Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Jul 1948

Vol. 112 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 66—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare (Resumed).

Dr. Ryan

The Minister in his statement mentioned that in many of the larger towns and cities, we had unemployment exchanges and that he hoped to get all social welfare administration into these buildings in large towns and cities. I think that is very desirable and when I was in the Department I urged that it should be done as soon as possible. I do recognise some of the difficulties that were raised by the Minister. In some of these towns and cities, the building is too small. In other cases, as well as I remember, it is impossible to get a larger space because the building is confined; while in some cases it may take a long time to reconstruct a building so as to make it suitable to house all the staff that will be necessary for the other social welfare schemes—old age pensions, national health and so on. Everyone will agree that we should aim at getting all social welfare administered in the various districts from one particular building.

On the question of branch offices the Minister did not give us his opinion. He said that he was making every effort to remedy the defects. I would like him to say if he has made up his mind as to whether he believes that more of the branch offices should be transferred over to the regular exchanges, that is to the administration of civil servants, or not, and if he thinks that these branch exchanges are being run on proper lines—I mean fundamentally on proper lines—that is, run on contract as it were and not by the Civil Service. Will he say what are the principal defects that he has in mind and what remedy he means to pursue?

The Minister gave a very brief outline of certain changes that he proposes to make in a Bill which he has already introduced—it has not yet been circulated—with regard to old-age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, and also covering the means test. There is no use, I think, in wasting the time of the House in discussing this matter when we have not got sufficient information. In any event, I understand that the Second Reading of that Bill will be coming up next week. There is, therefore, no use in covering the ground now since we will have more time and more information at our disposal when the Bill comes up for Second Reading. I do not propose, therefore, to go into the matter further at this stage. The Minister did mention that the proposals which he is putting before the Dáil in that Bill will mean another £2,500,000 to old-age pensioners, widows and orphans. We will see how that sum is going to be distributed.

The Minister again pleads for time. He tells us that, when this Bill is circulated, there will be some time necessary to issue the new books. That same plea was made when the Budget was before us two or three months ago. At that time the plea was made that the increased benefits could not be given to old-age pensioners and to the other classes because new books would have to be issued to the present recipients and to the prospective recipients under the new scheme. I remember pointing out in the course of the Budget discussions that, last year, when the Budget was brought in we gave the increased benefits not only to the old-age pensioners and to the widows and orphans but also to the National Health Insurance recipients and to the unemployment assistance recipients, and that there was no delay whatever. In fact, the benefits at that time came into operation on the 1st April, 1947. That is to say, they came into operation after the Vote on Account was passed and before the Budget was introduced. As I say, they came into operation on the 1st April, 1947, even though the decision was only taken by the Government a few weeks previous to that. It was possible by various devices, such as restamping the old books, by affixing additional stamps and so on, to bring the benefits into operation, and in cases where there was delay, as there necessarily was in certain cases, the money was paid by way of arrears after some weeks and matters were cleared up.

I think that, if the Minister were seriously concerned about giving these people the increased benefits, it would be done, and that there is no necessity to wait until the new books are issued. Now, if the Minister, on the other hand, is more concerned to fall in with the Fine Gael policy, as laid down by the Minister for Finance, to make economies and to delay any expenditure of this kind as far as possible, then the excuse about the new books is as good as anything else. It simply delays the matter, as far as possible, from coming into operation.

We should like to have heard a little more—we did not hear very much— about this question of the public assistance authorities. The Minister pointed out that, during the last four or five years, any additional benefits that were given to old-age pensioners or, in fact, any additional benefits that were given to other classes such as the recipients of national health insurance benefits, widows in receipt of pensions, etc., were given by the local authorities. Now, whatever the local authorities spent in that way they were recouped to the extent of 75 per cent. by the Exchequer. When the new Government took over the Minister for Social Welfare made a new Order with regard to that. He felt that the time had come when there should be a change made in that respect. I do not know why, except on the plea that people were better off than he believed they were before he came into Office. At any rate, he made a new Order to the effect that the local authorities would not be recouped to the extent of 75 per cent. in future. He told us to-day that, as a sort of transition arrangement, he is going to recoup them to the extent of 50 per cent. this year, and after this year not at all.

Now, that is one of those examples— there are, of course, many of them-where the present Ministers, before they took office, were very assiduous in their duties in the Dáil in pointing out to the Government and to the country how very inadequately the people in these classes were being treated, old-age pensioners, widows and orphans, national health and the others —that they were not by any means getting enough. The strange thing is that when they took over office they changed their minds completely, and came to the conclusion that these people were getting too much, and they made various Orders, such as the one that I have been referring to. They told the local authorities "Well, if you want to give these people additional benefits it is your lookout, not ours," and more or less said to the local authorities, "These people do not require any additional benefits, but, of course, if you want to give them additional benefits and if you want to incur that luxury in your local administration, well, let the ratepayers pay for it, because there is no reason why we should."

The point that I want to make is to ask the Minister why he should change his opinion about these people so soon after coming into office. Was it, that when he came into office he had access to more reliable figures, and, therefore, was able to make up his mind, when he came into the Department of Social Welfare, that he was wrong when he was a member of the Opposition: that he really was mistaken in making out when a member of the Opposition that these people were being badly treated: that, in fact, they were quite well treated and did not require any help from the local authorities?

The Minister went on to tell us that he has got sanction from the Minister for Finance to help local authorities with regard, I think, to the inmates of county homes. I was not quite able to keep up taking notes when he was making his statement, so that I am afraid we will have to wait for another occasion to find out what exactly this help is, and what the significance of the Minister's point is.

Mr. Norton

May I help the Deputy?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Norton

We have agreed to increase the State grant with respect to persons who are admitted to blind institutions. The previous grant was a maximum of £20 which was fixed in 1920. It has remained stationary ever since. This year it is going up by 100 per cent—that is, to £40.

Dr. Ryan

All round?

Mr. Norton

£20 existed before and it is now £40.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister was speaking rather hurriedly and I had £40—£20— £20.

Mr. Norton

Where it was £13, it was increased to £20.

Dr. Ryan

That is very good and I am very glad to hear it. Anything the Minister proposes to do for the blind will have, I am quite sure, the approval of every member of this House. He goes on to say that he proposes in this new Bill to give pensions to the blind at an earlier age than they have got them up to this and on a lower means test. That is very good, too. He also has decided to appoint a consultative council. It struck me when the Minister was talking that one of the best things that ever happened to him was that he was made Minister of a Department, because there was never a Deputy in opposition who could speak with such self-assurance on all subjects as the former Deputy Norton. When he was Deputy Norton he knew everything about the blind; he knew what they should be getting and what we were not giving them; he could tell me, when I was there, what I should do for the blind, but now he is appointing a consultative council. There is an old saying that the more you learn, the more you know you do not know, and that applies to the Minister for Social Welfare. He is beginning to learn now that there are things he does not know at all, but when he was a Deputy in opposition he knew everything. I am very glad to see that the Minister has taken over this responsible position and that he has learned that even yet there are things a consultative council could give him advice on. I wish him luck with his consultative council.

The Minister is bringing in a Bill next week to give certain benefits to various classes under the social welfare scheme. As far as I can understand— I have never got to know clearly—it is by way of an interim arrangement. He speaks of a White Paper. The White Paper, I understand, is going to give the Minister's views on what might be regarded as a comprehensive and permanent scheme—I will not say final, because nothing is final in social welfare and the more we go on the more we find is necessary. I do not know what the delay is about this White Paper. When I took over office in February, 1947, I remember coming before the Dáil for an Estimate and I had gone into the matter as far as I could and consulted the officials concerned. I do not want to say that the officials agreed with me, but I thought, having consulted them, that I could at least put before this Dáil within 12 months what I thought a comprehensive scheme of social welfare should be for this country. I do not want to wrong the officials, because the officials thought I was a little too optimistic, but I thought I could do it. The election intervened. The election took six or eight weeks of valuable time and I thought that this matter would have to be postponed until April or May, but not later than that. If that White Paper could have been produced by April or May I do not see the reason for the delay now. I am not saying that that would have been a White Paper which the Minister would accept; he might like to do a whole lot more than I proposed to do—we will see later on—or something different from what I proposed to do; I was allowing time for the Government to sanction it, and the data was there, so if it could have been prepared by April or May I do not see why there should be more than two or three months on the Minister's part to make the changes he wants to make, and I do not see why the Paper should not come out now or in the very near future. Perhaps the Minister will let us know when he proposes to let us have a look at the White Paper.

The Minister goes on to say that there are certain difficulties, and I quite agree that there are certain difficulties. One is the National Health Insurance Society; another is workman's compensation; another is the present scheme of contributions by employers, employees and the Government. These are three big points to be considered, and it requires a good deal of consideration before you can make up your mind as to what side you are going to come down on.

Take national health first. The Minister says—quite truly—that it is the only branch of social welfare which is not administered by the Department direct. All the other branches, as everybody knows, are administered by the Department. Old-age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance, childrens' allowances and a lot of these minor schemes which may or may not last, such as free milk, special food allowances and so on—all are administered by the Department with the exception of national health. There is an historical background. National health was brought in back as far, I think, as 1908, and societies took it over at that time. It was administered by societies for some years, but 12 or 14 years ago these societies were amalgamated into one society in this country, and the National Health Insurance Society is now in charge of the national health insurance scheme for the country. The Minister has now to make up his mind whether it will remain in outside control or be brought into the Department and be administered by the Department like any of the other schemes.

