I am one of those individuals who pay very few compliments to Ministers of any kind, but I want to compliment the Minister for Social Welfare on being able to get from the Department of Finance the necessary money to give increases to old age and blind pensioners and to widows and orphans during the past year. Whatever may be said to the contrary, the increases given have proved very beneficial, and, in view of the fact that most of them, or practically all of them, are given on a non-contributory basis, we can say that this country has now reached a stage, with regard to the payment of non-contributory pensions, at which it is almost as good as any country in the world. If they could be improved slightly and if the promised social welfare scheme which the Minister is to introduce increased these pensions by means of contributions from the people who are to get them in time, it is something which we would all welcome and which we would all like to see.
In this matter of social services, we are prepared to be fair to all Parties. We cannot say that the present Minister is the father of all these services. Old age pensions were first given by the British Government many years ago at the rate of 5/- per week, which in its time was a pretty valuable rate, and probably more valuable than the 17/6 of which they are in receipt to-day. At a later stage, the Fianna Fáil Government decided to give widows' pensions and children's allowances and the fact that this Minister has again improved the existing rates is in keeping with the upward trend of these rates. The position is that social schemes of this kind must be kept in operation for the benefit of those who are unable to help themselves and for that reason the Minister, having the handling of the Department the primary object of which is to provide for those who are unfit to work or who cannot be provided with work, deserves every encouragement and should get whatever advice can be given by the House to enable him to go ahead with this work.
On the other hand, social services can be abused and it is the abuses of the scheme that most people object to. For my own part, when I was a member of the Opposition and when this Department was being debated, I, with many others, was opposed to the idea of social services, and, like others, my reason for opposing them was the fact that I knew they were open to plenty of abuse. That abuse will always be there, despite the closest attention of the Minister and his officials. The abuse I refer to is in the fact that men well able to work and who should be at work are inclined to prefer to register at the labour exchange and draw unemployment benefit. It is perfectly true that no country can build itself up on social services and that social services have never added in any way to the production or output of any country, and, when men who are fit for employment prefer to lounge around and refuse to work, it is time the Minister should take notice and should see to it that some system will be provided in his new social welfare scheme by which it will be possible to catch these individuals who are of the type who bring otherwise good schemes into disrepute.
It is the duty of the Government to provide the necessary money for the financing of schemes of pensions and benefits for those who are unfit to work, such as the disabled and the blind; and, secondly, it is the duty of the Government to provide employment. If the Government fails to provide that employment, its duty is to provide money which will keep these people in existence until employment is found, but to-day we have reached the stage at which, due to the fact that so many have emigrated in the past number of years, there really is no necessity for the payment of any unemployment benefit, except in the very rarest of cases. If people think it wise for them to rely to too great an extent on the State, it is time they were taught otherwise, and people's individual efforts should be combined to help the Government in operating the social welfare scheme.
We must also remember that there are different grades amongst the people who are on the register at present. Deputy Lemass pointed out that these different grades existed and suggested that those fit for different classes of work should be classified under separate headings. To my mind, the greatest volume of employment which we are likely to have in years to come is to be found for those who are fitted for heavy manual labour. The different schemes which are to be operated will give employment to at least 20 men on heavy manual labour for every one man employed on the lighter type of clerical work and what we have to do therefore is to check up on the register, to find out the men who are fitted for this heavy toil and see that they get employment, and then to find out the men who, because of health or other reasons, are not fit for it and try to provide for them. Heavy manual work cannot be taught to an individual overnight—it is something which he learns from the cradle. I come from a constituency which can boast of some of the finest manual labourers in the world. Many people have emigrated from my county in the past 100 years, since the Famine, and have given by their hard labour, valuable assistance to other countries and the small farmers' sons in my constituency, as well as in others, have been brought up on hard work and taught from their very school days what it is to use their hands and the muscles of their arms, so that they will be able to go out and work for their living in later years.
