Before the Dáil adjourned last night I was referring to the question of unemployment. I gave the figure for unemployment as being nearly 60,000. I also selected the figure for the corresponding period in 1947. I realise that the Employment Period Order has to be taken into account, and so the figures are not really comparable. However, everyone must agree that 60,000 unemployed in the country to-day present a problem for the Minister and the Government that they will have to face, especially if they were serious about certain undertakings which they gave to the public at the last general election when they told all and sundry that they had a cure for unemployment. It transpires now that they had no cure, and that the words they uttered on that occasion, and on several occasions before it, were calculated to deceive. We in our time, of course, were subjected to many attacks from the people opposite for our alleged neglect in providing employment for unemployed people.
Vote 66—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare (Resumed).
On a point of order, I understood there was a ruling by the Chair last night that to discuss unemployment was not relevant on this Estimate.
That was discussed on the Estimate for Industry and Commerce. Unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance are the only aspect that arise here.
The number of people on the unemployment list comes up on this.
I consider that I am entitled to refer, briefly, to the problem that presents itself to the Minister for Social Welfare because I consider that he is the appropriate Minister to take cognisance of the extent of unemployment in this country. He is charged with the responsibility of maintaining those people and, as I have said, the figure of nearly 60,000 unemployed is an enormous one. I think that the sooner the Minister and the Government wake up to the seriousness of that problem the better.
Deputy Rooney, last night, when referring to unemployment in Dublin made the extraordinary statement that a certain demonstration here in Dublin by the unemployed was organised by Fianna Fáil. Did anybody ever hear such nonsense? Fianna Fáil did not organise any demonstration here in Dublin, or elsewhere, but the fact that there are so many unemployed in Dublin is pretty evident. It is self-evident.
But not in Dublin alone have people been demonstrating recently about unemployment. We heard from Deputy Davin here the evening before last that people in his constituency were becoming restive and he said that unless the Government did something about it there was a danger that a march upon Dublin would be organised from that constituency. We heard a similar statement from Deputy Connolly about a week or a fortnight ago. It is ridiculous for Deputy Rooney or any other Deputy to accuse Fianna Fáil of organising demonstrations of that kind. Having referred to unemployment, I would like to say a word about emigration.
I understood it was ruled that unemployment and emigration would not be discussed on this Vote.
The Chair ruled that unemployment is a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Commission on Emigration can be discussed?
But the problem of emigration may not be discussed?
The Commission on Emigration, but not the problem of emigration.
If the Minister took upon himself the responsibility of setting up a Commission on Emigration, surely we would be entitled to refer to the problem of emigration?
The Chair has already ruled on that matter.
The Chair has not ruled that it is out of order to discuss the Commission on Emigration.
The Commission on Emigration, but not the problem of emigration.
While this Commission on Emigration has been holding meetings in Dublin and allegedly trying to find a solution for the problem of emigration, the people are flocking from the country in thousands. During 1948 no fewer than 40,000 permits were issued to people leaving this country. I am sorry to say a good many of them have left the county I have the honour to represent. It appears to me that this exodus has been taking place more from the area along the western and southern seaboards than from any other part of the country. That goes to show that the Celtic population of our country is disappearing from the land and the Government have no solution for the problem except to set up a Commission on Emigration. Reference has already been made to that commission and questions have been asked when it is expected a report will be received. The Minister is not even in a position to tell us whether or not an interim report will be issued in the near future. It all reminds me of——
The Banking Commission.
It reminds me of the person who locks the stable door when the steed has been stolen. That is what it will mean with the Commission on Emigration. Before they will be in a position to issue any report all the people who cannot get employment in their own country will have taken the emigrant ship. The only evidence I have seen of any activity by that commission was the statement from one of its members on the question of emigration. He gave figures trying to show that since this Government took office emigration has been on the decline. But he gave false figures, and everybody knows that. If he had gone to the trouble of obtaining official figures he would have seen that instead of emigration being on the decline it is actually on the increase. Surely a member of that commission who has been charged with the responsibility of finding out what the position here is regarding emigration, and of trying to find a solution for the problem, should take his work more seriously than to give false figures to the public for political purposes.
Now, as regards the increased benefits that the Minister referred to, I find that the total for old age and blind pensions for 1949-50 is £6,955,000. For the year 1948-49 it was £5,627,910, showing an increase of only £1,325,000. Those are the figures and yet the Minister tried to convey to us that very many more people were receiving the old age and blind pensions now than were in receipt of them before he came into office. Latterly, my experience of the administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts is that in many cases it is more difficult to get the old age pension now than it was some years ago, despite the fact that the means test has been modified. In other words, the so-called modified means test is being applied more rigidly now than the means test that existed some years ago.
Will the Deputy permit me to make this observation? The old age pension means test has not been altered in the slightest, and even though the value of agricultural produce has gone up, the same old age pension means test is being applied. I am saying that publicly now. Let the Deputy put down a question and ask me what it was in previous years and what it is now and he will find how untruthful his statement is.
It has not been abolished, notwithstanding the Minister's statements when he was on this side of the House.
It will be abolished— and long before the Deputy is back on these benches.
I want to hear Deputy Kissane.
Mr. Boland
And not the Minister.
Ministers have rights.
When the Minister was sitting over here he described the means test as an iniquitous test, but the Minister has seen fit to preserve that iniquitous test in our social service code. Notwithstanding these increased benefits, there are certain classes of people not benefiting at all. They are, of course, the people who have to pay contributions into the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the National Health Insurance Fund. Not merely are they not benefiting and not merely have some not got an increase in their benefits, but they have been compelled to double their contributions.
Surely, that is a gross mistake.
Is it not a fact?
Can you read figures at all? Get somebody to explain it to you.
Is it not a fact that these categories have been compelled to increase their contributions?
Surely the ex-Parliamentary Secretary——
The Minister will have an opportunity of making a speech.
But an ex-Parliamentary Secretary cannot read figures evidently.
Is it not a fact that both employers and employees have to pay 6d. per week more than they did before for unemployment insurance and national health benefits?
But is it double the contribution? Is that wrong?
It is a substantial increase, in any case, and that is the way in which the Minister has got the money with which to increase some of the social services. He would not go to the Minister for Finance for it. He robbed these people of so much money and he raided the widows' and orphans' pensions fund.
They are paying it out of what they save on cigarettes.
I am not talking about cigarettes. That does not come into this debate.
And they still have money over. They are saving on the cinemas, too, and on the bottle of stout.
In any case, the fact remains that it was the Fianna Fáil Government that blazed the trail as regards social services. Before the Fianna Fáil Government left office, upwards of £8,000,000 more was being paid out in social services over and above what was being paid out when they took office.
With regard to the unemployed in Kerry and elsewhere, who have been called upon to work in the bogs and who found that the conditions of employment there were not acceptable to them——
That is Industry and Commerce.
But these people have been deprived of their unemployment assistance since then. It is now over a month ago since certain people in my constituency were called upon to work in the bogs. They went there with the intention of working but they found that the conditions of employment and the rates of pay were not acceptable to them. Pending a decision in their case, they have been deprived of unemployment assistance and they have nothing now upon which to live. I urge the Minister to investigate their position and to investigate the conditions of employment obtaining in these bogs, because these men are not work-shy, as has been stated by some Ministers here. These are men who never refused to work on accommodation and bog roads when grants were given for these by the previous Administration.
That was not work.
It was very useful work. They did useful work in constructing and repairing accommodation roads and roads into bogs. I consider that very useful work.
The work was useful, but the way in which it was done was not.
It benefited not only the workers, but it also benefited the farmers, because it enabled them to remove their turf from the bogs and facilitated them in improving the roads leading to their homes.
On a point of order. Was not the majority of these grants——
That is not a point of order and the Deputy knows that.
It is extraordinary that we at this side of the House cannot make a speech without being interrupted by the Government Deputies in every second sentence that we utter. Evidently they cannot take it. They cannot bear to be told the truth.
Make a correct statement.
I think it has done the Fianna Fáil Party a great deal of good to have been in opposition for the past 16 months. I do not say that in any sneering way. I confess that with many of the general statements of policy and indications of approach to social services and the work of this Department generally given by the Opposition Deputies I find myself in complete agreement. I fail to understand, however, why it became necessary to put Fianna Fáil into opposition in order to get from them their present sympathetic approach to the problems of the under-privileged. Deputy Kissane claims that Fianna Fáil blazed the trail as far as social services are concerned. I am prepared to concede to the Opposition that in their first few years in office, and before they commenced to think that they were glued to Ministerial seats, Fianna Fáil did make advances in so far as levelling up the then existing inadequate social services was concerned. It is little short of hypocrisy, in my opinion, for Deputies on the opposite benches to shed crocodile tears now because of the treatment of those in receipt of unemployment assistance or the plight of those who are forced to emigrate when, during their last lustrum in office, they were completely cynical and indifferent to the sufferings of these people.
Mr. de Valera
That is not true.
It is true.
Mr. de Valera
It is a complete and absolute falsehood.
It is perfectly correct.
Deputy de Valera will have an opportunity of intervening in this debate. I am not going to follow any red herrings drawn across the trail. That is not part of my function. I am not concerned with the statements made by any of the present Ministers in the past.
Can you defend what you said at the Coombe at the last election?
I am perfectly prepared to repeat now everything that I said in the course of the last general election. The existing social services administered by the Minister for Social Welfare are, in my opinion, still inadequate. They are not at the level at which the Clann na Poblachta Party would like to see them. But we must give credit where credit is due.
I am prepared to concede to Fianna Fáil that in their first few years in office they made advances. Let them be equally honest and concede to the present Minister for Social Welfare that he has succeeded in doing what practically every member on the Fianna Fáil Front Bench said was impossible when they were in office. Let us have a little bit of honesty in our approach to this matter.
References were made in the course of this debate to the attitude of mind expressed by two members of the present Government. I think the reference was to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If it was the intention of either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce to suggest that a substantial proportion of our people, who are unemployed through no fault of their own, are work-shy and are anxious to live on the remainder of our citizens without giving anything in return, I would like to say that I repudiate that suggestion in toto and I vehemently dissociate myself from it.
Deputy McCann referred to the last general election campaign. Efforts were made during that campaign to misrepresent our policy in respect to social services generally. I believe, and Clann na Poblachta believe, that what should be aimed at is a state of affairs in which there would be no necessity for a dole. Our policy is to obviate that necessity.
Mr. de Valera
Means?
Until such time as a policy of full employment is in operation, those to whom the State owes a duty, a duty which the State has not been able to fulfil by providing employment for them, are entitled to assistance from the State in eking out an existence and such assistance should be of as generous a nature as it is possible for the State to afford. I do not believe that anything other than a very small percentage of our people would be prepared to accept unemployment assistance while work is available for them. I do not believe that that is a common type of Irishman. I do not believe it is typical of this country of ours, which has sent its sons and daughters to the four corners of the earth, to engage in the hardest and most trying types of physical labour. In every community you will have the shiftless one, the idler, the ne'er-do-well, but I think it is a slander on our people to suggest that there is any substantial proportion of those in receipt of unemployment assistance who are not prepared to work and who are not anxious to work.