As far as I can understand from the Minister's introductory statement here to-day, he means to amalgamate it and bring it into the Department with the other schemes. I agree with him that he should do that, but I feel that if I had brought in this scheme of comprehensive insurance and if I had suggested that national health insurance should be administered by the Department like all the others, I should have had strong objections from the Labour Party, and from Clann na Poblachta for certain. It is actually in their election propaganda that we were departing from Dr. Dignan's plan and they bank on the Dignan plan, as do also the Labour Party to a great extent. All through the elections of 1948 and previous to that, they were continually telling us the benefits of the Dignan plan and telling us that we should adopt it; that we should take all the other schemes away from the Department and bring them under the National Health Insurance Society giving them outside control, not bring the National Health Insurance Society under the control of the Department. I am wondering now if the Minister intends to go on as he has proposed. I am quite sure he will, because it is the socialist idea, and I do not think the Minister will depart from the socialist idea that the Department should administer these schemes.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Dr. Ryan

It is not very pleasant to have to talk to a conscript audience, but I must continue. When the Minister carries out his plan of having all these social welfare schemes, including national health insurance, administered by the Department, will the Clann na Poblachta Party, as has been customary with them for the past few months, turn their backs on their programme during the election of 1948 and agree that the Dignan plan should be dropped and that all these schemes, including national health insurance, should be administered by the Department? We will wait and see. I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with the Minister that all the schemes should be administered by the one head. I think that, weighing one thing against the other, the only satisfactory way of administering these schemes is by the Minister administering the whole lot as an amalgamated scheme.

The Minister did not tell us what he proposes to do with regard to workmen's compensation. That, again, gives rise to certain difficulties and, if the Minister has made up his mind, I should like him to give us some indication as to whether he thinks workmen's compensation, either in whole or in part, should come under the social welfare scheme. Deputies know that, in workmen's compensation, using the word as a general term, there are two parts—the employer's liability and the liability at common law. I should like to know whether the Minister would include in the comprehensive scheme these two parts, one part or none.

There is, then, the third point I mentioned, a matter of considerable difficulty, the contributions. When considering this matter in the Department —I do not say I found a solution, because it is not at all so easy to find a solution—I often thought that the present system of contributions, the employer contributing so much, the employees so much and the State so much, is not a fair system as between one employer and another. I suppose, on strict theory, it cannot be said to be unfair as between one employee and another, although, in practice, it is no doubt much harder on the employee with the lower wage than on the employee with the higher wage.

In the case of employers, there are two classes we must keep in mind—the employer who can pass the burden on in the price of his goods and the employer who cannot. There are certain employers, like manufacturers and perhaps wholesalers and retailers, who, if they incur a higher cost of that kind, due to having to contribute more in the stamping of their employees' cards, can put the extra cost on to the price of their goods. It makes no difference to them, so far as their profits are concerned, but there is a big class of employers who cannot do that, and included in these are the farmers. Everybody knows that the farmer has no control over what he charges for his goods. His goods are sold either for the export market, the price on which market is fixed irrespective of his wishes, or at a fixed price for the home market. Many such goods are controlled in that way—wheat, beet, butter, eggs and so on—and the farmer has no control over the prices. If he has to contribute 3d. or 4d. more for each employee, as a result of a new comprehensive scheme of social welfare, he cannot pass the extra amount on.

I have mentioned 3d. or 4d., but under a full comprehensive scheme, if the agricultural labourers are to be brought in for national health insurance purposes or for pension purposes, the amount may become very much higher. The employer is not in a position to pass it on and it must therefore come out of whatever profits he has at the moment, so that certain employers are at a very serious disadvantage compared with others in that they are unable to pass on the burden. I do not know what the custom is in the country generally, but, in many counties I know of, it has been the custom up to this for the farmer to stamp the card of his employee without stopping the 5d. per week from the employee, but if it becomes a matter of a 4/- stamp— roughly 2/- on the employer and 2/-on the employee—the employer may then say to the employee: "I cannot afford any longer to pay it. I shall have to stop 2/- from you." If that occurs, the agricultural labourer will, for the first time, in a great part of the country, at any rate, be contributing to national health insurance.

Mr. Norton

Surely not the first time for national health insurance?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I cannot speak for the whole country, but, in many counties I know, farmers have always stamped their employees' cards in full without making any deduction, because it was merely a matter of 4d. or 5d., but what I am afraid of is that, if it becomes a substantial amount, the farmer will say to his employee: "I shall have to deduct the amount in future because it is becoming substantial." If that happens we shall have to ask ourselves whether the agricultural labourer is in a position to contribute this amount out of his wage, which is not very substantial. These are all questions which will arise with regard to contributions and I mention them now because they are matters which caused me a great deal of worry when I was in the Department. I know that the Minister will experience a a great deal of trouble in trying to fix up these matters. He cannot do it without hurting certain classes and certain people. If big benefits are to be given, somebody will have to pay for them, and that is all there is about it.

In connection with agricultural labourers, there is one point I would like to put to the Minister. I do not know if it went on the official records— perhaps it did not, because, as the Minister will realise, I was talking to officials fairly freely about all these various schemes—but I suggested that we should consider at some stage the possibility of giving a better benefit to the agricultural labourer than we might give to other workers. Whether that should be the agricultural labourer alone or everybody under £3 or £3 10s. per week, I do not know, but I thought something might be done for the lower-paid labourer as against the better-paid person. I thought it might be possible to make a differentiation in children's allowances and to give a better benefit to the agricultural labourer by way of children's allowances than is given to the better-off workers. If the Minister has not already come across that suggestion, I would like him to bear it in mind and to see if it could be carried out.

The Minister mentioned that he set up a committee on emigration. Again, the same as I have said already in regard to commissions of various kinds, applies. The Minister is beginning to see that he can get advice from certain people and I hope he will get good advice on this particular matter.

Mr. Allen

He needs it.

Dr. Ryan

The question of social welfare has become one of the biggest questions in Government administration, especially from the financial point of view. When we came into office, in 1932, it was not a very big matter. At that time the State was contributing £4,000,000 per annum. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government had certain views on social services. They had the view that people should be made to help themselves and to depend on themselves. When we were in opposition, from 1927 to 1932, every year a motion was brought in by the Opposition, sometimes by the Labour Party, sometimes by the Fianna Fáil Party, urging the Government of the time to bring in a scheme of widows' and orphans' pensions. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government voted it down every year, usually on the plea that the country could not afford it. I mention that to give some indication of what the mentality of the Government of the time was. They did not see that there was a necessity or, at any rate, they did not consider the necessity was sufficient to outweigh the financial considerations. Every Deputy will remember that when that Government wanted to effect economies, one of the measures they adopted was to take 1/- off the old age pensioners.

At that time there was no provision for the unemployed who were not insured under the unemployment insurance scheme and even those that were insured under that scheme, when their stamps ran out, go no further benefit. Motions were brought in here on various occasions to deal with this particular problem but nothing was done to relieve the distress which existed. The theory at the time was that if these people were in distress the local authority should relieve it. There were no children's allowances at that time, and, as regards relieving this distress that I speak of, the amount voted each year was £150,000. That was the position when we came into office in 1932. We were spending £4,000,000 a year on social welfare.

From that time on, there was very definite improvement. The first Bill introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government was a Bill dealing with old age pensions. It dealt principally with the qualifications a person should have to receive an old age pension. That Bill was passed and, as a result, the amount paid in old age pensions increased by £500,000 per annum. A free milk scheme was introduced and, after a few years, a scheme for widows' and orphans' pensions. Then, assistance was brought in for the unemployed, for those who were not insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act, and also to relieve those whose stamps ran out. That was known as the unemployment assistance scheme. Then a scheme was brought in for children's allowances.

It is interesting to note that the children's allowances scheme is the only scheme in connection with which there is no means test. It would be very interesting for new Deputies, if they want some education, to go over to the library and read the debates on the children's allowances scheme when it was introduced. They will be surprised when they read the denunciation by the opposition Parties at that time of the Fianna Fáil Government because there was not a means test in the scheme. They will be surprised to hear the denunciation by the Fine Gael and Labour Parties of Fianna Fáil as a rich man's Government because they were giving children's allowance to the rich man as well as the poor man. In other words, the only time that the means test was completely abolished we were denounced in no unmeasured terms by those Parties who now form the Government, and who are endeavouring to reduce the means test in other directions. It just shows the changes that take place in Parties when they get away from opposition and take over the more responsible position of Government and have to be careful about what they say and what they do.

During the emergency, there was a little more progress made. There were various schemes brought in to meet the emergency. These schemes were brought in because, when fuel and food came to be rationed, it was feared that the poor person might not get the same attention from the retailer as the rich. On that account more than anything else, and secondly, from the point of view of relieving distress, certain foods were given free to certain classes, such as old age pensioners, widows and orphans, recipients of home assistance, recipients of disablement benefit under the national health insurance scheme and classes of that kind. They got a certain amount of butter, a certain amount of bread and a certain amount of milk each week. In addition, something was done for these classes in the matter of fuel. In some cases they got it free; in some cases they got it cheap. Then there was a scheme of footwear brought in for these classes when it was difficult for people to be supplied with footwear. These, however, were principally emergency schemes.

At any rate, with all these additions of schemes for social welfare, we find that in the year 1946-47, the bill to be paid by the State for social welfare was £9,000,000. It had been £4,000,000 before we came into office in 1931-32. When the war ended, Deputies will remember, increases were given to all people who were paid by the State. Increases were given to practically all wage and salary earners employed by private individuals. Something had to done for the recipients of the various social welfare allowances. Early in 1947, the Government brought in a special measure to give increased contributions to all recipients under the various schemes of social welfare. That cost about £2,250,000 last year. In 1947-48 the total bill was £11,250,000, having gone up from £4,000,000.

There was nothing to indicate that that was the end. I had intended bringing before the Government, and with the Government's approval bringing before the Dáil, a comprehensive scheme; but I am prepared to admit now that the increased benefits would be largely contributory. I never thought that we could reduce the amount contributed by the State last year. I always thought that if we could get a scheme on the basis of the same State contribution, or even a little more, we would be doing very well.

That was the position when the new Government took over. Immediately, we find the Fine Gael mentality back again, and we start on the road back towards 1931. When the Minister for Finance came in with his Budget, he talked about big economies, but in no Department did he make a bigger economy than in Social Welfare.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present.