I have a higher opinion of those people than I have of any other class. I regard them as being by far the most valuable class of people that we have in the country at the present time. The biggest amount of emigration takes place along the western seaboard and from Donegal, Clare and Kerry. I think the Minister should cast his eye in those directions and see if this emigration can be curbed by the provision of employment that would be beneficial and useful not only for the people concerned but for the country. I think that the Minister would be better advised if, instead of paying £1 or 30/- a week to any individual to keep him in idleness, he would provide him with another £1 or 30/- and put him into some kind of employment. A man drawing money in idleness is no good to anybody, not even to himself, while a man who draws money and gives a return in work for it is a benefit not only to himself but to the country. I think the Minister would be well advised to take those matters into consideration, and, if possible, couple up the work of his Department with that of other Departments so that there will be no overlapping and no wastage. If that were done, all Departments of State would be moving along the right lines. The people expect that from the Government. The members of the different Parties who support the Government and the Minister also expect it.
I now want to refer to the treatment of those in receipt of unemployment assistance when they are called before the Courts of Referees for an examination of their claims as to whether or not they are entitled to receive it. I I can speak from personal knowledge of this because I have attended those Courts of Referees to see how the people were treated. It is very rarely that I hand out bouquets to officials or others, but, in fairness, I want to say that I have found the Courts of Referees to be most lenient in their examination of claims. They examine them in every detail. I found that they take into consideration such things as the distance that a person is from the work that is offered to him, his family circumstances, whether he should be expected to travel outside his own county or to travel eight or 12 miles from his own home in which there may be old and infirm people depending on him. On the whole, I think there can be no complaint on the part of the people who come before these Courts of Referees. Their position is fully looked into.
The real trouble arises in the case of the smaller farmers in the West with valuations under £4. Unfortunately, they do not know what category they come into or how they can be described. Their holdings are too small to enable them to be called farmers and too big to be called labourers. Something will have to be done to give those people an idea as to what status they have in the country—those who are continually registered as unemployed. During the springtime many of them could not go out and work, even though they were offered £10 a week. They can be much better employed at home sowing the crops and cutting turf to provide fuel for the home for the rest of the year. Between the months of October and March or April they are available for work because very little can be done at home at that time. During those winter months they should be provided with work. There should be some regulation which would give them a clear understanding as to whether or not they are entitled to unemployment benefit in that period. I understand that, in the case of people with valuations of £4, there is a regulation which debars them from getting unemployment benefit during certain months of the year. That is perfectly right because, after all, they find that during those months they can be usefully and gainfully employed at home. Therefore, it would be wrong for a Government to be continually pouring out money into their pockets during that time.
There is another system under which the Department of Social Welfare is being hoodwinked. I refer to the case of people who settle down in life and become the owners of small farms of land, in some cases fairly substantial farms. The practice has grown up that many of these individuals do not become the registered owners of their holdings. They allow their fathers or grandfathers to remain on as a registered owner. People of that kind are entitled to make a claim for unemployment benefit. That may happen in the case of a man with a holding the valuation of which is £20 or £30. He can make a claim for unemployment benefit because he is not the registered owner of his holding, and by that means can pull the wool over the eyes of the Department. He can get the same amount of benefit as the man living on a very small holding or the man who is quite properly registered as unemployed. These are things which I see happening in my constituency. I hope the Minister will take note of them.
I think that, in fairness to the present Minister, we must give him the praise and the credit that is due to him. The increase in the old age pensions, for which he has been responsible, has been very welcome. It has been welcomed by every Deputy and the people, on the whole, are very well satisfied. It is all very fine to say that the increase given by the present Government has been only the small amount of 2/6. It has been pointed out that that is only the increase which has been given. Up to a point that is right and up to a point it is wrong, because another 2/6, which they were being allowed as a cash payment, had to be provided by the local authority. It was open to any local authority, at any time over a number of years past, to strike the necessary amount of rate to provide that extra 2/6. The local authorities were forced to provide it.