Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Jul 1950

Vol. 122 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 60—Office of the Minister for Social Welfare (Resumed).

Debate resumed on motion:-
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Dr. Ryan.)

I was pleased last night to hear the Tánaiste pay a well deserved tribute to the members of the committee and the staff of the National Health Insurance Society. I think the tribute was well deserved and that it was fitting and proper that it should be paid at this particular time. Few organisations set up in this country have been more successful than the National Health Insurance Society and, as I say, that tribute was well deserved because, out of chaos, a splendid organisation was built up with a reserve of something in the region of £7,000,000. When the society took over, the position was very bad. Some of the former societies were bankrupt or semi-bankrupt. Many of our people were not educated to the value of national health insurance. It was a difficult matter and they have made a good job of it and they deserve any tribute the Minister can pay to them.

There are 700,000 members of the organisation and I would like the Minister to make clear why the stamps were increased, without additional benefit being paid. I cannot see any reason for that, as the society was in a good financial position and capable of meeting any extra payments. I hope that the Minister, when he takes over completely on the 1st August, will abolish immediately, once and for all, disablement benefit. The Minister understands full well that if a man is ill for 26 weeks his financial position is not better—it is worse—and I sincerely hope that the Minister will see to it that we will hear no more of disablement benefit, that the rate of sickness benefit will continue during the member's illness. That would be an advance, and we have been advancing steadily since 1934. Additional benefits—dental, optical, surgical—are paid to-day, and any member of the society can go in alongside his wealthy neighbour, knowing that he has no longer the taint of pauperism about the treatment he gets, since his society will be paying for him a reasonable sum to meet the hospital demands. He is as good as his neighbour and all that helps towards a speedy recovery of those unfortunates who have to go into hospital. One of the best things that a man can feel is that he is being paid for there. His one concern, if he is married or has dependents, is that his wife and family are not getting as much as will keep body and soul together. The Minister may say that he proposes to correct all this in the new Bill. However, a long time will elapse and much water will flow under bridges before that. Many people will become ill—I am not praying for an epidemic—and will be confined to hospital or to their homes. The Minister should do something of a temporary nature until the proposed Bill becomes law, as everybody admits that the cost of living makes it well-nigh impossible for people to exist under the maximum benefit to which they are entitled to-day.

The social welfare officers are a very fine body of men and have a difficult task to do in dealing with insurance and pensions combined. I appeal to the Minister to see that their areas are not overlapping, so that we will not have an officer travelling through another officer's area, with consequent hardship on himself when he has finished a hard day's work and has to return a long journey. Again, the expense is high and adds to the amount of the National Health Vote. You find a good deal of that and a little more time should be given to it. Again, the dispensary districts are unsuitable. They are very old, and I do not know why half of them are so arranged. I hope the officials of the Department will not be guided by them at all. It would be better to take the townlands. The rural electoral areas are also bad, as you have one electoral area jutting perhaps two or three miles into another. That does not make for good administration and the officers are not capable of coping with all the work to be done.

We have not enough social welfare officers. They are never able to do a survey, as their time is taken up with the investigation of national health reports and of old-age pension claims. As a result, we have a lot of fly boys getting under the wire—I do not say there is an awful lot, but some do get under the wire—and they shirk their responsibility towards their employees and towards the State. I do not think they should be let away with it. They are the exceptions, the minority; but if we had a few extra officers here and there, they would see to it that that position would not continue. I suggest to the Minister that that be done.

I have another suggestion—and I think the Minister can carry out this one by regulation—regarding cases where a person becomes ill and his cards were not stamped at the time by the employer through no fault of the member. The Minister will understand that it is often hard for a member to report his employer; he may be under some debt of gratitude to him or may find it otherwise difficult. If it is not through deliberate fault, such as withholding the card deliberately, that person should not be deprived of benefit for a certain period. When the card is stamped, the card should immediately qualify him, instead of the penalty we have at the present time. I would ask the Minister to amend that by regulation when he takes over the society on the 1st August. The Minister and the House can readily understand that there are great hardships under that rule. I know the remedy is there with the insured person, but unfortunately he cannot usually take advantage of it, so I hope the Minister will look into the matter and remedy it, if at all possible.

We had a long tirade last night from Deputy Dunne. It is a pity he took such an attitude in a debate of this kind. Deputies should not be looking through their political glasses when they want to help the poorer sections of the community. I think their contributions should be such as would be helpful and constructive rather than that they should try to score off somebody else. Deputy Dunne accused Fianna Fáil of not doing anything for the old age pensioners. That is farther from the truth than many a statement I have heard for a long time.

In 1932 the rate of pension was 9/- per week. Fianna Fáil restored the shilling, and it must be remembered that the value of a shilling then compares very favourably with the recent 2/6 increase. Again, the 1924 Act debarred any person who three years before the passing of the Act or any time after transferred either property or income, and that property or income was taken into consideration under Section 7 of the Act even though it had been transferred for the most bona fide motives, such as the marriage of a son, infirmity or old age. Fianna Fáil abolished that penal section. Where there was a transfer of property they made it possible to have the pension paid. The idea of transfer was a good one, and it did provide an incentive to our young people to get married. I know many people concerned, and I know that comparisons are sometimes made, but I think it is always a good thing to implement a section of an Act if that section does good work. There may be unfair discrimination here and there. Every Act cannot be perfect.