Dr. Ryan

It was the first time since this State was set up that there was a reduction in the Vote for Social Welfare. The Minister for Finance found the biggest economy there, when he took £950,000 off. Some Deputies are, perhaps, not too familiar with the sums of money dealt with in the Budget as regards social welfare. There is a widows' and orphans' pensions investment account, into which the State pays a certain amount each year. Up to this, the State has never tried to balance it from year to year. The hope was that we would put in more than we would take out, so that after some time there would be a substantial fund there, the proceeds of which would enable us to pay better benefits to the widows and orphans than they had been getting. It was on that basis that we voted £450,000 a year into that fund. This year it was voted, as in every other year. The Minister for Finance said in his Budget speech that the fund was actuarially sound without this £450,000. That may be so, but we wanted to make it more than actuarially sound. We were not content with the present pensions the widows and orphans were getting, and we hoped to build that fund up so that in, say, five years' time we could afford to pay bigger pensions to widows and orphans. The Minister for Finance in his economy drive this year, directed, of course by the officials of the Department of Finance, put his eye on this £450,000 and took it away.

There was hardly a year in the last ten or 12 that the Department of Finance did not propose to take this £450,000, but every year the Minister in charge—up to last year the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and afterwards the Minister for Social Welfare—had resisted and had got the Government to side with him against the Minister for Finance and leave that money in the fund, so that we could do better some time. The present Minister for Social Welfare has the distinction of being the first Minister, since widows' and orphans' pensions were brought in, to give in on this question and allow that money to be taken out of the fund. It is rather strange that it should be a Minister who was leader of the Labour Party who should be the first to agree with the Minister for Finance that that money was not necessary in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund.

The Minister also agreed that some of these cash benefits that were given last year by the Exchequer, to supplement the benefits for national health insurance recipients and unemployment insurance recipients, should be made contributory—in other words, the State should no longer pay but the employer and employees should pay instead. If the Minister has that view, I think it is a bit harsh. It is the correct view in principle, but the Minister should not try to get away from the present contribution of the State. He should let that stand and add on whatever is necessary for a comprehensive scheme, by contributions from employers and employees. When he can produce a satisfactory scheme from the point of view of benefits, it will put very heavy burdens on employers and employees, without taking anything off the present contributions from the State.

That was £950,000 saved from the Social Welfare Vote. On the other side of the balance sheet, the Minister announced that he would have to pay out £600,000 for increased benefits for old age pensioners and widows and orphans. These increased benefits will be better analysed when we get the Bill that the Minister has introduced and which we expect to have in our hands next Friday. We cannot intelligently, at this stage, discuss how that £600,000 is to be spent.

I have dealt with the history of social welfare for the last 20 years and I want Deputies to bear in mind the figures I mentioned of £4,000,000 in 1931-32, £9,000,000 in 1946-47, and £11,250,000 last year. Now we are beginning to go back towards the £4,000,000 in 1931-32. Take old age pensions as an example. There is no other class who has such sympathy from the various Parties as the old age pensioners. The old age pensioners had 10/- a week before the previous Government came in. The pension remained at 10/- until the beginning of the last financial year. Although the year before that Government came in £2,750,000 was paid out to old age pensioners, the amount in 1946-47, before we brought in our supplementary allowances, was £3,750,000. It had gone up from £2,750,000 to £3,750,000 principally because it was easier for a person to get a pension. In other words, the means test was not applied in the same rigorous way. Then last year, when these supplementary allowances were brought in, the expenditure went up to £5,140,000. Therefore, on that one item alone the amount spent last year was almost double what was spent in 1931-32. The Minister is going to make an improvement there and he will have the support of the House in so far as that goes. I am sure the only criticism that the Minister will get when he brings in his scheme is that he is not doing enough, because that will practically always be the criticism of a Minister for Social Welfare in this House or anywhere else.

What I want to know, however, is how Parties here can reconcile their policy with the proposals now being put before the House or the proposals which are not being put before the House by the Minister. The National Labour Party, for instance, took their decision after the election on the plea that Fianna Fáil was not doing enough for social welfare. The only difference between us is that the Minister is bringing in a White Paper in three or four months' time, and that I believe we would have brought in a White Paper two or three months ago. The National Labour Party are perhaps justifying themselves on the plea that they are backing a slower but maybe a surer horse. We will see whether it is surer or not, but it is slower. When the Minister brings forward his proposals, we will be able to see whether it is surer. We will be in a position to see whether we could have put before the Dáil better proposals than the present Minister when he comes here with his White Paper. The new proposals which the Minister mentioned in his introductory speech will be more clearly set out in the Bill which we expect to see in a few days' time and we will, therefore, be in a position to discuss the matter next week more intelligently.

Mr. Keyes

I should like to draw the Minister's attention in the first instance to the conditions under which men are employed in the labour exchanges both as messengers and temporary clerks. Some years ago an examination was held to enable temporary clerks to be established. That was a fairly stiff examination and a very limited number of those who had given good service for many years qualified at that examination. They had however, to be under 50 years of age to secure establishment so that those over 50 were not entitled to be established. Those people who had given long service in such a difficult position I hold were entitled to some recognition for the service which they had given. They were drawn from commercial pursuits of one kind or another and had a very difficult job in dealing with the numbers of unemployed. They endured the hardship of being dismissed themselves when the period Orders came into operation, so that one day they were administering the unemployment benefit service from behind the hatch and the next day they were in the unemployment queue themselves. In that way it was difficult to maintain discipline.

The limited number who secured establishment are not entitled to have their previous service reckoned for pension purposes. I suggest that regard should be had to the years of service given by these men and that whether or not they passed an examination they ought to be considered and established so that they will not be subject to unemployment when the period Orders come into force. In that way you will secure more efficient service and more satisfaction amongst the staff. A dissatisfied staff cannot be expected to give of their best. These men are subject to the taunt from people outside the hatch: "You need not be quite so stiff to-day because you will be joining the unemployment queue yourself to-morrow." That is not good for the service and it is a great hardship to these people. The salary or wages given to these men is of the meanest kind. While they were entitled to get a small annual increment after passing the examination, prior to that their status had been reduced. If I remember rightly, some years ago they were reduced from 46/- to 39/-. They have advanced by slow stages since then. I do not think their conditions would compare favourably with those in any other similar employment in the State. I, therefore, ask the Minister to look into the position of the temporary clerks in labour exchanges so as to bring their conditions into alignment with the importance of the service they are carrying out.

Similarly, the case of messengers who are doing semi-clerical work calls for examination and revision. The Minister ought to be in the position of a model employer and should not be liable to be taunted with having to stand over conditions such as these. Men who have given long service in the capacity of messengers doing semi-clerical work ought at least to be put on an established basis with such privileges as it would bring them. That would only be performing an act of justice and would make for more efficiency in that particular section of the service. These men are almost comparable with the temporary clerks and I think I am doing no harm in directing attention to the matter. The Minister should see that a modicum of justice is extended to the temporary clerks and messengers.

There are some other anomalies in connection with that particular Department. In many cases a widower is depending on the services of his daughter. Where a man has a daughter or somebody else taking charge of his family he ought to be treated in the same way as a man whose wife is alive. He cannot be classed in the same category as a single man. He has lost his wife and because his wife is gone there is no question of dependency in respect of any other female who may be looking after his children. I may not be in order in discussing this matter because it may call for an amendment of the Act but it is an anomaly that calls for attention and revision at the earliest possible date.

I regret that the ex-Minister is worried about the delay in the issue of a White Paper in regard to a long overdue measure of relief for the people of the country in the matter of social services. Deputy Dr. Ryan tells us that had he remained in office the chances are that the White Paper would have been issued some months ago. He very conveniently forgets that Fianna Fáil had 16 years in which to produce that White Paper or to introduce some measure of a constructive character in regard to social services. It is surely bordering on being childish to complain in August, 1948, that they did not have sufficient time since January, 1932, to do so and that the present Minister is somewhat delayed in producing his proposals which are now before the House. This new proposal foreshadows a modicum of relief but it is not as much as I would wish for. At the same time, I believe that it is as much as can be expected in the circumstances that are now obtaining.

I congratulate the Minister upon the progress he has made in the short time he is in office. That progress is, I trust, an indication of better things to come. I assure the Minister of my wholehearted support in his endeavour to bring the social standards of our people into alignment with those of progressive peoples throughout the world to-day. Our people would be prepared to wait another few months, if necessary, 16 months, after having waited 16 years. I am glad the Minister has taken time by the forelock in his desire to bring about an improvement in our social services by introducing this measure in this House now. I wish him God speed and every success in his Department and in his important undertaking.

Mr. Little

I had not really intended to intervene in this debate, but I have been shocked to my feet by what the last Deputy has said. He said that Fianna Fáil did nothing for 16 years. Neither he nor any Labour Party Deputy was in the House while the ex-Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Dr. Ryan, made his speech. In that speech he pointed out that during the 17 years Fianna Fáil was in office social services mounted from £4,000,000 to £11,000,000. Yet we are told immediately afterwards that we did nothing in regard to social services.

Mr. Keyes

Did the Deputy, while he was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, not tell me that men would be better engaged on the labour exchange than in working for him in the post office service?

Mr. Little

What on earth has that to do with social services?

Mr. Norton

Except that it is the truth.

Mr. Little

The Deputy had an opportunity of discussing the post office service yesterday. I do not know why he should have been absent then any more than why he was absent to-day when the discussion on social services began. He was not here even to support his own Minister. I would point out that the social services were a growth. The items increased in amount and then it became perfectly clear—owing to Fianna Fáil Government policy—that it was necessary to make a separate Department in respect of that important development. During the war period, owing to the emergency and the amount of money that had to be spent on defence, it was not possible to put that decision into effect until two years ago. It then took time to organise the Department. The present Government Parties should stop using as an argument the old cry of: "Why was nothing done in the last 16 years?" There is an answer every time, but one becomes weary repeating it.

Captain Cowan

I should like to put before the Minister a particular matter in regard to employment exchanges. I understand that there is a system of payment of people in some of these unemployment exchanges throughout the country whereby the staff really depends on the number of people who sign on. I have actually been informed of cases where men, engaged in work during the day, report to the employment exchange at night and sign on. I am told that that is being done to maintain the numbers on the register for some particular staff purpose that I cannot understand. I mention that point to the Minister so that the matter may be investigated. I understand that it is happening in some rural areas.