Reference was made here yesterday to the activities of the Court of Referees. The suggestion was made that from that court unemployed persons always receive sympathetic consideration. I should like to assure the Minister that I know to my own knowledge of at least five or six cases to which I could refer at the moment, of people who, I am quite satisfied, were genuinely anxious for and looking for work who have been put off unemployment assistance by the Court of Referees on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work.
On the ground that they could not prove it.
If the Deputy would allow me for a moment, may I say that I have not had a single complaint from any representative of the workers on the court as to the manner in which the court functions? If I get any such complaint from people with first hand knowledge that the unemployed are not getting a fair crack of the whip there, I shall personally investigate the circumstances—that is from the workers' side.
What about a complaint from the person who is cut off?
I shall have that investigated too but I put this point of view to the Deputy. It is quite natural that a person who is deprived of benefit sees things through his own glasses. You could not expect him to see things otherwise than from his own point of view. The court is composed of three elements: the employers' representative, the workers' representative and an independent chairman. If the court is functioning in a way that the chairman is coming down unreasonably against the unemployed to such an extent that he is not giving them a fair chance of putting their case, that is evidence upon which we could fairly base a complaint against it. If there is any such evidence, the workers' representatives are there. They know what is happening and they can see what is happening. If they indicate, or any elements which comprise that court indicate, that people are not getting a fair crack of the whip there, I shall have the matter promptly investigated.
I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister, but, unfortunately, I do not think it goes far enough because as the Minister knows the operative part of the court is the chairman. The chairman, as the Minister indicated yesterday, is in very many instances a lawyer. I am afraid that there has been a tendency to leave all these decisions to the chairman, who is a paid official. He is remunerated at the rate of £2 2s. 0d. or £3 3s. 0d. for each day on which the court sits. I accept the Minister's reply as being in perfectly good faith. I can only say to the Minister that I am speaking from my own experience. I can recall one case, the facts of which I think were brought to the Minister's notice, the case of a man who, I know, had haunted a number of us for some months in an effort to get any suitable employment. That same man was put off by the Court of Referees as a man who was not genuinely seeking employment.
Although you and I had given him notes to seek employment.
Exactly. I am not to be taken as suggesting that the Minister is in anywise blameworthy. He has not had an opportunity yet to deal with these matters.
And I have no power to decide these claims.
I quite appreciate that, but I do think it is the duty of Deputies to place before the House, for the Minister's consideration, the facts in all these matters as they see them. Again, on the question of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance and what we have been told is their alleged desire to avoid work, references were made in this House to the fact that a number of men in receipt of unemployment assistance were offered employment in Bord na Móna and on the Erne scheme.
Was that not raised on another Estimate and is it not the responsibility of another Minister?
I am relating this purely to the question of unemployment assistance. Twelve workers in Limerick in receipt of unemployment assistance volunteered within the last few weeks for employment on the Erne scheme. After considerable delay, they were told that there was no such employment available at the moment. I trust these men will not be deprived of their unemployment assistance payments. I hope that there is not any substantial number of workers in the country who have been cut off from unemployment assistance in similar circumstances. It would be churlish of me, as I think it is churlish of Deputies on any side of the House, not to recognise the advances which the Minister has undoubtedly made. He is to be congratulated on having done what the Party opposite told us was impossible—giving an increase, inadequate though it may be, to the old age pensioners.
We never said such a thing.
You should subside into the silence from which you should never have emerged. The Minister deserves congratulations for the increase in blind pensions and the increase in widows' and orphans' pensions. The Minister should, however, remember that the sooner he produces and places before this House his White Paper the better it will be for the Minister's Department and for the people of the country generally. Reference was made to the means test. I was glad to hear the categorical statement from the Minister that the means test would be abolished.
When?
I believe it will.
Before you would ever have done it.
You said in 1932 that you were going to take back all the emigrants.
There are thousands of them going away every day.
Deputy Con Lehane.
I say this to the Minister in that connection—that remarks such as that made by him are not taken by many of us as mere obiter dicta; they are taken as expressions of policy. When the Minister tells us that he will abolish the means test, we mean to hold him to it.
You do not have to do it. The abolition of the means test is provided for in this White Paper. The means test will be abolished for everyone covered by the comprehensive social security scheme. It is all provided for in this White Paper which is now before the Government.
That is heartening news.
If Deputy Briscoe will keep a confidence, I am willing to let him read it, so that he may pour balm on his heart.
When the Government passes it.
It is a better scheme than the Fianna Fáil scheme.
There appears to be a desire on the part of Deputies opposite to jibe and sneer at this question of the White Paper but, faced with the Minister's statement of a few minutes ago, I notice that Deputies subsided into silence. I congratulate the Minister on what he has done. I urge that he should expedite the consideration of that White Paper by the Government and let the Deputies have an opportunity of seeing its provisions at as early a date as possible.
I must say that I was disappointed with the Minister's introduction of this Estimate. The Minister is a man for whom I had great admiration. He and I thought on similar lines in the past. He and I were fond of quoting the New Zealand scheme, and I had hoped that when he got into office he would bring in a comprehensive social security scheme in quick time.
Sixteen years.
Like myself, he has been studying the New Zealand scheme since it was introduced in 1939 and it would not have taken very long to produce a scheme to his liking. I sympathise with the Minister, because it is obvious to me and to everybody else that, unfortunately, he and other Ministers, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Education and other Ministers—I give them the credit for wanting to do something—are being spancelled by the Minister for Finance. I thought that that scheme would have been produced in quick time. After all, it is not good enough to campaign for years for the abolition of the means test, for increased children's allowances, for increased national health insurance benefit, as the Minister was very fond of doing, and then, having been 18 months in office, to be in the same position so far as we are concerned, because we have not seen anything yet, as if he were still in opposition, because I am convinced that he is in opposition in the Cabinet. Much as he would like to do certain things— I give him credit for it and I give the Labour Party credit for wanting him to do them—he is in opposition. That is borne out by the statements of Deputy Larkin, Deputy Connolly and Deputy Dunne from time to time. They are not satisfied. I do not know when their satisfaction will well-up to such an extent that they will simply come in and cut the spancel. I have still faith that one day Deputy Lehane will return to his old allegiance and throw off the McGilligan company. He was with me before and with us before and I hope he will be with me and with us again when he finds out his new bedfellows.
Where was he with you?
In a number of places.
Was it Arbour Hill?
In a number of places. Deputy Lehane talked about the problem of the under-privileged. I put down a number of questions to the Minister in relation to unemployment assistance and, at the risk of repeating some of the things which Deputy Lehane has said, I want to know from the Minister how it is that when, a few weeks ago, I asked him to say what number of men had been cut off unemployment assistance within a certain period he was unable to answer me. He said there were no such records kept in his Department or that it was too expensive to do it.
I was as anxious as the Deputy to get that information. The Deputy submitted the question and I gave directions to have the information compiled. To my amazement, however, it transpired that the Department had never compiled statistics in that form and that that had been the practice for the past 16 years. The moment I saw that the Department did not prepare statistics in that form—I thought they ought to be prepared in that form —I gave directions that it should be done, and it will be done in the future. It was never done in the past and was never done during the Fianna Fáil régime.
It is now being done, it seems, because yesterday I received a reply to another question and the Minister was rather gratified that, out of 3,000 cases examined, only 200 had been cut off unemployment assistance. I think that is a very big percentage. It may not seem much from a mathematical point of view, but there are 200 men who have been cut off unemployment assistance and who have nowhere to turn, except to the Dublin Board of Assistance, and that is where we come in again. We are carrying a burden in the Dublin Corporation this year of just £600,000 for the Dublin Board of Assistance which is in excess, by some £60,000, of what it was two years ago.
Whatever statistics may be produced, I feel certain that there are numbers of men who have ceased to sign at the exchange because there is no possibility of their getting work in this city. Any business man to whom you talk will tell you that there is not a shilling stirring and in these circumstances they are not in a position to afford employment. I have sent men seeking employment, as has Deputy Lehane, to various places of employment and they have come back and told me that there was nothing doing. Some of these were cut off unemployment assistance. I think it is very wrong in these circumstances, when employment is not available in this city, to cut these men off. The Minister knows, as everybody knows, that mankind is not made to any standard of physique and there are some men who will present themselves at every other builder's job in the city and who will be told: "We are sorry: we cannot take you on." There is only a particular class of work for which they are suited.
One of the Minister's colleagues said somewhere that that is what the unemployment assistance scheme was originally devised for—to help these unfortunate lame dogs over the stile. I would not give unemployment assistance to any able-bodied man who would refuse work and I do not think anyone would do that, but the able-bodied man who cannot get work is entitled to a livelihood, which brings me to the next point. The Minister will not deny that he and his colleagues campaigned for either full employment or full maintenance. That was the slogan, and I think it is still the slogan, of Deputy Dunne and Deputy Larkin and Deputy Connolly. These men are not getting any employment and they are certainly getting far short of full maintenance.
What did they get from Fianna Fáil?
They got full employment.
In Liverpool and Bristol.
Go down to the North Wall and you will see them going away in thousands.
We were encountering certain difficulties. The campaign of misrepresentation was that there were no difficulties in the way, that the transition period should have been as easy as if we were merely passing from one normal year to another. That was the whole campaign of misrepresentation—that it was the simplest thing in the world, that the Minister and his colleagues had a monopoly of Christian feeling and humanitarian thought and that the Deputy McCanns, the Deputy Briscoes and the Deputy Traynors had no such humanitarian feeling. We would not do it; we would sooner let people die on the roadside. Was that not it? The difficulties were there and these difficulties were misrepresented, as they were always misrepresented in relation to our policy. The people have found out the misrepresentation and I challenge the Minister and the Government to go to the country or to let the Deputies in the City of Dublin resign their seats and make a test of it and see what the result will be.
How about your trying it?
I do not want to do it. You are the Deputies who say you have the confidence of the people after the trick you, as Parties, played on the electorate.
It is pretty soon after West Cork to be talking that way.
The Deputy knows West Cork nearly as well as he knows South Dublin. Would he tell me when we could ever hope, when any nationalist or republican candidate could ever hope, to win in West Cork?
Would the Deputy tell me what this has to do with the Estimate?
Ask Deputy Lehane.
The Deputy is not obliged to answer any interruptions and Deputy Lehane is not the judge of order.
If I succumb to the temptation, you must excuse me, Sir. I want to say again that, so far as all these benefits are concerned, I am completely and totally dissatisfied because the Minister has not redeemed his promise. He has produced a White Paper to-day which, as I said to Deputy Lehane, will be sere before it is an Act. I am certain of that, because it yet has to go through the mill in the Cabinet and when the gentleman responsible, the Minister for Finance, for the instruction to various Departments and sub-Departments to go easy on capital expenditure gets his teeth into the scheme, I am certain it will not resemble the New Zealand scheme.