In 1932 the age limit for applicants under the Blind Persons Act was 50: Fianna Fáil reduced that to 30. It is true that the schedules governing the means test were not altered. They had been altered in 1924, and I would appeal to the Minister to restore the schedules governing the means test prior to the 1924 Act. His officers could be given certain discretion in the case of small farmers with large families. I think large families should always be taken into account in assessing an applicant's means. Prior to the 1924 Act a person in receipt of £26 5s. 0d. was entitled to the maximum pension. After the passing of that Act a person in receipt of £15 12s. 6d. was automatically debarred from the maximum pension, and so on up along the scale. It is quite true to say that the Minister altered the means test from £39 to £52, and as a result of that there are pensions of 7/6 and 5/- now. The greatest hardship always falls upon the section with the smallest income. That is why I appeal to the Minister to restore the £26 5s. if at all possible. If that were done a number of our people would qualify for the maximum pension. That would be a great help to them.

I have heard a lot of tripe talked here and there about the abolition of the means test. People forget that the abolition of the means test would cost something in the region of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 per year more. I fail to see why a person with plenty of money in the bank and a good income should become a burden on the unfortunate taxpayers. I fail to see why we should help in any way to make the wealthy people wealthier. I do not think that is a good principle, and I hardly think the means test will be abolished in our time.

There are many people in receipt of disablement benefit who could be put into useful employment. Surely a person with one leg or one arm is not entirely incapacitated from doing useful work. I think the Minister should take some steps to make these people an asset to the State. I think most of them would be very glad to be provided with some means of earning their own livelihood. I am not now referring to those who are entitled to workmen's compensation. I am speaking of those people who had no contract of service, and who had to fall back on national health insurance. I do not know of any other funds under which they can benefit. I think an effort should be made to train those people in some useful occupation. I am sure they would be more than anxious themselves to take up some employment. The older people could be taught something fitted to their physical capabilities. In that way they would cease to be a burden on the State, and would undoubtedly become an asset to it.

With regard to national health insurance, cases sometimes arise where men have been in insurable employment for 20 or 30 years and for some reason or other they go out of that employment. After the lapse of a year they cease to be insured persons, and they thereby forfeit their rights to benefits. I think the period of grace should be extended. Sometimes grave hardships are caused because the period is so short.

The period is now a year and a half, and during that period any person has the right to become a voluntary contributor, and thereby preserve the continuity of his insurance.

The trouble is that many of our people fail to grasp the advantage of becoming voluntary contributors, and many of them are afraid that they will not be able to pay the contributions. The contributions are fairly heavy—45 contributions of 1/7. In certain cases that is a heavy draw on their funds.

I should also like to draw the attention of the Minister to the position of tubercular patients who are single and who are sent to different sanatoria. I think an exception should be made in their cases and that the benefits should be paid to them weekly to enable them to purchase the little extra comforts they desire. We know that, as regards this disease, the mind, above all, must be satisfied, and that anything that we can do to make the patient feel happy should be done. I think that if my suggestion were adopted, it would contribute towards the more speedy recovery of patients. Under the system in operation, they can draw the money on account; but I think they would feel greater satisfaction and perhaps would be able to get much greater value if they had the spending of the money themselves.

Deputy Dunne said last night that Fianna Fáil had done nothing for insured people. That, of course, is not correct. The Tánaiste knows full well what has been done. Disablement benefit was increased by 100 per cent. during the period Fianna Fáil were in office, and sickness benefits were increased by 50 per cent. All the additional benefits provided were, so to speak, the baby of Fianna Fáil. Therefore, it is ridiculous for Deputies to get up here and say things which are not correct. If, instead of making such statements, they would examine the position and ascertain what had been done, they would, I think, be doing much more good for the sick people than in trying to make political capital out of these matters.

Reference was made last night to the position as regards workmen's compensation. Cases of hardship have arisen as regards people coming back from England in receipt of workmen's compensation. There seems to be some flaw in the law somewhere, because those people are becoming a burden on this State at a time when they should be getting benefit from their employers in Britain. I would ask the Minister to have that position examined and see what can be done.

I do not know exactly what the Minister's functions are in the matter of home assistance. The amount that is being paid to poor people is altogether too low. It is ridiculous to expect an unfortunate creature to exist on 8/- a week. That is happening in many parts of the country, and it is the duty of Deputies to inform the House as to what the position in regard to those people is.

May I point out to the Deputy that the Public Assistance Act of 1939 prohibits any Minister from interfering with the administration of home assistance in any respect? I have no function in the matter. If I had any power in this matter, I would like to use it as the Deputy has suggested.