Another matter in connection with unemployment assistance, which has come to my notice, is the practice of stopping the payments. I am aware of a number of cases where that has happened to individuals. They appeal against the decision and they then have to appear before a referee. They are told that they must find employment within a certain space of time or that the payments will be discontinued for a certain period. I am not altogether sure of the length of time during which no payments are made, but I think it is a month, two months or six weeks. That has happened in cases of persons physically unfit to work. I consider that system objectionable. In one case, which I referred to the Minister, the individual concerned was a man with only one leg. As a result of the Minister's investigations that man was reinstated but the system as it is at the moment is such that a man will be told that he must find employment within a certain space of time or that if he does not he will be knocked off unemployment assistance for a certain period. I respectfully submit that that is wrong and that the Minister should take steps to see that the practice is stopped as soon as possible. I do not know what the machinery is in this respect. I do not know whether a permanent referee or umpire is available or whether that job in the Dublin area is allocated amongst a number of people. There is, however, a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst recipients of unemployment assistance in regard to the way in which they are being treated at the final hearing of their cases. It has been suggested to me that the suggestion has been thrown out that, after all, if they cannot find employment in Ireland there is always Britain across the way. I am quite sure that the Minister would not stand for that. If that system has grown up in Department of Social Welfare I feel sure that it is only necessary to call the attention of the Minister to it and that an end will be put to it.

I join with Deputy Keyes in congratulating the Minister on the excellent work he has done within a very short period. I am satisfied that while we have a Minister of the calibre and ability and sympathy of Deputy Norton in charge of the Department of Social Welfare all these problems, about which there has been such grievance and discontent in the past, will be resolved satisfactorily in a very short time.

Mr. Davern

I welcome the idea of any extension of social services. I hope that the new Bill will meet with success. I would like to take this opportunity, however, of pointing out to the Minister some grievances which exist. It is quite true to say that Section 7 of the Old Age Pensions Act died in 1932. That was no harm. It is now as dead as Queen Victoria. I have always felt that the 1932 amendment did not go quite far enough. Under the present system, when a farm is transferred on the marriage of the eldest son, the father is entitled to the old age pension as a result of such transfer. What about those people who cannot afford to transfer? In the case of the small farmer with three or four sons and a couple of daughters, the question arises as to whom he will transfer. The position is that he is not able to transfer and he cannot, therefore, qualify for a pension. The better-off farmer, on the other hand, who can provide for his family, can transfer his holding on the occasion of a marriage and thereby qualify for a pension. Side by side you have the anomalous position of two small farmers, one in comfortable circumstances drawing the full pension and the other, in somewhat indigent circumstances, unqualified for a pension. I would ask the Minister to extend the Act so that there can even be a subsequent transfer if necessary. There are many cases where farmers cannot make alternative provision for other members of their family and are unable to transfer their farms to their sons who get married. The people-in-law may not approve of the conditions obtaining in such households and they may not be too anxious for their daughters to take up residence there. That is a grievance that exists and it may possibly have repercussions on the marriage rate. I hope the Minister will take some steps to remedy the situation.

Again, you have the anomalous position that the value of the labour rendered by the family is never fully assessed. Surely, a farmer should be allowed the full wages for his sons. In many cases of which I know the sons are working overtime, draining the land and so on. They work as hard and do as much labour as any agricultural worker. Nevertheless, because they are sons the full value of their labour is not assessed. I hope that grievance will be remedied.

I think the blind are entitled to the sympathy of everybody. I am certain that every Deputy is anxious to do the most he can for these unfortunate people. I think that a blind person is just as much in need of a pension at 21 years of age as at 30 years of age. They are as great a "drag" on the family at 20 as they are at 30. I would like the pension made available to them at 21 years of age and, if possible, even earlier. These are afflicted people who call for the sympathy of everybody.

Under the old age pension code at the moment we are actually depriving this State of certain moneys. We do that in the case of British ex-servicemen and in the case of old people here who receive help from sons or daughters abroad. Under the means test these moneys are taken into consideration. The result is that in order that the old people will receive full pension the sons and daughters cease to send any help. I think that moneys received from outside the State should not be taken into calculation, because by that means we are keeping money out of this country. In the case of the British ex-servicemen the British Government reduces the pension to £15 12s. 6d. so that the recipient will be entitled to the maximum pension here. I think that that is a bad policy from our point of view.

With regard to national health insurance, the position has been improved considerably. Sickness benefit has been improved by 50 per cent. and disablement benefit by 100 per cent. I think the Minister should wipe out disablement benefit altogether. It is hardly likely that a man's financial position will have improved at the end of six months' illness. I think it is everybody's experience that the position deteriorates in that respect. I think disablement benefit should be wiped out altogether and sickness benefit continued. Another section of the community affected under insurance is that of the voluntary contributors. Assuming that the amount may increase to 4/- per week, the voluntary contributor would have to meet 44 contributions at 4/- per week. In the case of people who have been in employment for 15, 20 or 30 years and who, for any reason, find themselves unable to contribute for more than one year, membership lapses. I hope that period of free insurance will be extended to at least two years. Some of the people who might leave the country and who are, perhaps, in receipt of unemployment benefit, will find that after one year they are entirely debarred from further benefit and they have to start afresh. That is hardly fair. When you think that persons after 204 contributions become eligible for all benefits, additional or otherwise, it is very unfair that those who have paid such a generous contribution for many years should be entirely debarred. The Minister should extend that period of insurance at least to two years.

There are many people who are members of the National Health Insurance Society and they do not play their part. If the employer makes himself liable to the law because of late stamping or not stamping, I believe if you are to have a real success of this scheme you must insist that the insured person will also be liable to the law. It is quite true that he is to a certain extent, but if you were to prosecute a member for failing to produce his card you would in effect be doing away with the only evidence you could have on a future occasion. I hope members who try to evade the law will be brought within the scope of the new measure, which, I hope, will be passed very soon.

I will make a brief reference to children's allowances. I feel that the first child in the family is as much entitled to receive the 2/6 as the third. There are many people through the country who cannot see why the parents of two children are debarred from receiving benefit. That should not be. I will ask the Minister to consider that in his new Bill. Deputies on this side of the House will be only too glad to help him. We wish him God speed in his efforts to establish a comprehensive social insurance scheme. We only hope that it will be what we desire and what everybody in the country desires.

As regards blind persons and old age pensioners, we hope the law will be extended so that any person who has lived to such a great age and worked well for the country may rest assured that in the future he will be entitled to State assistance. Unfortunately, there are many people who, because of the hard work they have to do through life, do not reach 70 years. Let us assure those who do reach that age that they will be entitled to the benefits of the Old Age Pension Acts without any danger of a rigorous means test.

Mr. Byrne

I and other members of the House congratulate the Minister on the work he has accomplished since he took office. I congratulate him heartily on his pronouncements and the hopes he has held out to many of our people who are suffering great hardships. As a result of his efforts I feel confident that many of these hardships will be relieved.

I would like the Minister to make an inquiry into the conditions of lowly paid workers in his own Department. A month or two ago I heard that there were temporary clerks in his Department with £4 a week—married men with families, paying high rents and suffering great hardship because they have to live up to and dress the part of being a clerical worker in the Minister's Department. No doubt he can readily understand the difficulty that type of individual will have in looking the part of a departmental clerk and at the same time keeping his rent paid up and his family in frugal comfort. I hope the Minister will consider these young men. There are others besides the temporary clerks, men such as door porters, messengers and those engaged in handling stores— stationery of some kind. Numbers of these people are on small wages. I do not want to single out the Minister's Department in this connection. I understand that the same applies in all Government Departments. There are lowly paid messengers and storemen, temporary officials who get £4 or £4 1s. a week. There are also customs watchers at the North Wall, temporary men sent in to do that work. I feel confident that it is the Minister's earnest desire to see that those who have grievances will have their grievances removed.

In the Book of Estimates, at the bottom of every page, you will see something like this: "Four temporary messengers are in receipt of military service pensions of £65, £68, £50 and £70." These are men who served in the National Army or in the I.R.A. They are getting merely what they earned by their services to the country, services that brought about this Parliament and placed us here. Why do the Government take advantage of a man's pension, whether from the National Army or elsewhere? Why not allow them to go to more than a certain figure? Men who served in the I.R.A. were definitely entitled to the work they got in various Government Departments. When there is an increase in pay, these men get it, but their military service pensions should not be reduced by the amount they receive in their Department. I believe a number of men will get the 11/-increase and maybe a little more in the Minister's Department, but here is a case that will interest the House:—

"In connection with the military service pension being paid to you by this Department, I am directed by the Minister for... to state that a return has now been received from the Department of ... from which it appears that your receipts from public funds for the financial year ended 31st March last amounted to £276 5s. 0d. As a consequence, the net amount of pension to which you were entitled in the year, having regard to the provisions of Section 8 (1) and the Third Schedule to the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, was £33 9s. 2d. You have actually been paid £37 3s. 7d. Your account is thus overpaid to the extent of £3 14s. 5d., which will be adjusted in the payment of your pension for June, 1948."

I would not be surprised if there were three or four others of that type in the Minister's Department. The letter I received reads:—

"I am in receipt of a military service pension and I find under subsection (8) of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, that I am only allowed to earn £250 per year without deduction. Would you kindly use your good offices to have the matter raised and the amount brought up to £300 per year, as it will affect every man with such a pension in Government employment."

I suggest to the Minister that he should look into the matter. I received letters also from men in the customs and excise service who received £3 19s 0d. for a 48-hour week. All these men served the country, but are prevented from getting the increase which the Minister so earnestly desires to give them. The position is that when they get an increase, benefit of it is taken away in another way. The Minister has made a good beginning in the Department and I hope he will see that the remuneration of underpaid officials to which I have referred will be brought up to a reasonable standard and enable them to keep their families in comfort.

I apologise for having raised these points on this Estimate, seeing that it also concerns other Departments, but the fact that these men served the country tells against them when they are granted a bonus. The benefit is taken from them in another way. I know that in appealing to the Minister I am appealing to the converted, and that very little pressure is required to get him to take action.

Mr. Dunne

I wish to join in the congratulations to the present Minister for Social Welfare concerning the steps he has taken in this important matter. Whatever differences we may have we are told that we want to work until a stage is reached when social services will not be necessary. Personally, I think it will always be necessary for the State to protect the weak against the strong. I am concerned principally with the administration of the social services, in so far as they affect people in the rural areas of County Dublin and throughout the country. I felt for a long time—and I think my view is shared by many people—that the national health insurance scheme, as it applies to the rural areas, was badly administered and, not alone that, but represents, as far as agricultural workers are concerned, a complete waste of money.