It is very revealing to me, at any rate, to discover the hidden fires of love of the under-privileged which all these years have burned in the breasts of the Opposition. It is, I think, a good thing that we learned what they were really thinking over the years when they were acting in a manner which resulted in their removal from office. Last night, Deputy Ryan, in his contribution to this debate, indicated that when he left the Department of Social Welfare there was no social welfare scheme in existence. He said that in regard to some alleged statements which he claimed were made to the effect that his scheme had to be scrapped. Following on his heels, we had Deputy Lemass saying that all this Minister had to do was to adopt his predecessor's proposals which, according to that predecessor, were non est.
Deputy Ryan said no such thing, of course.
If that be so, it is simply another indication of the inaccuracies reflected in the official journalistic-mouthpiece of the Opposition. Look at this morning's paper and you will find out whether it is true or not.
There is a difference between a scheme and proposals.
The position regarding the men who have been cut off at the labour exchange for refusal to work with Bord na Móna is, I consider, a very serious one. It is a rather remarkable fact that so many men have been found to refuse to take up employment with Bord na Móna. Deputy Kissane says that in his district the reason for that is that the wages and working conditions were found to be unsatisfactory. That may be a good case to make, but wages and working conditions, I say in passing, under the auspices of Bord na Móna have improved since Fianna Fáil left office, and during the time when men were being forced to work for Bord na Móna during the Fianna Fáil term of office they had to suffer much worse indignities than they have to suffer now.
They did not refuse to work.
They were starved into submission when they sought to establish their right to trade union organisation.
Why did they not refuse to work?
They did not refuse to work.
It is no use thinking that, by belatedly adopting the attitude of championing the rights of the under-privileged, the Opposition will make political capital out of this situation. There is a definite problem, a problem for the Minister, a problem for Bord na Móna and a problem for the man who has to try to get a living. The Minister's problem is in relation to what has to be done and what is being done for the man who refuses to take up employment. There is no question about it, you cannot dispute the principle that where suitable employment is provided or offered to an able-bodied man and he refuses to take it, there is no case for retaining him on unemployment assistance. Everybody agrees on that principle but I do not think that there is 1 per cent. of the workers of this country who do not want to take up employment. The people who do not want to take up employment are those who are physically incapable of continuous work or those who are, as I described before, casualties of years upon years of unemployment who have become unemployable. Their number is negligible. When you get 200 men who refuse to take employment when offered it, you examine the position more closely.
In my opinion, the reason for the situation developing in so far as Bord na Móna is concerned is the bad history attached to that organisation and that history grew up during the régime of Fianna Fáil. It is no use for Deputies of the Opposition to try to capitalise on that situation. Those who know the position—and the turf workers know the position—will not be influenced by that particular type of propaganda. It is quite conceivable that a man who is signing on at an employment exchange in any part of the country who hears the story that a worker employed by Bord na Móna in the year before last who cut more turf in one season than any man who had ever been in the employment of the board had cut, who created an all-time record for cutting under the hand-won turf scheme, whose photograph appeared on the front page of the Irish Press, could not pass the doctor in the following year because his heart was strained by overwork, will have a natural reluctance to go into the employment of that particular organisation. That is one of the stories that have spread amongst turf workers. That did not happen since this Government came into office. It happened before that.
There is a very serious problem which can only be tackled by educating the workers to the idea that there is a hope and prospect of much better wages and working conditions in such schemes as the Erne scheme and in such organisations as Bord na Móna. In addition, there is the natural reluctance on the part of workers to adopt camp life which at best is an unnatural form of existence.
Does that not come under Industry and Commerce and was it not debated on that Estimate?
I am merely pursuing it to the same extent as it has been pursued by other Deputies. The figure of 60,000 is given as being the number of unemployed in receipt of assistance at the present time. That, undoubtedly, represents a very serious problem. I do not agree with Deputy Rooney, who stated that unemployed demonstrations were organised by the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not think any Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party or anybody in the Fianna Fáil organisation would have the hardihood to organise an unemployed demonstration, particularly considering that ten years ago the figure for unemployed was not 60,000 but 120,000, exactly double what it is now.
Where did the Deputy get that figure? That figure is not correct.
I will obtain it for the Deputy, if he wishes. The reason I know it is that I happened to be one of the 120,000 who were unemployed during that year.
I will meet the Deputy afterwards and we will compare figures.
Very well. I am very glad that shortly we are to hear more of the comprehensive social welfare scheme and, if it is possible for the Minister to do so, I would like him to indicate, when replying, if he proposes to bring farm workers, who have been so long excluded, within the scope of the unemployment benefits under that scheme. At present, as the Minister and everybody is aware, farm workers when they become unemployed have no resources and have no claim to unemployment benefit. If steps are taken under the scheme to meet this very great need it will be of tremendous benefit. I would be glad if the Minister would indicate, when replying, how far he will meet that case.
As a member of an old age pension sub-committee, I know a little about the administration of old age pensions. I have felt for a long time that, apart from the means test which is, undoubtedly, a terrible infliction upon the old person trying to obtain a few shillings to maintain him to the end of his life, the most unjust aspect of the old age pension scheme as it operates at present is the method of computation of income. At present, as everybody knows, the income on which the means test is based is the income taken over the 12 months prior to the date of application. In many cases it will be found that the applicant, a farm worker or road worker—it applies principally to people in rural areas—works up to the age of 70 years and then ceases work and applies for the old age pension. His means are computed on the basis of his earnings for the previous 12 months. It automatically disqualifies him from receiving the old age pension.
May I explain to the Deputy that that is really not the position at all? What happens is: means in the form of cash is taken as means which an applicant is reasonably likely to receive during the ensuing 12 months. If a person works until he is 70 years of age and if it is clear then that he will work no more—that he is going to get no wages during the following year for road work because he is not able to follow road work—and if he has no other means, then he has no means in so far as his application for an old age pension is concerned. If he does not expect to receive any wages as a road worker during the ensuing 12 months you can not take into consideration against him for the ensuing 12 months what he got in the previous 12 months.
Tell that to the inspectors.
It is the law, and the inspectors have instructions to that effect.
The difficulty is that it is not until the man actually leaves his employment that he can make application for the pension. It would seem that there must be a lag as between the time he finishes his employment and the time he makes application for the pension.
He can apply for an old age pension before he reaches 70 years of age.
We have found, in the Balrothery area, that if a man makes an application for a pension while he is in employment his application is rejected by the pensions officer. It may be, and I think it is, that some of our pensions officers—one, at least—are inclined to be overstrict in the matter. That is the position in my constituency. There have been very great delays in the matter of administration in this connection also. The administration of old age pensions is in need of a very thorough overhaul. When application is made for a pension by an old person it very often takes a period of two months before it comes before the local sub-committee. In many cases, the sub-committee's view of the entitlement of the applicant is entirely different from the view taken by the pensions officer—with the result that there may be an appeal by the pensions officer against the decision of the sub-committee. That, in turn, will mean a further delay of a month—possibly three months—before the appeal is investigated. Where there are amounts of allocations which are disputed by the sub-committee the average length of time, I would think, for dealing with such claims for pensions would be in the neighbourhood of four or five months. I have in mind the case of a man which has been under consideration for the past 14 months. He made a claim for a pension but, because the view of the sub-committee was different from the view of the pensions officer, the matter had to be appealed by the pensions officer and investigated by the Department, and so forth.
Normally, a case is cleared within two months. If it is over that period, the officer dealing with the matter has to furnish a special report and indicate the reasons for the delay. I have probed into this matter and I have found that in most cases the reason has been the difficulty of establishing either evidence of the date of birth or evidence as to the means of the applicant. Many applicants are rather reticent about their means and it requires some persuasion, over a period, to induce them to disclose particulars in that respect. I assure the Deputy that I shall investigate any case where anybody thinks there has been unreasonable delay.
In this particular case there has been a delay of 14 months.
I should be glad if the Deputy would give me particulars of it.
On the question of qualification in respect of age, I would urge that the pensions officer be directed to exercise a little commonsense. We have a case at the moment in County Dublin of a man who, as far as one can judge from his appearance, must be in the neighbourhood of 80 years of age. He cannot obtain his birth certificate because the records have been destroyed or something like that. However, he did obtain an assurance from a man already drawing a pension that he, the pensioner, served as an altar boy at the applicant's wedding. That assurance was not accepted by the pensions officer in question although it would apparently prove that the applicant must be in the neighbourhood of 90 years of age. Nevertheless, despite that assurance, he is debarred from getting a pension. The pensions officers should be instructed to observe the regulations more in the spirit than in the letter. Some pensions officers give a bad impression in the pursuit of their duties. It is unhealthy to create an impression of suspicion amongst pensioners. There may be a desire on the part of the applicants to conceal information due to the inquisitorial attitude adopted towards them in some cases. If the pensions officers felt that they could exercise a little more humanity and if the applicants felt they had no reason for fear, much more work could be done.
I want to say that Deputy Dunne apparently has little regard for the promise of the Minister for Social Welfare. The Minister for Social Welfare produced here in his hand the draft of this White Paper of social welfare matters and he mentioned that among other matters therein was the abolition of the means test and Deputy Dunne has spent the major part of the time of his speech making appeals to the Minister to loosen the red tape attached to old age pensions and so forth, with specific regard to the means test. I am not going to delay the House in asking the Minister now to consider this, because I am prepared to accept his word that this social welfare scheme of his is with the Government and, I take it, it will be passed, and that the means test will be abolished as the Minister stated. Why waste the time of the House? I will pay the Minister the tribute of accepting his word on that. The Minister has suggested also that he would be prepared to show me the draft of the scheme in confidence. I would very much like to take it, but I am afraid that the Minister is going to be disappointed and I suggest that he should not show it to anybody because a lot of the measures which he suggests should be adopted by the Government will either be pared down or cut out. While I would like to see it and would honour his confidence, I want to say that a great many of the things which he wants to see done will not be possible because of the means of the nation.
Do not be of faint heart, Deputy.
I said to the Minister that I accept his word that the means test in connection with old age pensions and the means test generally is going to be abolished as a result of his recommendation, and I am not going to waste the time of the House appealing to him to loosen it as Deputy Dunne has done. I am not fainthearted. The faint heart is over there.
It appears to me that the administration of the Minister's Department is going to be a permanent feature and I would ask the Minister if he would not think that the time has now been reached when the managers and officers of the exchanges under his control could be established so that in time they would qualify for a pension. Many of the officers in the Department under his care now—I do not know to what extent they are dovetailed with Industry and Commerce—are not established and I wonder would the Minister give the matter consideration with a view to having them established. Many of them are men who have given years of service and they are still employed as temporary officers. Even with the abolition of the means test, to the extent social welfare is bound to expand now, the officers of these labour exchanges will have to administer matters permanently on behalf of the Social Welfare Department. I would like to put this to the Minister in language, if you like, which the ordinary working man understands. The Minister has told us here, and takes great pride in pointing it out, while some of his supporters seem to want to make a lot out of it, that they had done the impossible; they have introduced increases under the existing social welfare scheme which proved possible when we said it was impossible. What is the position? I am informed of the case of a widow who enjoys the widow's pension on a contributory basis and has received as a result of the new benefits 1/- extra per week. Four of her family, four daughters, are in employment and they each have to pay 6d. extra per week as contribution stamps, so that in the case of this family 1/- extra is coming in to the mother and 2/- is going out and they are worse off.
