get employment and we know that the employment position there at present is far from healthy. There are already roughly one million people unemployed in England and it has been the tradition of our people to go there and for many of them to take jobs as labourers. These people were insured in England and paid their contributions to the social welfare department in England. Some of them have broken down in health and understandably so because they went to England to work all the hours that God sent. Many of them engaged in piecework on the potato fields, the hay and harvest fields, at beet and other work. They were not 40-hour a week people. The people of this city should take an occasional look at the boat train that goes out to Dún Laoghaire or the one that goes down to the North Wall for Liverpool. Hundreds of thousands of people leave this country every year. They pay their insurance contributions and they contribute to other schemes while working in England and when they come home they think they will be able to live on the social welfare benefits payable to them from the British Government through a reciprocal arrangement entered into between the two countries some years ago. I do not want to exaggerate the situation but many people who return from England after 10, 15 or 20 years over there find they can get benefits of only, 10 or 12 shillings a week despite the fact that they have paid hundreds of pounds by way of contributions in the belief that they will get benefits when the time comes.

Members of the medical profession have contacted me in connection with people's claims for social welfare benefits. I have taken these cases up with the Department only to get the usual stereotype letter that the matter is receiving attention. Most of these people sent home money when they were in England which means that they return with very little money and within a short time they are penniless. I cannot understand why the Minister for Social Welfare does not insist on these payments being made to genuine applicants because they have made contributions and these payments are their right. What would we have done if neither England nor America were there to absorb our labour forces? It is up to the Department of Social Welfare to insist that the benefits due to these people are paid forthwith and if necessary a Minister should go to England to sort out the technicalities. I know of at least half a dozen cases in the area where I live which fall into the category to which I have been referring during the past few minutes. The money which these people sent home paid the rents, rates and taxes and kept the family in comfort. It is scandalous the way these people are treated once they retire to their homeland. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to his Minister strong criticism for the scandalous way he has treated these people.

Mr. Geoghegan

The Minister will no doubt answer the Deputy tomorrow. He will tell the Deputy that what he is saying is a load of rubbish. The Deputy is on the wrong line altogether. There is no such thing as 10s a week.

Mr. O'Hara

The people in the Parliamentary Secretary's native Connemara who are full of the Irish tradition deserve the best that the Government can give them. It is hard for the Parliamentary Secretary to take it when I charge his Minister with trying to deprive these people of their few shillings dole. He knows very well that it was the lot of most of those people to have to go across to England to get employment and even so they stood by their language, traditions and music. The Parliamentary Secretary's neighbours are well aware of the way this Government have treated them. One of the reasons why they were and are now afraid to face the people is that they have driven the country into such a mess that they are not able to pay social welfare benefits. They have made it impossible for these people to live here. They have had to shut up their homes and are now tramping the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester and other cities in Britain.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Hara.

Mr. O'Hara

It is not easy for the Parliamentary Secretary who comes from an area like my own to accept that this is so. The Dublin Government—I do not know what sort of Government one would call it at the present time—have created a situation which has deliberately driven the people out. These are not my words, these are the words of the "Defence of the West" organisation. The Bishop of Achonry said this and many others have said it as well.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4th November, 1971.