I know of a case where the wife of an agricultural labourer has been in hospital for a number of weeks. She had been working before going to hospital in order to supplement the income, so that the family might be able to live. Everybody knows that an agricultural worker is not able to keep his family on his earnings. Consequently the wives have to work. In the case I am referring to the woman was in hospital for six weeks without getting benefit. That case could be extended a thousandfold. I have often felt that there has been great laxity at the headquarters of the National Health Insurance Society in dealing with claims. There was not evident that desire that should be there to deal speedily with applications. This subject could be spoken on at great length but I do not propose to take the time of the House in doing so now. There will be other opportunities for discussing the new developments that will come under the ægis of the present Minister. I do not propose to do what some Deputies in opposition succeeded in doing, to refer to legislation. It was amazing to observe how concerned opposition Deputies were about the social services, when it is remembered that it is not so very long ago that the previous Government voted against an increase to old age pensioners. It is rather late in the day now for them to concern themselves with that particular subject.

Mr. McGrath

They were given an increase last year.

Mr. Dunne

I am satisfied that the Department is now in safe hands, in fact, in the most capable hands that it could be in. I appeal to the Minister, especially when envisaging new legislation, to give particular attention to the position of agricultural workers who have hitherto been so badly treated. Deductions that have been made from their wages for national health insurance and for unemployment assistance represented a complete waste of money.

Mr. McGrath

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the position of men who have to attend at the labour exchange and whose unemployed assistance is cut off if they get work after signing the register and fail to report the fact. Would it be possible for the Minister to allow local managers to deal with such cases on the merits? If they are capable of being managers these officials should be able to take a business-like view in such cases, so that applicants would not be deprived of assistance for some weeks. Of course, the applicants have the alternative of home assistance but, as the Minister knows, that entails delay. I ask the Minister to bear the matter in mind and to see if he could devise some other means of dealing with cases of the type referred to.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

I have the feeling that applications for widows' and orphans' pensions could be expedited. I ask the Minister to investigate the administration of the Act, with a view to ensuring that widows and orphans would not have to wait long periods before receiving pensions.

Mr. J. Flynn

I am sure the Minister is not unaware of cases of old age pensioners who find difficulty in getting fair consideration of their claims. I suggest that there should be a reconsideration of the means test. I admit quite frankly that the Minister cannot be fully aware of what is happening. It appears to me that those in charge of that section of the Department are against all types of claims from rural districts. For instance, in the case of a small farmer, who applies for a pension, the officials are inclined to take a very drastic view of the man's means, as against the attitude they adopt towards those living in towns. If such an approach is maintained by that section of the Department, even with new legislation and the new environment, the position will remain as it is. I could quote cases of small farmers in the mountains of Kerry with valuations of £3, £4 and £5, adversely affected by the present regulations. The pension officer recommended 5/-in these cases, but the Department were very slow to acquiesce in that, whereas, in my previous experience of the Department I found that instead of bringing the pension down to the level recommended by the pensions officer, the chief appeals officer was always inclined to give the benefit of any doubt to the applicant and even to increase the amount granted by the pensions officer. That is not the case at the moment.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of the Employment Period Order. I admit that the Minister had nothing to do with that, that it was provided for in previous legislation, and that the Order was taken for granted, as had happened in previous years. In Kerry, however, the cessation or postponement of turf schemes has resulted in numbers of men being thrown out of employment. Men who were in receipt of unemployment assistance in previous years were able to get employment on these small schemes, but at the moment they cannot find any such employment. I tabled a question here recently on the matter, and although the Minister was very sympathetic, and I know he would be inclined to do his utmost to help these people, unfortunately, under the arrangements that were in existence from previous years, he could not, under existing legislation, alter the operation of the Employment Period Order.

I have asked, and I ask again, why these men are deprived of unemployment assistance if they cannot get work at the moment. Bord na Móna has come to their rescue in certain sections of the county and has employed some of these men since I raised the question, but there are other parts of the county where these men cannot get work and where they will not be given unemployment assistance. They are faced with the position of becoming totally destitute. They are mostly cottiers or workers in poor circumstances, men who cannot carry on if they are not given employment. They are anxious to obtain employment and do not want to be a burden on the State if they can avoid it.

I ask the Minister to use his good offices with the Minister for Local Government to compel the county surveyor in Kerry—and I use that word "compel" advisedly—to give them employment. Under the system which is adopted in that district at the moment there is no break at all for the poor man or the working man. If I have to table 100 questions, I shall expose the system that is being operated at the moment and get fair play for these people. I pay this tribute to the Minister, that when I approached him he said quite frankly that he was never in favour of the Employment Period Order, and that when a man could not get work, it was imperative on the State to come to his assistance.

Deputy Madden and Deputy Kennedy rose.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Halliden)

Deputy Madden.

Mr. Kissane

I understood that there was an agreement here under which half of the time allowed for this Estimate would be allocated to Deputies on this side of the House. This is the third speaker from the other side of the House.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Halliden)

No member of the Fine Gael Party has spoken so far.

Mr. Kissane

It does not matter; they all belong to that side.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Halliden)

Deputy McGrath spoke recently; then we had a Labour Deputy, Deputy Dunne; Deputy Byrne (Independent), Deputy Davern (Fianna Fáil), and Deputy Flynn (Independent).

Mr. Kissane

Three to one.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Halliden)

Deputy Madden.

Mr. Madden

I shall not keep the House very long.

Dr. Ryan

It is a funny way of carrying out an agreement.

Mr. Madden

I am proud to be a member of the House at a time when there is a Deputy in control of this Ministry who shall bring to bear on this very important issue sympathetic and humanitarian considerations. We are living in the world of strange ideologies. Some try to establish their supremacy over the poor by taking advantage of the conditions in which the poor have to live, conditions that are the very negation of Christian and Catholic ideals I do not want to blame the Government. Since its establishment the Government has done much to eradicate the flaws which were the outcome of a foreign despotism that ruled here for hundreds of years. We have a battle to fight to-day. Let us Christians face up to the realism of the situation. You have a battle in the world between Communism——

Mr. Kissane

On a point of order, I submit that the Deputy who is speaking is not addressing himself to the Estimate and our time for discussing the Estimate for Social Services is very limited.

Mr. Madden

I shall not detain the House unduly long. I feel that I am entitled to give expression to my appreciation of the Minister for introducing a Bill which the Opposition Party when they were the Government, neglected to introduce for 16 years—a Bill to remove an appalling social canker, by looking after the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and those other sections of the community who were living under conditions which are the breeding ground for Communism in the world to-day.

Mr. McGrath

What about the cuts in 1924?

Mr. Madden

I know all about 1924. This cult which denies the very existence of God and the immortality of the soul, was raising its superstructure on the necessities of the poor who had been neglected by every Government until the present Government came along. There seems to be a peculiar anomaly in the administration of the old age pensions which I hope will be rectified. If a farmer passes his land on to his son, he will be maintained by that son and he may have £600 in the bank. He and his wife are, on application, entitled to the maximum old age pension. Take, on the other hand, the case of a worker. Here is a case which came to my notice recently. The man is 69 years of age. He suffers from attacks of rheumatism occasionally. The wife is 72. Even though the husband suffers from a physical disability he takes work from time to time on the roads in order to earn enough to provide food for the two of them. Due to that fact, his wife is excluded, through the operation of the means test, from getting the old age pension.

Is that not rather strange in view of the fact that a farmer who is being maintained in comfort by his son, and who may have £600 in the bank, is not only entitled in law to the old age pension of 10/- a week, but that his wife is similarly entitled to it. I have given the case of that worker which came before the old age pension committee recently. In passing, I may say that these committees, as well as the county councils, ought to be abolished because the members have no powers. There is no equity or justice in treating a poor worker in the way that I have indicated. I join with other Deputies in congratulating the Minister. He is doing God's work by introducing legislation which will carry out the dictum of Him who said: "When you did it to the least of these My brethren you did it unto Me."

Seosamh Ó Cinnéide

Is gearr an tam a chaithfhidh mé ar an Vota seo. Níl ach cúpla focal le rá agam mar gheall air. Deputy Madden had the cheek to talk about tackling the social services. We had that from the supporter of a Party whose leader laid down the axiom that social services were an evil, and whose Minister for Finance had been denouncing them for a number of years past. Then he brought in scriptural quotations. It was amusing to hear Deputy Dunne address himself to the question of social services, since he must know that the facts were contrary to what he stated. He referred to our lack of interest in the social services. Deputy Dr. Ryan pointed out that when we came into office the expenditure on social services was in or about £4,000,000, and that when he left office it was £11,250,000. These Deputies will find that when the Minister sets about improving the social services further he will have to go to the pockets of the contributors and the beneficiaries and levy a big stamp tax on them in order to do so. If these services are to be doubled and trebled, as the Minister's programme indicates, the cost will have to be borne by the beneficiaries and by the employers.

I want to deal with an Order which was made by the Minister when he came into office. It abolished an Order that was made three and a half years ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government at that time, which did away with unnecessary interviews with Deputies at the Custom House about old age pensions. I think that was one of the most progressive Orders that had been made for years. Before that one-third of the time of the principal officers in the then Department of Local Government was taken up with these unnecessary interviews. The making of this new Order, abolishing the older one, was in my opinion a retrograde step. It will mean that you will have competition amongst Deputies in regard to old age pension claims. Take a five-member constituency. It will now be found that not only are the services of one Deputy yoked up on behalf of an old age pension applicant, but that the services of the other four T.D.'s are likewise being yoked up, so that you will have the five of them going to the Custom House. I hope to see the day when the Minister will change his new Order, and when an old age pension claimant will be able to get his pension and will have the same right as another man has to-day to go to a labour exchange office to draw his unemployment insurance benefit. The old age pensioner should have that right without all this political interviewing by Deputies.