You should see the daughters and check their calculation again.
I am informed that they pay 6d. extra per week.
Check it under the Act.
If the Minister finds it is not so——
You will find it, too.
What does the Minister say they do pay? Will the Minister correct me now?
I thought you had verified the facts.
I said I had been informed. What do they pay?
Go ahead now with your case.
The case is that that particular family has not benefited as a unit, as a family. In fact, I am given to understand that they have suffered a net loss.
Would you ask them what they have saved since the cigarettes and cinemas came down?
So that is your case?
I am asking what did they pay?
Major de Valera
Go down and ask them yourself.
I do not think this particular widow either smokes or drinks so it is of no benefit to her that the price of the pint and cigarettes have come down.
Did you tell the widow that you voted for the Bill that increased the contributions and so did your Party? You cannot have it both ways. Only magpies can be two colours.
Deputy Briscoe.
I am waiting until the Minister subsides as I want him to listen to me.
I am sorry.
I am suggesting to the Minister that in the case of the ordinary man in the street who is supposed to get the result of these benefits and has to pay for them, when the family gets together and adds up benefits and contributions they find, in fact, that if they are not just as they were before they are a little bit worse off. There is no use in bringing in the reduction on beer, spirits and tobacco and saying that they have something to do with social welfare. I do not see how that connects together at all unless the Minister suggests that he and the Minister for Finance are jointly one Ministry. Then I agree that there may be some quid pro quo between them, but taking into consideration the amount of thunder that has been heard here in this House and elsewhere with regard to the improved social services which have been brought in without delay and have done so much good, I say that the Minister will have to make a great deal of progress with his White Paper and fight very hard with the Government to get them to accept a good deal of it so as to impress upon the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries that they are better off than they were before.
They understood it pretty well in West Cork. I gather that the result disappointed you very considerably.
If the Minister wants to bring into this House the fact that I am an optimist and lost a little bit of money betting for my side I say that I will do it again to-morrow. As a matter of fact, when the Minister talks about West Cork he must agree that we did 10 per cent. better and they did 10 per cent. worse than they did before.
There is no money in this Estimate.
The Deputy has my sympathy.
What I want to ask the Minister is: Is he now prepared to make the offer again to let me have a look at the proposals in the strictest confidence so that I will be in a position to know to what extent what he proposes to get from the Government will be achieved?
What is the bet on this?
I cannot make a bet until I get it.
The Deputy was an imprudent punter.
I will make a bet of even money that everything in the proposal he shows me will not be taken.
The Deputy seems to think that the Dáil is some other place.
He should not be let out without a nurse.
I would even make it ten to one.
I would hate to impoverish you.
This conversation is finished.
Are you giving me all the blame for this conversation?
I am blaming everyone responsible.
The Deputy is throwing money about.
Do you want it put on the record that when the Minister made a bet with me I refused it?
Everybody responsible is to blame.
Is the Minister going to honour the offer he made me before to let me look at the proposals in confidence?
The Minister need not answer these questions.
The Minister made an offer by way of interjection and singled me out to let me look at it in confidence.
Deputy Briscoe had an answer to that and should get on to the Estimate.
I am interested mainly at the moment in suggesting to the Minister that the time has come when he should look into the question of the officers under his control. I do not know to what extent there is joint operation or whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible for officers who previously were connected with services now under the Department of Health. The time has come when these officers should be made permanent and not carried on as temporary. Many of them all over the country are reaching the age when they may be put out of work, and they are entitled to some special consideration.
There is a lot of talk and misunderstanding about this item which was discussed by way of question and answer yesterday and again to-day—of applicants for unemployment assistance who, the board say, have not proved to their satisfaction that they are seeking work. This is a very difficult point. The Minister ought to reconsider that particular item and see if he can define how the person is to prove it. As has been said by Deputies here—I suppose it applies all over the country—we all get letters or visits from people who wish to secure employment for themselves or members of their families. We write letters and then find that the particular firm or office of State has not got work for such people. The person is ultimately told he has not really tried to get work. That should be related to what is done or said about the class of work. Different people are not suited for the same class of work. I find it all very confusing. I find that certain trade unions are more difficult to deal with in this matter than ordinary employers. The Minister talked about workers' representatives being on these committees. I find some of the trade unions as conservative and as old-fashioned as could be. Certain trade unions to-day will not admit apprentices into their trade because certain members of their family before them were not in that trade.
That has nothing to do with social welfare.
It has this to do with it. I have met occasions when a trade union would not give a card to an individual to enable him to secure work unless he was a member of the trade union catering for that industry, and that man then goes before this body of referees. It must be influencing those people to say: "Well, he is not in enjoyment even of his trade union card." The proof that he is not genuinely seeking work should be obtained in some other way and I would ask the Minister to give attention to that. Even Deputies' letters will not be taken as evidence.
That is a good job.
If Deputy Fitzpatrick and myself together try to get employment for a person known to both of us as genuinely seeking work, and we fail, the fact that we informed him that we had failed is no proof for him. Deputy Fitzpatrick says that that is a good job, but I do not believe he really means that.
For us.
I see. I thought he meant it was a good job for them. Something should be done about this.
Does it not come down to someone, in the long run, judging whether the man is or is not? Who is to be the judge? I am not the judge. There is the chairman there to exercise that function. In so far as the Deputy's claim arises, it really is a claim as to whether the chairman is qualified to exercise judgment. That is the burden of the Deputy's complaint.
No, the burden of my complaint is regarding the different items under which the board—and the chairman, with his casting vote, if needs be—is to decide. There are certain conditions to be met. The most important one is that the applicant must satisfy the court that he is genuinely seeking work. How is he to do that? He goes to someone and applies for work. The labour exchange registers him, but they will only give him a green card to go for work and will not call him for work. He answers advertisements and is not accepted. He goes to the public representatives and that is not sufficient evidence that he is genuinely seeking work. I think the Minister should explain the definition and tell us how it can be decided and how the man is to prove it. There seems to be something wrong there. I am not finding fault with the chairman. He may be carrying out the regulations.
The court has the function of interpreting it. Is the man genuinely seeking work? There is a committee of five people to sit there and say whether the man is or is not genuinely seeking work. The Department has no function in the matter and I have no function in the matter.
The Minister has a function to this extent, that the regulations under which they function must be made by him in the first instance.
The regulation is merely to apply a test—is the man genuinely seeking work? That is the only regulation and the only thing they have to decide.
Would the Minister not indicate that, in making that as one of the terms of reference, he has a certain definition in mind? Perhaps, when replying, he would tell the House what he means by those words "genuinely seeking work"? There is an implication there that the Minister must have something in his own mind as to what it means. There must be some means of proving or disproving the man. If the Minister, when replying, would tell the House what he means by laying down that regulation, we will be able to understand it better. I am sure Deputy Cowan is as anxious as I am as to how that regulation is to be fulfilled.
What I want is to have a far more reasonable interpretation of it.
By whom?
By the chairman and the court.
We should know what the interpretation is supposed to be. I say it is unfair to the applicant, when some of us know that he is genuinely seeking work, to find that he has been turned down because he is unable to prove that to the satisfaction of the court.
I wish to go further and say it is a reverse of what should be there. It should be that the court prove that he is not genuinely seeking work.
You would expect him to prove that?
No. Let the court do it. It is the principle on which the court should operate.
If the Minister is going to accept what Deputy Cowan says, that will satisfy me. Instead of the man trying to prove he is genuinely seeking work, let the court prove that he is not.
A man has not got to prove that he is genuinely seeking work. That question is to be determined by the court. I wish Deputies who discourse on this matter would try to inform themselves on the facts more clearly. They might have taken the trouble to inform themselves——
Oh, indeed, we have.
Has Deputy Briscoe ever been in a court of referees?
Yes.
Has the Deputy heard the cases coming on there?
Yes.
How many cases has the Deputy heard?
I have heard some. I have not been there recently.
There is no use in going to the Court of Referees and hearing one case. Let the Deputy spend some time there and then he can see whether this is being dealt with in a reasonable fashion or not. In case others follow Deputy Briscoe on this point, let me give this explanation of the procedure of the court. I took particular pains to get it. The information given to me on this point is as follows:-
"Where employment is offered, the court, in considering whether the job is suitable for the applicant, takes into account all the relevant circumstances of the case as well as the applicant's reasons for refusing the job."
That is, where he has refused a job.
"If the job is held to be suitable, the court recommends disallowance, usually on the ground that the applicant is not unable to obtain suitable employment. In such cases, the matter of the personal efforts the applicant is making to find employment is not usually examined.
In many cases, although no specific job is offered, doubt arises as to whether an applicant is really looking for work because he has been drawing unemployment assistance for a year, with little or no work.
Such cases are referred to a court of referees for consideration and recommendation. The court has before it all the facts known to the Department and ascertains orally, if the applicant attends the hearing, or by making inquiry if he does not attend, such further information as it may be possible to obtain. In considering its recommendation the court has regard to the opportunities of obtaining employment available to the applicant, to the extent to which the applicant has failed to avail of opportunities of getting any employment available, to the applicant's work history compared with that of other similar men in his locality, to the inquiries and kind of inquiries made by the applicant in his search for employment, to the qualifications possessed by the applicant for the class of work he is seeking and to all relative circumstances. Letters presented by applicants from employers to the effect that the applicant has asked for employment are of little value unless the employer would be likely to have employment of the kind the applicant is seeking.
The facts and circumstances of each case vary so much that it is not possible to describe in a general way the evidence which a court of referees might require for the purpose of determining whether or not an applicant is genuinely seeking suitable employment. The evidence necessarily varies with each case and the court aims at eliciting such material as will reasonably enable it to find whether or not the applicant is really looking for work."
I told you that in the 12 months ended 31st March, 1949, 3,176 cases were referred to the court. Those were the cases of people who, it was thought, were not genuinely seeking work and persons who had been offered employment and refused that employment. After 3,176 of these had passed through the court disallowance was recommended in 221 cases only. That includes those who were offered employment and declined and those whom the court were not satisfied that they were genuinely seeking work. There are the facts cold and concise. My only concern is that the people will get a fair hearing.
Will the Minister give the figures for the Dublin Court of Referees?
This is the Dublin Court.
The Minister has read a very long document which, if we could obtain it, would take us a very long time to read. I should like the House to consider the actual position of the applicant for work, that is, the person who is drawing the benefit, with regard to the position as stated. The Department officials find, first of all, that here is a man who had been drawing benefit for 12 months, or nearly 12 months. They take the whole history of this man—20 years back, if they like—and they may send for him or they may not. They decide then to knock him off. Secondly, the Minister says that, even if the applicant comes with a letter from employers whom he has approached for work, they will examine the employer to see whether he normally would have work to suit this man.
No, they do not.
Excuse me, the Minister referred to a letter from an employer saying he cannot employ him.
I said that letters presented by applicants from employers to the effect that the applicant has asked for employment are of little value, unless the employer would be likely to have employment of the kind the applicant is seeking. The employer is not interrogated at all.
What is a poor man out of a job to do? Take an unskilled man. He goes round knocking from place to place asking an employer, "give me a job as a sweeper-up; give me a job as a packer; give me a job as a messenger". Because the Minister or the official says the employer is not likely to have that kind of work, the man is, nevertheless, to lose his benefit. The man has applied to an employer who may not have the type of work he is seeking.
The Deputy is misunderstanding what I said.
I know how this can be interpreted by the gentlemen who are sitting sometimes as referees. I want the Minister to reconsider that particularly long document which he read out as the definition of that particular item of the terms of reference and let us get down to helping these people who, through no fault of their own, cannot get work. We know, at the present time, it is very difficult. Numbers of people who are registered as unemployed are really only working halftime. There is a rotation of one week off and one week on. It is impossible for a certain type of people to get work. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that definition of the terms of reference.
Mr. Byrne
I will avail of this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his efforts on behalf of the blind, widows and orphans and old age pensioners. However, whilst congratulating him I will express the hope that my congratulations will be accepted by him for taking the first steps necessary to improve the lot of the people. I remember that the Minister and most of us in this House promised the old age pensioners that the day would come when we would pay the old age pensions at the age of 65. I would suggest to him that in considering the matter he should remember the arguments and the talk we had in this House when Partition was mentioned, to the effect that our friends across the Border are getting better old age pensions and at an earlier date than our people. If he will consider the advisability of increasing the pensions still further and making them payable at the age of 65, he will do great good for the country in the direction of the removal of Partition.
I also remember that the Minister and all of us on every side of the House promised that we would raise the question of children's allowances being paid to the first two children instead of waiting for the third child to arrive before getting the first 2/6.
The Deputy is advocating legislation.
Mr. Byrne
I will await the Minister's White Paper and express the hope that that will be in it. I also hope that in this White Paper the promises that the Minister and others made will be given effect to.
One of the Deputies has made reference to managers of labour exchanges not being permanent. If Deputies will look in the Book of Estimates at the bottom of every page—not alone the Minister's Department but all the Departments of the Government and the Minister's especially on this occasion— they will find there are 20 or 30 or 40 temporary hands. I want to know, if there is sufficient work for them, why call them temporary hands and deprive them of the benefits that a permanent hand would have. The Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, should suggest to all the Ministers that these people who are classed as temporary in Government circles, if there is continuous work for them, ought to be put on the full benefit scale that would entitle them to more holidays, fuller pay and better pensions. They should not be referred to as "one post blocked by so many temporary hands" or "three or four blocked by so many temporary clerks".
I also understand, though I think it has been attended to, that there are some little grievances in the Minister's own Department about a bonus of 7/6 given to the members of some section who served in other capacities during the emergency and are now in this Department. For some reason, other members of the staff did not get it. I have not the letters with me at the moment. I did receive some which I forwarded to the Minister's Department. I understand they are being attended to.
I replied to the Deputy last week on that matter.
Mr. Byrne
When I received that reply I made further inquiries. I am told that the people concerned were living in a state of great expectancy that the bonus would be paid last April. It was promised, but they have not got it yet. I would be grateful if the Minister would follow that up.
In a case of the Dublin Board of Assistance, there are men working there under the Department of Health, others under the corporation and, I think, a few under the Minister's Department. They have some regrets, too, because of the fact that while some officials are getting bonuses others are not. I would ask the Minister to ascertain whether any officials under the board of assistance who come under the control of his Department, are not getting benefits which are given to officials under the Department of Public Health.
I am suggesting to the Minister that there should be pensions for people at the age of 65, and that the children's allowance should be given for the first two children. I remember that, in the scheme outlined by the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan, there was a recommendation for the payment of a marriage allowance. If the Minister could do the things that were thought of in those days——
That would require legislation.
Mr. Byrne
——he would be doing splendid work. From the statement that the Minister made yesterday, we all hope that his White Paper will contain some happy surprises and that it will include some of the matters that I have mentioned.
I am a member of the Blind Welfare Committee for the City of Dublin. In that capacity I had the pleasure of calling on the Minister on one or two occasions, with results that were of benefit to the blind. I am also a member of the Old Age Pensions Committee. On that committee we sometimes come up against cases which cause a good deal of irritation to us when we find that old age pensioners are not getting the full pension. As regards the means test, we feel at times that there is too close an investigation into the means of certain people. I must say that, of late, there has been a great improvement in that respect. The matter of dealing with appeal cases has been so considerably advanced that delays now are not as great as they used to be. With other members of the House I want to express the hope that instead of a modification of the means test—as in the case of family allowances—it will be completely removed in the case of people applying for old age pensions.
There is another point in connection with old age pensions which I want to bring to the Minister's notice. This is one case that I know of. An applicant must be 16 years resident in Ireland before qualifying for a pension. This is the case of a nurse living in Dublin for 15 years. She is now coming up to 70 years of age. She had been drawing the widow's and orphan's pension. At that age, the usual form is sent out to a person informing her that she is now eligible for the old age pension and that the payment of the widow's and orphan's pension will cease. In this case, the investigation took place. The person concerned was told that she was disqualified from getting the old age pension because she had not been a resident in Ireland for 16 years. Fortunately, there was another authority that was able to step in and give some temporary benefit to the old lady while she was waiting for her case to be decided. I understand this matter comes under a reciprocal agreement with the people at the other side. These are some of the little points that are brought to the notice of Deputies about peculiar individual cases. I am satisfied, and was satisfied at all times, that, when I got cases and sent them to the Department concerned, they got a full investigation. What I ask now is that their investigation be speeded up.
I avail again of this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and to congratulate his Party, generally, that he and his colleagues are now sharing in the inter-Party Government. There are things which the Minister, as a Leader of Labour and as a member of the Government has been able to deal with. He has been able to press his point of view in the proper quarter. As some members on the Opposition side have said, the Minister has not got all he wants yet. That is quite understandable. I think we can all share in the view that he has not got all that he wants, but if he has gone part of the way, and has done so well in 15 months, we are hoping that, as time passes, there will be further improvements for the people that he represents and for the people that we all represent.
Deputy Byrne has been very nice in his thanks to the Minister for something that he did not get. We all know Deputy Byrne of old, but I will pass on. With regard to social service schemes, I am very much concerned about a section of our people who, I think, are worthy of serious consideration. They got that from the Fianna Fáil Government. I refer to the married man, the general labourer and the agricultural worker, men with large families. We gave them the children's allowances with free food and free milk schemes. We provided subsidies for those who were in receipt of small salaries. I have every sympathy for the aged, the infirm, the widow and all others. I do want to say that the schemes which I have referred to, and which we provided, were definitely appreciated by the working-class people in receipt of small incomes. I hope that, under the social welfare scheme which the Minister says he is going to bring in, he will be able to improve the lot of the married man, the agricultural worker and all others with small incomes so as to help them to rear their families. We on this side would like to see the Minister do that in a Christian way.
I heard Deputy Dunne and other Deputies say a good deal about Fianna Fáil encouraging the unemployed to march. Fianna Fáil has never gone so low as to encourage any unemployed man to march. The position is that there are so many unemployed people in the country. We have numbers of unemployed people who have never registered. They live too far away from the places at which they could register and so they try to carry on— to get a day's work here and there as best they can. You have that problem, especially in the rural parts.
The figures that we have received are not a true indication of the unemployment position. I had reason the other day to go down to the North Wall to see a friend off and I was told that there were 1,400 people going to England. We were told by the inter-Party Government that all this would stop as soon as they got into office. We should be honest with ourselves, irrespective of playing politics or to gain some political kudos. It will be a very serious national position if we do not do something in a practical way for our unemployed. The Minister is part and parcel of the policy so far as the unemployed are concerned and, judging by the trend of things during the past 18 months, we are reaching the point in rural Ireland when it will be a case of:—
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay."
It has been indicated on several occasions that unemployment must not be discussed on this Vote—that is, the problem of unemployment.
I am answering a criticism made with reference to unemployment and I am relating it to the fact that the unemployment figures presented by the Minister's Department are not a true indication of the position. I am putting it to the Minister, as the Leader of the Party that preached on the hustings that they would give everybody full employment, that we have reached the position where, even in my own area, the unemployed are without hope, as they do not see any prospects of work.
I am warning the Deputy that I will not allow him to proceed along those lines. Payment of the unemployed, unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance may be matters for the Minister, but not the problem of unemployment.
Surely I can refer to the statements made by the Minister from time to time? We heard a good deal of shouting from the housetops about the increase in old age pensions. When our Government set up the Department of Social Welfare they were very far-seeing and they realised the necessity of looking after the aged and infirm. In their wisdom they set up that Department. The first thing Deputy Ryan, who was then the Minister, did was to give £2,000,000 to increase old age pensions, and he never asked the workers to contribute anything.
Your figures are perfectly daft. He never did any such thing. In what Estimate was that figure given—£2,000,000 for old age pensions?
It was given for old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and other pensions. Any increase the last Minister gave he did not ask the agricultural workers or the lowly-paid workers to subscribe towards that amount.
The Minister has told as that he is introducing a social service scheme. I welcome any scheme that will be responsible for improving the lot of our people. We are all anxious to do that. So far as the State can afford to help our people, we are anxious that it should be done. The only reason I refer to this is to point out to the Minister that some of his promises were to the effect that the means test would be abolished and pensions would be increased to £1 5s. or £1 6s. There was a 1/- between one political Party or another, but that does not make a lot of difference.
If we are to be honest with ourselves and take this problem in a national way, there is no use in having false promises made or having dishonesty in public life. You should fulfil the promises you made. So far as old age pensions and other social services are concerned, we succeeded in doing a lot, and had we been left there we would have carried on in the same way improving things in so far as the resources of the State would permit us to do so.
On the recent Bill dealing with the Department of Social Welfare, I asked you to consider agricultural workers who work until they are 75 or 76 and then, being old and infirm and broken down from hard work, they apply for the old age pension. I know the Minister gave a certain explanation, but I can assure him from my experience on two pension sub-committees in County Dublin that his explanation does not cover every case. When such an old person applies for a pension, his last year's earnings are taken into consideration. The Minister assured me that he would try to change that system, but the same thing applies still to a great degree.
There is no need to change.
The old system still prevails. Only last Monday I was up against a case of this kind.
If the Deputy sends me particulars of that case I shall have it specially investigated.
I referred to it when you were introducing the Bill and I dealt with it at some length. So far as I am aware, numbers of old people continue working until they are 78 and sometimes 80 in preference to having to wait for a year or so before they can get a pension. There should be some improvement in that position.
I was under the impression, as a result of the Bill recently passed here, that inspectors would not be so exacting in their investigations of pension claims. I know of cases where gratuities have been given by employers and friends. They were not gratuities that they wanted to continue. In their charity they gave a small allowance of 10/- on £1 a week until such time as the old person would receive a pension. On Monday we were faced with a case of that kind and there was a letter to the effect that this man worked for a certain employer for some time and he could not afford to give him any more money. The old man was not able to work and the employer was trying to give him £1 a week to keep him alive until such time as he would get the old age pension. We found that the pension officer made the means test. He found that the old man had a garden of about half an acre. He calculated the potential value and found that this debarred the old fellow from receiving a pension.