I am not going to go into the means test. It is a very arguable and debatable subject. I do not believe in giving a pension, whether it be 10/- or 15/- a week to a man who, say, has £5,000 a year. There has to be some kind of a means test. I understand from the former Minister that if we had been returned to power it was his intention to modify the means test and to draw a certain line in regard to valuations, particularly in the rural areas, below which a man or a woman could get the old age pension automatically, irrespective of whether a farm of land was well managed or badly managed. I would agree with that.

I would also agree with raising the amount of income at which a person could get the old age pension. My colleague, Deputy Davern, was on a particularly ticklish subject. I do not agree with what he said when dealing with British ex-servicemen or with the case of a man having an income from outside the State. What about the day when you will have to deal with our own ex-servicemen who will have pensions here? I think the Minister has his own particular outlook on this means test. As long as it obtains, I think my colleague was on very dangerous grounds when talking about incomes derived by people from outside the State.

I want to protest against the action of the Minister in passing on the cost of the food vouchers to the local authorities. I do not believe in the policy of saving and economising at the top and then putting additional burdens on the local authorities. I think that is all wrong. I believe that the cost of social services should, as far as possible, be borne by the central authority. I do agree with a point that was made by Deputy Dunne—although I hate to agree with him on anything, he is so prejudiced against anything Fianna Fáil did and is so anti-Fianna Fáil in his outlook— about the delay that occurs in administering national health insurance. He referred to the case of a person who was six weeks in hospital and to other similar cases all over the country. If the Minister would tighten up or improve the regulations so that benefit would come to the sick more quickly, he would be doing a service that would be appreciated by everybody. I do not think that there is any other matter I want to refer to beyond repeating what I said before, that the Minister took a step in the wrong direction when he started to trot to the Custom House again over the old age pensions. I hope he will change that. It was just a matter of who would spin the best lie to the Custom House officer or who would best pull the wool over him.

Mr. Kyne

One of the reasons prompting me to intervene in the debate is, as a labour man, to say how proud I am to see social welfare in the hands of the present Minister. Those of us who know the lifetime of study he has given to the subject of which he is now in charge, understand that it is in the best hands possible in the country. I understand that attention was drawn some hours ago to the fact that no Labour Deputy was present during the discussion on social welfare. The reason for that might well be that we feel that while the present Minister is in charge of social welfare we can leave it in his hands with complete and absolute confidence, feeling sure that the people he is responsible for will indeed be looked after and that social welfare will be a reality, not a name alone.

Having said that, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to one or two points connected with national health. As an agent who has had eight years' experience of national health work, I feel that there may be some little things from an agent's point of view which the Minister could not get even from the highest officials of that society. I would suggest with regard to optical benefits that the Minister should ask the health people to have the centres of examination much nearer. I will give one instance in my own town of Dungarvan. A workman made application for optical benefit. When it was granted he had to proceed to Waterford by bus and stay there for the complete day. He had to pay £1 1s. fee, he lost his day's pay, and the bus journey back and forth cost roughly 7/6. The same amount of money being available, a workman could have a private doctor or an eye specialist in our own town. The aim of the national health system was to make it easy for people to have their eyes tested at home so that they would be induced to do that rather than delay as in the past. I would suggest that specialists should travel to various centres so that the workman would not have to lose a day's pay or travel by bus or train. I know it would be impossible to bring it to everyone's door, but in my own district the only centre is the City of Waterford, 30 miles away from many members of the society, meaning the loss of a complete day from work. I would suggest that the Minister should recommend the Society to look into this.

The majority of national health agents, on whom the whole work of national health devolves, are classed as part-time agents and most county agents are paid on a card basis. Much of the delay that Deputy Dunne and others complained about depends on that fact. Those people get the miserable wage of roughly £2 or £3 a week. If they post on Monday and a claim comes in on Tuesday they will not naturally post again until the following Monday, causing a whole week's delay, whereas if they got postage allowances it would take away that week's delay.

A great many of the national health forms use such complicated language that the workman does not understand them. There is no necessity for these complicated forms. Many forms go up and come back again to be refilled. I will give one instance from the claim form for ordinary sickness benefit. One question is: "What is your remuneration?" I, as an agent with eight years' experience, found that 80 per cent. of the people did not understand that. If it said: "What is your weekly wage?" however, they would understand. In very many forms you have complete complication and it is very difficult to get the forms filled up competently. Sometimes I filled them myself and got them signed. We were not supposed to do that, but we had to do it if we were to get benefits for the people.

The revenue brought in to national health insurance could be increased if what I suggest is adopted. The revenue is from stamps and there is a considerable amount of non-stamping all over the country. I found that as an agent, but I found, if I checked up on an employer, that an employer who put two stamps on a card was of as much value to me—I got 1/- a year for each —as if he had put on the full 22, so there was no inducement to me to go after such an employer. It was only loss of time and money to me to get the full facts and send them to Dublin when I got nothing out of it. The greatest driving force for most of us is what we are going to get out of it. If the agent got a percentage of the fine for non-compliance with national health, national health would get much more dividends than by continuing in the old way.

I would also suggest that agents should get franked envelopes and overcome the laborious duty of cycling to the various people. Surely that would not be too much. I understood when I took over the position of national health agent that I was doing practically Government work, but to my surprise on every form or letter—which was absolutely State business—I had to pay 2½d. Needless to say, we accumulated all our correspondence and left queries, questions and claims for two or three weeks, and only gave them out when we had enough to justify a visit to the place in question.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy would allow me, in order to have the time evenly distributed, would the Deputy let in one of the Opposition, because so far the time has been weighted in this way? The Deputy may, of course, finish his sentence.

Mr. Kyne

I am very pleased to see the present Minister in the office and I feel that he will do excellently.

Mr. MacEntee

I understand that Deputy Keyes stated that during the whole period Fianna Fáil were in power nothing had been done for social services. There is nobody who can know better than Deputy Keyes that that is a grossly inaccurate statement. One of the Votes for which the Minister is responsible is the Vote for widows' and orphans' pensions, passed in this House in the year 1935, when Fianna Fáil had an over-all majority and owed nothing to the support it got from Deputy Keyes. The same applies to the Unemployment Assistance Act; the same applies to the increases under the Old Age Pensions Acts; and the same applies to the Children's Allowances Act. These Acts were all passed by the Fianna Fáil Government during the period when it had an over-all majority in this House, and, if there is a Minister for Social Welfare here to-day, he is here to-day because the Fianna Fáil Government established that Ministry in the teeth of the bitter opposition of those who are now his colleagues in the Government.

If Deputy Kyne, who is a newcomer to this House, wants to know the truth in this matter, let him read the debates on the Bill which amended the Ministers and Secretaries Act in order to enable the Department of Social Welfare to be set up. He will find there that that measure was opposed by the present Minister for Education, whom Deputy Kyne supports in this House and whom he has made Minister for Education, by the present Minister for Defence who led the attack upon the proposal and whom he supports as Minister for Defence. He will find that it was voted against by the present Minister for Agriculture, the present Minister for Justice—by every one of the Fine Gael front-benchers of that day. Yet he is sitting check by jowl with them and prating here about how little was done by the Fianna Fáil Government for the social welfare of the people. If we were not able to do as much as we desired to do, that is due to the fact that we were opposed in everything we tried to do by the gentlemen opposite, supported on many occasions by the members of the so-called Irish Labour Party.

What are we going to do to-day under this Minister? We are going to pass an amended Estimate for Vote 27, the Vote which deals with the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Investment Fund. If Deputy Kyne and Deputy Keyes will go to the Library and consult the Volume of Estimates, prepared, as we are told so often, by the Fianna Fáil Government, they will find that that Vote was for £960,000, almost £1,000,000 of public money for widows' and orphans' pensions. Let them read the revised Estimate presented by this Minister and what will they see? They will see that sub-head A, which provided for a payment to the Pensions Investment Fund of £450,000, has been wiped out, and that, instead of providing £960,000 for widows' and orphans' pensions, the House under this Minister is asked to provide only £510,000. Which was the greater contribution to the social welfare of the widow and the orphan about whom Deputy Kyne was bleating a few minutes ago? The policy of the present Minister, dictated, I suppose, by the Fine Gael Minister for Finance, represents nothing more than a raid upon the Pensions Investment Fund which has been built up by the surplus contributions of the workers.

As Deputy Kyne may know, the widows' and orphans' pension code provides for two different sets of pensions. One of these is the contributory pension, where the pension is paid to the widow and to the orphan child as of right, by reason of the contributions paid by the breadwinner when he was alive and in employment here. In the year 1937, the first year in which the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act was in full operation, the non-contributory pensions, the pensions which are the proper liability of the State, cost £258,000. The contributory pensions cost £27,000, but, in respect of these contributory pensions the workers paid £551,900. There was a surplus in that year of contributions over pensions, amounting to £524,000. In the year 1943—naturally, as time went on, the surplus of contributions over expenditure decreased—the non-contributory pensions cost had jumped to £432,000. The cost of the contributory pensions had likewise gone up to £297,000, but in that year the workers contributions amounted to £605,000, so that there was a surplus of workers' contributions over workers' contributory pensions of £307,000.

The actuary in 1943 made an estimate of what the position was going to be in 1946. I have not been able to get the actual figures from the Minister, but, according to the actuary the non-contributory pensions in 1946 should have cost about £402,000 and expenses of administration should amount to £80,000. Of that £80,000, fully three-quarters is due to the cost of administering the non-contributory scheme, because that scheme involves a means test which involves inquiry and investigation, and, therefore, costs a great deal to administer. The contributory scheme, on the other hand, costs very little to administer, but the total cost, we may take it, of the non-contributory pension scheme in 1946 would be £462,000. The £450,000 which the present Minister is filching from the Pensions Investment Fund could not have paid the total cost of the non-contributory pensions in the year 1946. They amount to £462,000, with the costs of administration. In that year the contributory pensions for widows' and orphans' pensions and so on cost only £408,000, and the contributions income amounted to £605,000, plus an income derived from the Pensions Investment Fund of £150,000, making the total receipts on the contributory side not less than £765,000, and against which we have to place, as I have said, the cost of contributory pensions amounting to £408,000, so that, in 1946, on the contributory side of the scheme, there ought to have been a surplus of roughly £357,000.