I am not making disparaging remarks about the departmental officer. He has to carry out his instructions, but I feel that the position should be considered by the Minister. Perhaps I am labouring this matter too much in view of the White Paper, where we are informed that the means test will be abolished. I hope it will.
With reference to unemployment assistance in rural and urban districts, there is a section of workers who, during their early lives, were in the habit of working in a particular occupation. I have heard this matter debated very fully in the House on previous occasions and, again, to-day. There is a certain amount of difficulty involved. There are numbers of men who have continued in certain employment all their lives. They grow old in that employment and, possibly through no fault of their own, they lose that employment. Sometimes a man who has been employed as a clerk or a messenger is asked to take on work late in life as a labourer. That man is not able to do that work because he has not been trained in it. Some steps should be taken to ameliorate the position of these people. The same is true in relation to work upon the bogs. People have been asked to go to work upon the bogs who never saw a bog in their lives. This morning I listened to Deputy Dunne misrepresent the position in relation to turf cutting during the period when we were in office. Friends of my own worked on the bogs in years gone by and they made £8, £9 or £10 a week on piece work under the Fianna Fáil Government. I would have liked to see them make even more, because I think they were worthy of more.
We have heard the unemployed threatened that their unemployment assistance would be cut off if they do not work. One must remember that family circumstances very often militate against a man accepting work on the bogs. He may have a delicate wife or delicate children. His circumstances may render it impossible for him to accept work of this nature. All these factors must be taken into consideration. A family man as a rule, unless compelled by economic circumstances, will prefer to remain near his own home rather than take employment in a turf camp some distance away from him.
Does the Deputy appreciate that no person with dependents is asked to take up employment in turf camps?
Only a fortnight ago I was coming from Drogheda and I picked up a man on the road. He was going to the turf camps. He told me he could get no other employment. He was a married man with a family. He had never worked on a bog in his life.
If he did not go to the turf camp, he would not be deprived of his unemployment benefit. The Deputy does not seem to be aware of that fact.
I am aware of it.
Your speech does not indicate that.
I am replying to a statement made by the Minister. He said that 200 people were refused unemployment assistance as a result of the investigations made by the Court of Referees. I am cognisant of all the facts. I feel there are injustices and misunderstandings which must be cleared up. If the statements made about the workers by some of the present Ministers had been made by our Party when we were in office we would have been told that we were unchristian and we would have been placarded all over the country as Fascists or something else.
There is another matter in which I am very interested. I think the ordinary farm labourers ought to be included in the proposed White Paper dealing with social services generally. I do not know whether the Minister has or has not included them. If he has not done so, perhaps he could add an addendum bringing in these men. There is no reason why these very important workers, who are, after all, primary producers, should not be included under unemployment benefit. That may possibly involve the State in further expense, but I think any extra cost is justified in this respect. These men should be considered for unemployment benefit.
I heard Deputy Byrne remind the Minister of the promises he made in the past. One of the promises he made was that he would give old age pensions at the age of 65. I hope that promise is implemented in the proposed White Paper.
I have listened very attentively to the debate on this Estimate. I have been taken somewhat aback because of the differences of opinion that seem to exist between men who have been in this House for a very long time and who have also served on corporations and county councils as to the terms of reference of the Court of Referees with relation to those of our people entitled to either old age pensions or unemployment assistance. It seems rather extraordinary that these Deputies should come in here year after year, evincing deep concern for these particular people, claiming that they do not understand, even at this late hour, the conditions under which men out of employment can qualify for unemployment assistance. I listened very attentively to-day to Deputy Briscoe. He advanced a number of points on behalf of those men who apply for unemployment benefit. He claimed that the trade unions must be heavily blamed, inasmuch as they refuse to give cards to certain people seeking employment. I am sure Deputy Briscoe is well aware that trade union responsibility, in so far as unemployment is concerned, is, first and foremost, to their own members. While they have members who are unemployed it would be neither right nor just to issue cards to anybody else.
That is the attitude adopted by the trade unions. The trade unions are composed of all the members of the unions combined. The first responsibility of the unions is to the members of their own organisation. Consequently, they cannot issue cards to all and sundry in order to qualify these people for unemployment assistance. Deputy Briscoe mentioned that when a man looks for employment at the labour exchange he is sent out to get a green card. In my simplicity I understood that that would have been sufficient for anyone who subsequently had to seek unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance. These people report to the labour exchange two or three times a week. They get a card to go out looking for work. They fail to find work. Possibly the prospective employer considers they are unsuitable for the employment he has to offer because of their lack of physique. Possibly the applicant feels the work would be too strenuous and he would not do justice to his prospective employer. The records from the labour exchange should, in themselves, go a long way towards directing the court as to whether these men are or are not suitable applicants.
The Minister read out the terms of reference and I must say that I was impressed by Deputy Briscoe's statement that he felt the terms of reference were somewhat confusing. Since I have come into this House I have seen what I regard as a game of political chess played on every Estimate that comes up. Deputies like Deputy Burke tell us what Fianna Fáil has done for the unemployed, for old-age pensioners and for widows and orphans while Deputies on this side continue to point out that they had done very little during the 16 years they were in office. That may be all right but when you have a statement from Deputy Briscoe —and I believe he made it in all sincerity irrespective of suggestions we heard previously—that the terms of reference were a bit confusing, I am inclined to agree with him.
I am inclined to think that the terms of reference—I accept them as such— read out by the Minister were drawn up, not to direct the Court of Referees in the interests of the poor unfortunate individual who is applying for unemployment assistance, to give it to him or to help them to give it to him, but are a direction to them to search for loopholes whereby they can refuse it. I sincerely hope that the Minister will have the whole matter reconsidered and reduce these directions to a simple form which a public representative can at least understand. As I say some people seem confused. The matter may be perfectly plain to the Minister and to the Court of Referees but if you cannot get it over to a Deputy in this House, it is very hard to expect that unfortunate individuals who have to go before the court can understand these terms of reference.
I did not read out any regulations or terms of reference. There is only one function for this court and that is to ascertain whether a man is genuinely seeking work. What I did submit to the House was the procedure which the court adopts in order to ascertain is a man, in fact, seeking work. He has not to prove that he is seeking work but what the court has to do is to determine is he genuinely seeking work. They may say to him when he comes there: "We are not satisfied that you are genuinely seeking work" but they have got to produce some evidence in support of that and the man can produce some evidence in his own defence. As a result of discussion, three out of five reasonable people have to make up their minds whether the man is trying to get a job or whether he is merely trying to get benefit and is not anxious to get a job. That is the procedure devised under the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, the machinery operated for the past 29 years. What other type of machinery does the Deputy suggest should be adopted? I have an open mind, and what I want is to get something which is fair and reasonable.
I have a very open mind, too, but when you find people with the experience of Deputy Briscoe, who has been here all these years and who is responsible with his Party possibly for drawing up these rules and regulations, saying that he cannot understand the terms of reference, it is very hard to expect an ordinary individual outside to understand.
This is the same machinery as has been operated for 29 years.
The Minister will admit that if Deputies in Opposition do not understand these things, it is very hard to expect other people to understand them.
I cannot help that.
I do not want to delay the House. I am merely looking for information and for some simple way of setting out these things.
Mr. de Valera
Perhaps I might be permitted to say that it seems to me that this is a question of to what extent the Court of Referees is satisfied. I suppose they have to be satisfied in some way. It is a question of the evidence that is going to be given. You cannot get out of that. It is a question of the judgement of the individuals concerned.
And the evidence depends on the individual case.
Mr. de Valera
It depends on how they will regard the evidence before them. You cannot direct them any further, as far as I can see.
What I am worried about is that Deputies who come in here, and who have had all this knowledge before them for years, state that there is this confusion. Possibly their statements may be published and, consequently, the people who are unemployed will feel that there is great confusion amongst the law-makers within this House on this question. If there is that confusion, and there are genuine grounds for it, I think that the mere fact that a man goes to the labour exchange, that he is sent out to a job, that his card is sent there and that he is refused that job, should be sufficient evidence that he has applied for it.
I welcome the statement of the Minister that he is now in a position to issue the details of his scheme for comprehensive social security and that he hopes to put the White Paper before the House in the near future. I sincerely hope that when the details of the scheme are made known, they will show that the means test will go and that there will be no regulations or procedure designed to prevent a person with a certain income from receiving full benefit. Certainly in regard to old age pensions, the means test should be abolished completely, because I think in the age in which we are permitted to live, the term on this earth, of the man who reaches 70, is not very long. While one or two out of 1,000,000 do reach the century, very few are able to turn 80. No matter what position he may occupy, when Providence bestows on a human being the privilege of living past 70 years, the law should not try to deprive him of the little compensation provided for people who reach that age. As a matter of fact, if the present Minister remains here, if we permit him to remain here to run the Department of Social Welfare for the community until he becomes entitled to an ex-Minister's pension, I hope that when he reaches the age of 70 no group will be in a position to say to him: "He has got a Minister's pension; why should we allow him an old-age pension of 17/6 a week?"
I have received a number of complaints on this matter of the administration of the old age pensions code. I have tried to deal with them but I have not been very successful. There was one instance where a farmer in my home town in County Kilkenny applied for an old age pension. He was a farmer, inasmuch as he was in possession of several acres of land. How many acres of good land there were on the farm I am not in a position to say but he applied for the pension and made his farm over to his son. He was awarded the pension I believe by the local pensions committee but the pensions officer either rejected or appealed against it and it was disallowed. He applied again with a somewhat similar result.
When I took up the matter and tried to get some information I was told that, while this man has made over his farm to his son, he is still a fairly active man and the son may not remain on the farm. In other words, he has not taken root on the farm. To take root on the farm evidently means that he should get married. People who grow up on a farm are generally rooted in the farm, especially when they have worked it actively for 40 or 50 years. This man's son is over 40 years of age. A pension should not be refused on the grounds that the man who now owns the place is not married. I do not know if that is the law—that a man who is the legal occupier of the land must be married.
It is not.
I hope that under the new scheme to be introduced this system will be completely abolished. The person responsible for the interpretation of the law is the local pensions officer. How does he make inquiries? He goes to some neighbour and asks: "How is Ryan fixed up? He is near 70 now." Some of the people from whom inquiries are made are not well up in this matter. Some of them may say that the land is very bad, that the horse is no good, and so on. But they oftentimes take up the opposite attitude. They do not like to let a neighbour down. Instead of saying that a man is badly off, they will say that he is comfortable, that he is not too badly off. They are inclined to praise a man. The pensions officer, of course, makes a note of all this and reports that the man is well off.
I know this particular case and the kind of farm this man has. The reclamation scheme of the Minister for Agriculture is to be applied in this county and the Minister will not have any difficulty so far as this farm is concerned in finding out whether it requires artificial manure or wants to be otherwise improved. That farm has required all these things for a very long time. I have taken this matter up with the Department and I hope that it will get attention, even before the White Paper is published.
The question of Old I.R.A. men who have got pensions and some of whom, because they are incapacitated and unable to earn a livelihood, have been granted a special allowance, has been raised several times in this House. I have got particulars of the case of one man within the last couple of days. He was out in 1916, fought during the Black and Tan war and continued on the side of the Republic for many years afterwards. He may not have been a very prominent supporter, but he was a supporter of the late Government. No matter what he was, he gave service to the country and in consequence he was awarded an Old I.R.A. pension and got a special allowance of £61 10s. 0d. When this man's wife reached 70, she applied for the old age pension. Under the means test, this matter was brought up against her. The man applied to the pensions officer and his special allowance was increased to £64 10s. 0d. A few months later he became 70 himself. As both of them were then over 70, he commenced to think that he was losing money and he went before the Minister—the predecessor of the present Minister, I think. As a result, it was agreed that his special allowance would be reduced in order to allow his wife and himself to draw the old age pension. He was satisfied with that and the old age pension was granted. Last March 12 months he was notified by the Department of Defence that his £64 10s. 0d. had been cancelled. As a result of all this, he is now dissatisfied. I am not too conversant with the particulars, but for the past 15 months he has been deprived of £8 9s. 2d. to which he should be entitled. That is a matter that deserves careful investigation by the Minister and his Department.
What about the Department of Defence?
In operating the means test, officials of the Department, especially the pensions officers, should recognise that their job is not to save the revenue, that they are actually the servants of the State and the people. If an Old I.R.A. man, who has given service to the country, or a farmer, who has laboured all his life and has not succeeded in making sufficient provision for his old age, applies for a pension, the officers should be the protectors of these people and not the protectors of the revenue. They should advise these people and give them assistance in regard to the lines they should go on so that they may get a pension. From the complaints that I have received and the complaints I have heard made in this House, I am afraid that these officers are always inclined to feel it is their duty when a man applies for a pension to look up all the rules and regulations to see if they can prevent him from getting it.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing out this White Paper and abolishing the means test. When the scheme becomes law, I sincerely hope that any rules or regulations which prevent people from securing what they are entitled to will not be continued in the future.
Deputy Dunne pointed out that his experience was that eligibility for an old age pension depended on the earnings for the year immediately preceding the application. The Minister explained that that was not the case, that eligibility was dependent on a reasonable assumption of the earnings in the coming year. Of course, the Minister is right. At the same time, I must say, from my own experience, that Deputy Dunne was largely right. I have seen cases of labourers or other workingmen applying for an old age pension and, when the committee had questioned them very closely, if they looked any way vigorous there was always hesitation and delay in awarding a pension. I want to make a plea to the Minister that the reasonable assumption should always be that the earnings of a man of 70 would be nil. In other words, if a man comes before an old age pensions committee and makes his claim for a pension, although he may be vigorous-looking and have worked up to the very day of making the claim, if he says: "I mean to rest now for whatever little term of life is left to me", and decides that he will take the pension instead of continuing to work, the pension should be given to him automatically.
Mr. de Valera
At various times during this debate, on account of remarks made by some of the speakers, I was tempted to intervene. I refrained from doing so for one reason, that is, a doubt as to whether what I was going to say would be strictly in order on an Estimate debate. Having listened to a number of debates on Estimates from time to time, I feel that we are inclined to lose sight of the wood because of the trees. So much detail is discussed that the fundamentals are lost sight of. It is difficult to get any other occasion during the year on which one can refer to these fundamentals. Of course, I am altogether in the hands of the Chair if the Chair should decide that the line which I would be inclined to take is out of order.
The first thing that occurs to me is that we have advanced, thank goodness, very far from the day in which one had to preach that if individuals in our community, through no fault of their own, are unable to support themselves, the community and the State has a duty to come to the aid of those individuals. We had to preach that. I remember saying that an individual enmeshed in modern society cannot provide for himself in the same way in which he could if he were in a less civilised—I mean organised — community, where he could go out and get food wherever it was, where he could get the means of sustaining life wherever he could find it; but now that things about him are appropriated, and there are laws which prevent him from taking food where he sees it, matters are very different. Now in the circumstances that exist, there is a fundamental duty on the State towards the individual who does his best as a good citizen to find within the facilities available to him the means of supporting himself. We can congratulate ourselves that we have advanced very far from the stage at which it was necessary to preach fundamentals of this sort. It seems to me that every Party in this House, and I should say every individual in the House, is now satisfied that that is a true doctrine.
The only difference there can be between us here in our approach to this subject is the question of what is reasonably possible and what is wise. The question of possibility, in relation to our services comes in in this way: whether the means of the community are adequate to meet properly these cases of individual inability to support themselves which I have indicated. It comes in in perhaps a rather indefinite way, because you can strain each member of the community until he is obliged by way of taxation to contribute more than would be just or what he would be supposed to give in accordance with the voluntary Christian rule, of giving of his superfluity to meet his neighbours' necessities. Therefore it is not easy to come to anything like agreement as to the extent to which the community, by means of taxation and so on, should be forced to meet the needs of the individual. There will always be a difference of opinion as to whether you have done enough or gone too far. On that particular question, in our community we have special difficulties. We have relatively a larger old age community than other States. All the means have to come out of production in one form or another. Consequently, there is a bigger pressure on the producing section of our community than there would be elsewhere. Then comes the question of what is fair to ask the producer to provide for those who are not given the opportunity of producing.
As I say, the difference between us on these matters will be a matter of judgment. Some will lean more in one direction, some in another. It is not surprising, it is not going to show anything that is fundamentally wrong about the approach to find that people will differ on this and when the question which the Minister has indicated he is going to bring up fairly soon comes up for consideration here, whether it be members of the other side, of various groups, or members on this side, we will naturally use our own judgment in coming to conclusions as to what is reasonable and what is right in this regard.
We have, as I have said, the difficulty that the producing section of our community compared with other countries is relatively small. We have, side by side with that, the fact that we have had over a long number of years the evil of emigration which is associated with it and which is one of the reasons why we have not a larger producing middle-age group in the country. Various schemes, naturally, are thought of in the effort to deal with that problem and, if we could deal with that problem, the problem of the present want of balance between the producing and non-producing sections would largely disappear. We will always have old age and so on, but I agree with those who have said that the ideal should be to try to work, if we could, for a social organisation here in which unemployment of people who are capable of working would disappear and that we should aim at an organisation of our community to provide just such a condition, but I think we are very far from that yet. Therefore, we will have to take as one of our major problems the problem of dealing fairly with those who are at work, those who have the ability to work but cannot find it and the older people, those who have passed the age of work.
I have only touched slightly on the question of what is feasible and the necessary limitations there are to what would naturally be the attitude of those who want to do their duty as members of the State towards other members of the State. But there is also this question of wisdom. I admit the question of what it is wise to do comes in also in that previous part of the question because, if you overburden certain sections of the community you weaken the community as a whole and you deprive it perhaps of the production out of which all these services will come.
Leaving that for a moment aside and not proposing to go deeply into all these questions, there is this other question which runs side by side, the question of what it is wise to do as regards the individual. I think we will all admit that it would be very unwise not to leave the ordinary incentives to the individual to do the best he can for himself. I think everybody will admit that there is a danger that if the community as a whole makes it almost as valuable to the individual to be idle as to work the natural incentive to work would disappear. I think I am as ready to work as most people, but if the reward I got for working was very little in excess of the reward I got for not working, I am afraid, particularly if the work was disagreeable and caused a good deal of hardship, I, like other people, would be inclined to change from that and to say: "All right. I might as well do the things that I like to do as the things that I do not like to do, seeing that I get practically as much for doing the one as the other."
Therefore, we have always to be careful to see that there is a reasonable margin between the reward he gets for work and the sum that is given to the individual by the State to maintain him because he is not at work. That is a real, serious problem because one feels that if the State is to do its duty towards the individual who really needs it it has practically to give him almost as much as he would in the ordinary way get by work. You can easily point to a man with a family and say: "How is that man going to live on so and so?" Supposing he is an artisan or labourer, the ordinary wage he is able to get is generally only barely what is sufficient to enable him to live. Therefore, if he is not able to get the work, there would seem to be an obligation on the State to give him, when unable to work, practically what he would get for working. But, if you do, you deprive him, naturally, of the incentive.
So, you have a variety of problems of that particular kind which are extremely difficult because they vary so much from individual to individual. If we are going to consider these very serious problems properly, we must advert to the difficulties and they are difficulties which face every Government. No matter what desires the individuals of a Government may have to meet all the social needs of those who are out of work, no matter how anxious they may be, they are up against these problems and it is getting the proper solution to these problems that is the difficulty.
It would be very much better for us, I think, if we were all to assume that all sections desire that the State should fulfil its fundamental obligations and that we should direct all our efforts to finding the best type of solution. When the Minister does bring forward his scheme, we will have our criticisms. I have no doubt whatever about it because, knowing the complexities of the subject, I do not think it would be possible for anybody to devise a scheme that would give universal satisfaction. I feel pretty certain of that. Therefore, we will have a very, very important debate when that comes on and I think we ought all orient our minds towards the fundamentals of that problem so that when it does come along we will be able to treat it properly. It will have tremendous influence on the future of our society here and its well being.
I have often thought that the only way in which you could keep the incentive to work, and at the same time meet the necessities, was by a different line of approach altogether, that is, that we should try to bring about a situation in which every individual of the State, by the fact that he was a member of the State and prepared to do his work in the State, to do his duty as a citizen, to play his part in production, would be guaranteed by the State a certain minimum, irrespective of the individual it was. It would be the getting rid of all sorts of means tests. Every individual in the State would be guaranteed a certain minimum, and when he would get that minimum all the State's obligations towards him would be remitted. Over and above that minimum he could have all that his energies and production could secure for him.
There was a question, in regard to old age pensions, as to whether everybody in the State should be entitled to one, irrespective of means. I have not been able completely to satisfy myself as to how it would work out, but it seems to me that the fact that a man has lived a life in the community in accordance with the laws and carried out his duties as a citizen in the ordinary way entitles him, irrespective of who he was or of his means, on reaching a certain age, to what would be the minimum sum to maintain him for the rest of his life. There is a difficulty. Take, for instance, the principle to which Deputy Lemass referred —that if other individuals in the community have to meet the needs of a particular individual they should not be asked to contribute where it is not necessary. That is approaching the matter from quite a different angle. My view is that, in paying the ordinary taxes and so forth, the person who is doing that is contributing to the wellbeing of society which entitles him afterwards to reap these benefits. Whether there should be special contributions over and above the usual taxes is another line of approach. I think Deputy Lemass pointed out that if individuals in the community contribute directly to a certain service so as to get certain rewards—insuring themselves, so to speak—unless you have different rates for different classes of people the question of means does not come in.
However, my real reason for intervening in the debate is that I think we were acting more or less like children in some of the cross-talk during part of this debate and that the fundamental question is one of tremendous seriousness. We ought if possible to have certain principles which we would first discuss and, having discussed these principles, try to arrive at the best judgment we can as to what the community, assuming our duty, could afford and what it would be wise for the community to give.