In the year 1956 the position was going to change, however, because in that year the cost of the contributory pensions would be £646,000, and the contribution income would bring in only £605,000, so, for the first time in all this great number of years, the income from the Pensions Investment Fund would have to provide the balance of the cost of the contributory pensions. Again, on the other hand, the cost of the non-contributory pensions was going to amount to £353,000, plus the cost of administration, which might be taken to be another £60,000 or £70,000, making the cost of the non-contributory scheme in 1956 about £420,000, just a little under the £450,000 which the Minister is taking away.

In the year 1961, however, the position was going to change even more radically, because in that year the total cost of the contributory pensions was going to be £707,000. We would get £605,000, as before, from contribution income, plus £150,000 from the income from the Pensions Investment Fund, making £755,000, as against which we would have contributory pensions costing £717,000, plus the cost of administration, which might be taken as about £20,000, so that the contribution fund would just about balance. We would have an income of £755,000, offset by an amount for pensions actually paid of £717,000, plus £20,000 for administration. The position now is that, by taking this £450,000 out of this fund, the Minister must realise £450,000 of investments which belong to contributors to the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund.

As I have shown, the contributors to that fund were contributing at the rate of £55,000 in 1937. They are now to be robbed of £450,000 by the present Minister. He is the Minister whom Deputy Kyne and Deputy Keyes have been praising here, the Minister to whom they are throwing bouquets, the Minister who takes the £450,000, the money which belongs to the widows and orphans of this country, to those who are beneficiaries under the contributory widows' and orphans' pensions scheme; to the Minister who takes the money that has been collected by legal force and duress from the bread winner when he was in employment, who takes the money which has been collected from the woman who was employed as a worker and had to be a contributor under the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. That is the money which Fianna Fáil were providing last year. That is the money which we provided in every year except one, when, due to circumstances which I have not time to retail to the House, the amount was reduced to £250,000 but, in every other year we paid this £450,000. That £450,000 is not being paid this year, and, if it is not being paid over this year to the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund, it is not being paid because Deputy Kyne, Deputy Keyes and the Deputies who sit in the Clann na Poblachta Party are supporting the Fine Gael administration which reduced the old age pensions in the year 1923.

Captain Cowan

Does the Deputy think it should not have been taken last year?

Dr. Ryan

It was not taken last year.

Mr. Norton

The House has rarely listened to so much nonsense in such a short time as it has been treated to by the now hastily departing Deputy MacEntee. Everybody, of course, knows that Deputy MacEntee has a reputation all his own in the matter of finance but, of course, his theories in that respect are backed by no sane person who has any knowledge of the subject. The trouble about Deputy MacEntee in these matters, as you can see from his outburst here this evening, is that he mistakes noise for intelligence and thinks, when he comes into the House in that actor-like fashion of his, indulges in mock indignation, pours abuse on Deputies and reads figures, the significance of which he does not understand, that he is making a substantial contribution to intelligent thought in this country. Happily, of course, those who had to sit in the House for a long number of years with Deputy MacEntee do not take the Deputy as seriously as he takes himself and it is because of that that the main structure of this House has continued undamaged all down the years because, if anyone were to take Deputy MacEntee seriously, it would be quite impossible to control human impulses when people have to listen to ourbursts such as we have had this evening.

Deputy MacEntee is on the same kind of ramp as he was on recently and not all the advice which actuaries have given will put Deputy MacEntee on to any line of intelligent thought in respect of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund. In May last, Deputy MacEntee delivered a lecture in Dublin, under the title, "The Budget, The Widow, The Orphan," at a meeting which was described as the first of a series of lectures designed to enlighten and educate politically young people. Of all the mentors to bring along to deal with young people and to enlighten and educate them, Deputy MacEntee was selected for that high honour out of 3,000,000 people! The Deputy there, of course, indulged in his customary nonsense, read, apparently, the same kind of drivel as he was reading here this evening, not knowing in the slightest what it meant, and finally wound up by saying that if the £400,000, more or less, of these investments are sold, the income of the fund will be very seriously diminished and the future payments of pensions will be seriously jeopardised.

I would take serious notice of that if it came from anybody who had knowledge of the facts but, coming from Deputy MacEntee, one need not take the slightest notice of it. I have here what the actuary said in the matter, and this is a skilled, trained actuary, paid by the State for doing this job. This actuary reported in 1944, when Deputy MacEntee was in office and the Deputy ought to know what was going on at the time, if that is not too great a task to impose on him. Here is what the actuary said:—

"Under the Acts the amount of the Exchequer grants is prescribed until the 31st March, 1945, and thereafter is to be such sums as the Oireachtas may determine."

—Note the flexibility there—

"As indicated in paragraph 16, the sum paid during the last eight years, namely, £450,000 per annum, is substantially larger than will be needed in future and an equalised annual grant during the next decennium, commencing on the 1st April, 1945, of about one-half of this sum, say, £220,000, is estimated to be sufficient together with the contributions at their present rates and the interest on the accumulated assets to meet all the expenditure out of the fund for contributory and non-contributory pensions and the cost of administration thereof and to secure that in ten years' time the invested reserves of the scheme will then be substantially equal to the present balance, which is £3,900,000."

In other words, the actuary, in 1944, was anxious to ensure that the reserves, ten years hence, amounted to not less than £3,900,000. In fact, already, four years after the actuary made that report, instead of the assets being £3,900,000, they are £4,500,000, so that the position of the fund to-day is stronger than it was before. The actuary knows that. The Departmental officials know that. Nobody in the world is worried about the solvency of the fund. Deputy MacEntee, of course, for petty political reasons, seeks to give the impression that there is danger to the solvency of the fund. I give widows and orphans in this country this positive and unqualified assurance that, so far as they are concerned, their pensions will always be safe. They will always be paid and in future they will be paid at a higher rate than they were ever paid when Deputy MacEntee adorned the Department of Local Government. I hope, however, that the Deputy will be honest enough to stop this discreditable ramp which is a disgrace to any person who ever held Ministerial rank. If it does anything it merely shows that Deputy MacEntee knows nothing whatever about the financing of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, and, apparently, has inoculated himself against any possibility of ever learning anything about it.

In the course of his speech Deputy Dr. Ryan asked many questions. Deputy Ryan was rather worried about what he described as the change of policy on the part of the Labour Party since the change of Government. He was worried, for instance, because of the fact that I propose to set up a consultative committee for blind welfare. I am doing so for one reason and one reason only, and that is to bring together four or five different organisations for the blind, to get them to coalesee, to get them to act as one, to get them to pool their ideas and to get them to tell me from time to time what they think ought to be done on any matter affecting the welfare of the blind. It was done so that we might get a filtering organisation through which we could get the ideas of blind persons and organisations for the blind. Its sole purpose is to help the blind. The organisations know that. They welcomed the setting up of this committee. Deputy Dr. Ryan did not think of doing that when he was in the Department, but I cannot help that. He at least ought not to try to throw cold water on an effort to try to help blind persons. In any case, Deputy Dr. Ryan was scarcely qualified to talk on any matter affecting the blind or welfare of the blind. His stay in the Department of Social Welfare does not entitle him to any public monument in respect of any brilliant thing he did there for blind welfare. I try to repair some of the omissions of the Deputy. I propose to provide blind pensions at 21 years of age, to modify the means test, to confer very substantial benefits on them, to step up the blind pension to 17/6 a week and to encourage other activities which will help to improve their lot. Becoming modesty in the matter of satire by Deputy Dr. Ryan will suit him all the better in reference to my efforts in this respect.

I do not want to decry the efforts of anyone to give a fair and square deal to those who, unfortunately, have to depend on social services to maintain even the meanest standard of existence. Any effort which improves social services is good, no matter who makes it, and I do not want the issue of social services to be one of political discord or raucous decision here. When Deputy Dr. Ryan feels disposed to criticise or twit us with any change of outlook or policy, I am bound to say in defence that what is being done for old age pensioners, widows and orphans and blind persons is better than ever was done before. In the 16 years Fianna Fáil were in office old age pensioners in rural areas were increased from 10/- to 12/6. I propose to raise the maximum to 17/6 and to modify the means test. I propose also to remove the discrimination against persons in the rural area which has existed up to the present and to give them, as common citizens of a common country, the same rate of benefit as obtains in the towns and cities. I do not say 17/6 is a desirable rate. I hope to see it bigger and better and, under the new social security scheme, I hope it will be substantially increased, on an insurance basis, from this 17/6 or the 15/- and 12/6 which is being paid to-day.

Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Davern should remember that no later than October last, a motion was introduced here to modify the means test only—there was no question of increasing pensions—and the cost of conceding that, the then Minister for Social Services, Deputy Dr. Ryan, said, would be £500,000. What was the result? If Deputy Davern looks up the Official Dáil Report for the 22nd October, 1947, he will see that his Party trooped into the Division Lobby against any modification. Under this new Bill, they will get no less than £2,500,000 additional each year— £1,500,000 to old age pensioners and £1,000,000 to widows and orphans. After four months in office that is not a bad achievement. It compares pretty well with the achievement of Fianna Fáil after 16 years in office—16 years which was marked by a 2/6 increase.

Dr. Ryan

It went up by £7,000,000 in 16 years.

Mr. Norton

Better tell that to the person getting 17/6 and see how they take it.

Mr. Davern

The rate was 9/-, owing to Fine Gael policy.

Mr. Norton

I never believed in 9/-. I think it is detestably low, and so is 12/6. Deputy Ryan referred to the decision to require local authorities to pay the full cost of the food vouchers granted by local authorities, on the basis of State recoupment, to persons in receipt of home assistance. It is well known that Fianna Fáil decided— rightly, I think—to abolish these vouchers and give a cash supplement. The voucher is a badge of poverty, a taint of the poor law system. It may be justified in an emergency. What Deputy wants to see his wife going into a shop to buy food with a food voucher? I am glad it was abolished and substituted by cash payments. That was a desirable decision taken by the last Government.

I have continued that policy in respect of persons in receipt of home assistance and told the local authorities we were not going to continue this scheme, but that this year we would pay half the cost of administering it, in order to enable them to adjust themselves to the new circumstances. We told local authorities that, under the 1939 Public Assistance Act, they are responsible for relieving destitution, that is, for administering home assistance. No Minister has power to intervene in the exercise by the local authority of their discretion in that respect. We said: "You have to take back this administration, you have to abolish the voucher but pay a cash supplement in lieu of it." I think it is right and proper to require the local authority to do, in the sphere of home assistance, what this House properly regarded as a function of the local authority.

This whole scheme costs not more than 1½d. in the £ to the local authorities. When you see the rates levied by some of them, quite obviously this 1½d. will make no perceptible increase in the rates. In any case, even if they have to spend more in a certain class of home assistance, they will get back something pretty substantial in return under this new Bill. Many persons who at present depend on non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions have to go to the local authority for home assistance. Deputies know that the local authorities spent a fair amount of money on that. How could it be otherwise? Take the case of a widow with five children. She at present gets, under the non-contributory scheme, a total allowance of 20/-a week. Obviously the local authority has to supplement that. I propose, under this new Bill, to give that widow 34/-; and I think I am doing a good deal there to take the burden off the back of the local authority. So that if local authorities lose a trifle under the instruction for the reassumption by them of full responsibility for the administration of home assistance, I think they do pretty well under this new scheme of non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions. Up to the present they have had to pay a proportion of the supplementary old age pension allowance—25 per cent. of it. Under the new Bill they will have to pay none of it. All their responsibility will be assumed by the State, so that anybody can tot up the substantial benefit which will be conferred on the local authorities for that triflling liability which is passed on by reason of the reassumption of the entire administration of home assistance and the financial consequences which flow therefrom.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister is only dealing with one class—the old age pensioners. You also have the disability sickness class and the national health and unemployment assistance class. Does it not affect them also?

Mr. Norton

The point I am making is that if you say: "We will put on the local authorities part of the responsibility of paying the cash supplement in lieu of food vouchers," and I acknowledge we did that, it will cost the local authorities in the aggregate 1½d. in the £. If they have to pay that they are going to get a substantial offload in another direction. Non-contributory widows' pensions at present are not sufficient to sustain a person and many of these folk have to seek home assistance. In addition, a supplementary old age pension may be allowed by a local authority. Of that 2/6, 75 per cent. is paid by the State and 25 per cent. by the local authority. Wherever a local authority has been giving that supplementary allowance, it will not have to do it in the future, because the State will now lift the pension level up to 17/6. There again a very substantial benefit will flow back to the local authority.

Mr. Davern

The Minister said that local authorities would benefit because of the fact that the supplementary allowance would no longer be payable out of local authorities' funds to widows with a pension of 20/-. I should like to tell the Minister that, to my knowledge, a local authority has never given anything to any widow in receipt of 20/- per week.

Mr. Norton

With five children?

Mr. Davern

I have never heard of a local authority supplementing that 20/-.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy must not know much about it.

Mr. Davern

I never heard of it.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Dr. Ryan raised the question of workmen's compensation and its relationship to the proposed comprehensive scheme of social service. That is probably one of the big difficulties in connection with it and suppose the Deputy found himself in much the same difficulty as I find myself.

Dr. Ryan

I do not want to press the Minister if he has not made up his mind.

Mr. Norton

I want to throw this matter into public discussion. We can do three things in connection with workmen's compensation. We can amend the existing law and allow things to run under a new structure with new rates of benefit. We can establish a State scheme of workmen's compensation, making compensation compulsory, the State getting contributions from the employer and perhaps from the employee, if you wish to do it. That is a matter to be considered. We can administer a State scheme of workmen's compensation by integrating workmen's compensation into the general scheme of social service. We might do any of three things and still do the right and wise thing.

I want to throw that question into the arena of public discussion in order to get public opinion formed on the question, telling the public what the advantages of one course are as distinct from another and being guided by some reasonable crystallisation of public opinion on the subject. It is a thorny problem and there will be advocates for each of these courses when we come to discuss them. I shall try to take the course which seems to be the wisest and which has the greatest volume of public support.

Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Ryan referred to the fact that we were proposing to raise the contributions in respect of unemployment insurance, national health insurance and widows' and orphans' pensions. We are going to do that. The very names of these Acts clearly indicate that they used to be on an insurance basis. It was intended that these Acts should be financed by a contribution from the worker, on the one hand, and by a contribution from the employer, on the other hand, with approximately a State grant of two-ninths. That was the source from which the money was to come to create the pool out of which the money would be paid. During the war, for very obvious reasons, these Acts departed somewhat from their insurance basis. It started off in the first instance by the special allowances which were granted during the emergency. Nobody suggested then that these allowances should be paid for by increased contributions. How could you purport to levy additional contributions for these supplementary payments at a time when you are pegging down wages? Of course, political wisdom suggested that it was better not to try the game of increasing contributions while keeping wages down, and nothing happened. The position, therefore, is that up to the present cash supplements and Exchequer contributions have been made available for recipients of benefits under these three Acts.

Clearly you must visualise the end of that type of financing what was a normal insurance activity and the proposal in the Bill is to increase the contributions so that the cash supplement at present paid may be amalgamated with the basic benefit and a combined benefit given to the insured contributor as a statutory right. I do not know of any insured contributor who has given any consideration to a matter of this kind who would not prefer to have his rights definitely enshrined in an Act, not made the plaything of a Budget discussion and not depending on the whim or caprice of a Government, as the present annual Vote is. I think it is far more desirable in the interests of the insured contributor to put this thing back on an insurance basis, giving the insured contributor the benefit of the basic benefit, plus the supplementary cash benefit. If Deputy MacEntee thinks that there is good politics in that I make him a present of it. It will prove to be a damp squib at all events.

Deputy Keyes referred to the position of temporary clerks in employment exchanges. I am having that matter examined with a view to seeing whether it is possible to have an examination held so as to provide these clerks with the opportunity of obtaining established appointments. I realise that the examination will have to be a qualifying one, having regard to the age of the person, but we will see what we can do in the matter. Deputy Cowan spoke about branch offices and said that some people were signing on for work in order to keep the number of units in the office up to a very high level. If that is happening, it is an obvious fraud, and, if the Deputy will let me have particulars, I will have the position investigated. As my predecessor knows, the whole branch office position in the country is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is a scheme by which Civil Service work is farmed out to non-civil servants and they are paid on a unit basis and badly paid at that.

Dr. Ryan

So they say.

Mr. Norton

I admit it. I will not try to justify their rates.

Mr. Davern

The Minister has the remedy.

Mr. Norton

I will try to find a remedy. I will not try to justify their rates. If the matter rested in my own hands, I know what I would do. In any case, the position, as the House knows, is that these persons are paid on a unit basis and the more unemployed there are registered the more pay they get. The less the number of unemployed the less pay they get. That is a wholly unsatisfactory system in my opinion. Obviously it encourages the registration of people as unemployed and it certainly discourages any effort to place unemployed people in employment because the more the manager puts into jobs the less pay he gets at the end of the month.

A Deputy

The reverse should be the position.

Mr. Norton

Of course. I am having that whole matter examined. My ultimate object is, at all events, to staff these offices with regular civil servants and to have them administered without regard to these evils which are elements in the present administration.

Deputy Davern raised the question of blind pensions. I propose to pay these in future on a very modified means test and at the age of 21 years.

Deputy A. Byrne referred to the wage scales of temporary clerks in the employment exchanges. These officers, I understand, recently received an increase of 11/- a week. They have made representations in the matter of remuneration and these representations are being examined. As to his point about the payment of pensions, that is obviously a matter for the Minister for Defence. The Deputy will have to seek a remedy for that matter in that Department.

Deputy Dunne referred to the delay in the payment of national health insurance. As a Deputy, my experience of the National Health Insurance Society did not disclose any delay in the payment of contributions. It is very easy to make an assertion, I suppose, but the only way we can take action in that matter is to get a precise complaint. If Deputy Dunne or anybody else has any complaint to make in that connection I shall be only too pleased to have the matter specifically investigated. By bringing cases of delay of that kind to light we may help to evolve a better system by taking steps to eliminate possible delays in future.

Deputy MacGrath made the point that doubtful claims for unemployment benefit should be referred to Dublin. I have a lot of sympathy with the Deputy in that connection. It is essentially a service in which we have to try as far as possible to decentralise certain types of control. I do not personally admire the system by which everything has to go to a central depot for a decision. It very often happens that the decision is finally made by a person of lower rank than the official who referred the correspondence to the central office. I have already discussed with my Department the question as to whether it is possible to give greater authority to local managers so as to eliminate cluttering up the head office with local files and at the same time to provide for speedier administration in the matter of claims for unemployment benefit.

Deputy Flynn seems to have been rather unfortunate in his contacts with the old age pension section of my Department. All the Deputies will find the officers there extremely obliging and courteous. The last thing of which they can be accused is of not taking pains with Deputies and of not taking pains to examine each individual case. Far from receiving any instructions from me to tighten up the means test, I have asked them to deal sympathetically with every claim referred to them and to give the applicant the benefit, whatever his rights are under the Act. They have received no instructions to tighten up. My desire, and the desire of everybody else, is that if there is any doubt at all the applicant should be given the benefit of it. Deputy Flynn's experience is, I think, rather unique, and I hope he will find the atmosphere in my Department when next he visits it more cordial.

Deputy Kennedy took me to task because I restored to members of the Dáil the right to interview deciding officers in the old age pensions department. Deputy Kennedy may not put a high value on public representation and he may not think very highly of public representatives or of members of the Dáil. A person who gets into the political arena in this country and who finally secures election to the nation's Parliament has some standing in the country. Such a person is entitled to feel that he is a man to whom the people look for guidance. Under the previous Government, Deputies were prevented from interviewing the civil servants who were dealing with old age pension cases. I considered that intolerable tyranny, and when I came into office I abolished it. If a Deputy wants to interview the deciding officer in the Department of Social Welfare he can now do so in the same way as he can go into any other Government Department and interview any civil servant he wants to interview and discuss the matter with which the civil servant is dealing. I do not think Deputy Kennedy's attitude reflects the viewpoint of the members of his own Party, because a number of Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party have congratulated me for restoring that right which had been taken rather abruptly from them by their own Government.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the Opposition for their kindness in permitting me a short extension of the time available to me to conclude.

Motion—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"— by leave, withdrawn.

Vote put and agreed to.