First of all, I want the Minister to resurrect a question I asked him in this House with regard to the outdoor Board of Assistance officers, Westland Row. I asked him to see that they would get the 7½ per cent. bonus which the officers of Boards of Assistance under the Departments of Local Government and Health have recently received. The Minister's answer was something to the effect that the officers with whom he is concerned had received increases in 1948. I would point out that all officers received increases in 1948. Those who came under the Departments of Local Government and Health received those increases and they have since received a further increase of 7½ per cent. bonus. Pre-war, an assistance officer's salary was £290 plus vaccination fees. It is now £450.
Where did they get the £450?
I do not know where they got it but I am told by the men on the spot that they come under the Department of Social Welfare, whereas others, who come under the Department of Local Government— and some under the Department of Health—have got the 7½ per cent. bonus recently. The officers under the Department of Social Welfare have not received it. However, I shall content myself with asking the Minister to check that answer again.
I think the officers concerned will admit that I gave them a very reasonable scale of pay, which they themselves admitted to me was very good. That is how they now have £450 instead of £330.
And officers who, pre-war, had less than they had, now have the £450, plus 7½ per cent. bonus.
I am afraid the Deputy does not know the whole story.
Major de Valera
Is what Deputy Byrne says—that officers who, pre-war, had more than other officers are now in the position that they receive only £450 while the others receive £450 plus 7½ per cent. bonus—correct?
Not of the same class. These people have got as least as high a percentage increase as anybody else. They have, also, establishment terms which they never previously had and which they were denied over the past ten years. They have been allowed to aggregate on their new established scale their temporary service for incremental purposes.
Major de Valera
Is the Minister satisfied with the position as it is at the moment?
I take it that they are reasonably satisfied and I advise them not to make the mistake of the boy with the jar of nuts.
Deputy Byrne.
Much has been said about the means test. Much has been said, and will be said, as to whether it is advisable to abolish the means test completely in dealing with widows' and orphans' pensions, old age pensions, blind pensions and various other social services. One factor, however, which must impress all of us is that, whatever about a means test in regard to the other social services, there should not be any means test with regard to the old age pensions. It is very galling, as Deputy Butler said earlier, to members of old age pensions sub-committees to have to turn down the applications of persons who have very small incomes but which are, nevertheless, just slightly over the means. The members of these committees realise, as they will tell us and as we know, that nine out of every ten of those who have a little income have it because they were very thrifty during their lives and put small sums of money in the post office or invested them. It is galling to have to differentiate between those who were thrifty and those who were not. I suggest that probably the best thing to do would be to give the old age pension to everybody, without any means test and irrespective of their wealth or otherwise.
I want to congratulate the Minister on having brought in so quickly the Social Welfare Act of 1948 and on having made such a good job of it. I should also like to congratulate his officials and inspectors on the way they dealt with the enormous amount of work they had to cope with in the last six months following the passing of the Act. Let me say, before I conclude, that all applications for old age pensions, as well as others, had to be completely revised. Considering the huge amount of red tape which the inspectors have to work through, they have done the work, generally, expeditiously and well.
With regard to school meals, the main grievance is throughout this city, and I suppose it applies throughout the country, that the decision as to whether a school is to receive the meals rests with the parish manager. I think that is in the Act and that, therefore, a Chinn Chomhairle, you will not allow me to say very much about it, but I see some parish managers refusing the school meals in cases where they ought to take them. Some may say: "I have the richest parish in Dublin and I do not need the school meals for my children" when I know for a fact that nevertheless there are very many children attending the school who are in need of the school meal. The Minister ought to consider this matter and perhaps this is another case where he might abolish the means test entirely.
I want to ask the Minister to please spend a few pounds on soap and I will guarantee that the waterworks department of Dublin Corporation will see that he gets plenty of buckets of water to clean Gardiner Street Exchange.
Deputy Con Lehane, speaking here this morning, suggested that we on these benches had not got a sympathetic approach to the problem of dealing with the undernourished and that we had no sympathy with the people who were forced to emigrate. He stated that when we came into office first we tried to do things in that respect but that later we simply washed our hands of these people and had no thought of them. He stated that we had now reversed again since we came into opposition. I wonder if Deputy Lehane tried to study the history of the Fianna Fáil Party in office in that respect. Hardly a year went over, up to the war at any rate, when the war changed the whole financial aspect of things, in which some measure to help that particular class was not passed. We can look back on our record with pride and I hope that when the inter-Party Government leaves office it will have a similar record. We are all glad of the increases that the Minister has been able to give to these people, but it is not going to do any good if people forget that as much was spent by the Fianna Fáil Government only the previous year. In 1947 they provided practically £2,250,000 for increases in the various social services. During the election we were told that they were doing nothing for them. The Minister stated, as well as my memory serves me, that the new Bill would cost £2,500,000, but he financed a large part of it, the part that was not met by savings in other respects, by increasing the contributions on a certain section of the people, the people in insurable employment. That was not done the previous year; it was spread over the people in taxation.
There are people who are on very small pay in this city to-day who have to pay their contribution to the insurance fund and to whom that 6d. per week means something. Because it is a compulsory 6d., there is no use in talking to me about drink, cigarettes and pictures. People must pay that 6d.; they do not get it, as it is stopped on them, while they need not spend money on the other things if they do not want to. When the people opposite told the people that they were going to get 26/- a week old age pensions and other such things, if they told them that they were going to finance it mainly out of the pockets of the workers, they would have got a different result.
Would the Deputy agree to this proposition : that the organised working-class movement, that is, the trade unions, have always advocated putting social services on a contributory basis and that not a single trade union has dissented in the slightest from the adjustment that took place last year to restore that position?
Lots of people who are not in trade unions must contribute to them.
Deputy Colley is speaking for Dublin and, I take it, for the people who are in trade unions.
A lot of things that we heard a lot about from trade unionists in previous years happened and we heard nothing about them since. We are not all asleep in Dublin, but we meet the people and not the officials of the trade unions. In my organisation there are more trade unionists than anything else, and were it not for the trade unionists of Dublin I would not be here to-day ; they are the backbone of our organisation and I know what I am saying in that respect. I think that that increase in contributions which was imposed on those people without any corresponding increase in benefit was certainly something which they were never told about.
You voted for it, you know, last year, and so did the Fianna Fáil Party.
We opposed it.
You voted for the Bill which contained it.
We voted for the Bill but we opposed the clause that increased the contribution.
You voted for the Bill and that made it law.
Have I not already said that I hoped that when the inter-Party Government were going out they would have advanced as far as we did?
You voted for increased contributions.
We did not.
Of course you did. It was in the Bill.
What do you want us to do?
You voted for the Bill which increased the contributions.
We voted against the section. There was a division. You are twisting now.
You cannot be a magpie always.
I want to hear the Deputy without interruptions from any side.
It is a good job you came in to hear Deputy Ó Briain. I hope I will be able to understand him.
You would not understand me if I spoke the language I usually speak and that is no credit to you.
On the question of the Court of Referees about which we have had so much talk, I am not going into details as others did, but there is one point which I would like to put before the Minister for his sympathetic consideration. It has struck me that a number of these men, after they have been unemployed for a long period, seem more or less to have lost their grip on life. They are shy and I rather fancy that when they get before the Court of Referees they are not able to make their case satisfactorily. Many men who have been for a long time out of work seem to lose heart. I suggest that the Minister should take steps to see that in a case like that they would get a very sympathetic hearing and be looked after.
They have a right to be represented there by a representative.
There should be some means of helping them. I do not believe they are able to help themselves. The Minister says they are not asked to prove that they are looking for work, but surely some evidence is asked for. I do not know the actual difference between proof and looking for evidence. I fancy that some of those men do not do themselves justice when they go before the court, because of the state they have reached through their long period of unemployment. I would ask the Minister to try to find some way of having them looked after when they go before the court.
Can the Deputy suggest any improvement on the right to be represented by some representative of an organisation to which they belong?
Major de Valera
Could it be arranged definitely, on the State side, to have someone there to represent them?
My own experience is that the workers' representative on the court tries to make the best case for those who are unemployed. If they belong to a trade union, they can have a representative of the union there to make the case for them. If there is any improvement that can be suggested, I will examine the matter sympathetically. My only concern is to make it work sympathetically and in a spirit of understanding and justice. If Deputy Colley or anyone else can make suggestions for improvement, I will examine every one of them.
I will try to think out something.
Major de Valera
In practice, how many times does the representative of a union appear there?
I could not say. I would say that the bulk of the cases that go there are not unemployment insurance cases but unemployment assistance cases. The former would be people who have a fairly good industrial history, inasmuch as they have stamps on which they can draw. The unemployment assistance cases are usually those of people who have been unemployed for long periods or chronically unemployed. In that case, probably the only organisation they could rely on would be an organisation representative of unemployed persons as such, or some charitable organisation that may take an interest in them.
Major de Valera
Which means that, in practice, they find it very hard to get a representative.
There has always been an unemployed persons' organisation: there is one extant at the moment. If there is any means by which persons can get a better opportunity, I will not impede them, but will facilitate them.
There are some men who do not like to touch these unemployed men's organisations. At any rate, I will try and think out some suggestions and give them to the Minister.
Deputy Rooney stated that Fianna Fáil were organising these unemployed marches. It seems to be becoming a habit for Government members to let their imagination run on these things and then to state them in the House as facts, without giving any evidence whatsoever. However, every morning of recent weeks there have been meetings of the unemployed at the corner of Werburgh Street, near the exchange, around 10 o'clock. I wonder does Deputy Rooney think that we are sending out an organiser to organise those every morning. There is no good in saying that sort of thing. The fact is that the unemployed are getting restless as they see no hope for themselves. It may be that those who are organising these things are by no means the worst people. There may be, as there was often in the past, some attempt to get publicity, or perhaps it is a political thing against the Government. Certainly, it does not come from Fianna Fáil.
I am glad we have reached the stage when we are getting the White Paper on social services. I am sure that, when it comes along, we will all try to make the best possible scheme out of it.
I take it that there is no possibility of the Minister finishing to-day?
He might start, but there are three offering to speak.
I am agreeable to allow the Minister start, if agreement can be reached with the opposite side.
Tá rudaí le rá agamsa.
I should say, at the beginning, that I personally am satisfied that anything the Minister can do to solve the difficulties mentioned here, and to have the regulations interpreted and operated in a humane way, will be done by him. I think everyone will agree with that. Deputy Lemass, speaking earlier in the debate, wanted to know if the Minister had got a guarantee from the Government that he would be enabled to put into operation his ideas on this social welfare scheme. Those of us who are familiar with the establishment of the inter-Party Government realise that Deputy Norton selected this particular Department for the purpose of putting into operation this social welfare scheme. That being so, everybody can be satisfied that, whatever should be done, whatever can or could be done, is being done and will be done by Deputy Norton as Minister for Social Welfare, to make this comprehensive social welfare scheme a success. I move to report progress.