Unfortunately, the people in receipt of home assistance are the poorest of the poor. They seldom come under notice except to those who are engaged on charitable work such as the members of the St. Vincent de Paul Society. At the moment I am not able to suggest what exactly should be done. It appears to be a very difficult matter. Many of those poor people are widows and spinsters. I would ask the Minister to keep this question of home assistance under observation. The recipients are a most defenceless class. I know that occasionally they tremble with fear when the home assistance officer arrives. All the home assistance officers are not bullies, but some of them are. I think they should realise their duties towards this poor defenceless class in the community. I would say that, at some future date, this class of people should be included in the provision that is made for people under this Estimate. In fact, I would say myself that home assistance should be abolished. There is a taint about it that has come down to us from the famine days. The amounts that are paid are of very little use. They are hardly sufficient to keep the life in the recipients. If it were not for the help they receive from charitable organisations, many of them would have died years ago from starvation.

I find that the position with regard to dental benefits is that many of those who are qualified in every respect to receive benefits are themselves not in a position to pay the additional amount which is required from them. That is one of the big troubles I see. Now that the funds of the society are in such a healthy state, I would suggest to the Minister that he should waive the payment of contributions, particularly in the case of members who are not in a position to make a contribution themselves. In fact, I think the members' contribution in regard to those dental benefits should be abolished completely. It is important that the provision with regard to dental benefits should be availed of on the widest possible scale, because doctors inform me that rheumatism, arthritis and gastric troubles from which many of those insured persons suffer are due to the want of proper mastication and to the fact that they have decayed teeth. The fact is that members of the society will hesitate about availing of these dental benefits either because they have not the money to make the contribution required from them or, if they have, because the payment would mean a great hardship on them. The reason I make that suggestion to the Minister is that I think in the long run it would result in a saving of money, because, if we have a healthier membership, the drain on the funds will be less costly to the State and, in any event, a healthier people means a lot to the nation. I would ask the Minister to consider the matter in the light that perhaps a father might be saved to his family or a brother to an invalid sister. Rheumatism, gastritis and kindred diseases, which are alleged to be due to lack of dental treatment, are altogether too prevalent in this country.

Two years ago I drew the Minister's attention to the delay in dealing with cases in Cork Employment Exchange and to the fact that a number of cases were sent up to be dealt with in Dublin, whereas I thought the local manager should have authority to deal with such cases. The Minister expressed great sympathy with the plea which I then made, and he said that it very often happens that the final decision in such cases is made by a person of lower rank than the official who deals with the correspondence at the head office. The same practice is still continuing. For instance, a person may sign on in the morning. Later on in the day, after signing, he secures employment, but he does not report in time. His claim is held up for several weeks and is apparently sent up to Dublin to be dealt with, and eventually he is paid except for the time he has been working. It is all very well when these people can afford to wait, but I think that the local manager should have some authority to deal with cases like that. It seems ridiculous that he has not that power, having regard to the amount of correspondence that is involved in sending the case to Dublin.

Some months ago I put down a question to the Minister regarding the hardships suffered by dockers in Cork during a dockers' strike, in which they were not directly involved. He told me that he was going to have a conference between the unions to see what could be done about it. I should like the Minister to tell me if anything has been done because the position in Cork was that a man had his pay held up if he was a docker, even though he never worked with the particular company involved in the strike. I think that is wrong when he had nothing to do with the strike. For instance, men who were usually employed in discharging grain from vessels had never any connection with the general cargo companies. I think the Minister felt there was some hardship inflicted on these men, and I should like to know if he has called the conference between the unions which he promised.

I should like also to draw the Minister's attention to the delay in investigating claims under the two headings of old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions. There seems to be a great delay, especially in cases where an investigation is carried out by the Minister's Department when an application is made to the Department of Defence for a special allowance. There is a means test for that special allowance, and the application is referred to the Minister's Department for investigation. It is quite a common thing to have these special allowance cases held up for three or four months when they are referred to the Minister's Department. I put down a question to the Minister for Defence about six months ago, and I mentioned certain cases. It was evident, from the time the application had been referred to the Department for Social Welfare and the time it was returned, that the biggest delay occurred in the Department of Social Welfare.

Deputy Davern spoke about home assistance, and the Minister stated that he had no jurisdiction. He certainly had jurisdiction a couple of years ago when he took away the money that was being given to boards of assistance for food vouchers. That involved an additional expense to the local ratepayers. I had one particular case where an investigation was carried out by a home assistance officer of an application by an old age pensioner who was receiving the full 17/6 per week old age pension. He wanted spectacles, and he applied to the home assistance authorities. They sent the home assistance officer to investigate his means, and the applicant was told that because some of his sons were in good employment they would not provide him with the spectacles. Somebody was at fault there, for if the man had means, he was not entitled to the full old age pension Surely if he was eligible to receive the full old age pension he was entitled to get spectacles from the home assistance authorities. The investigation in cases like that is carried too far. My experience is that anyone who qualifies for an old age pension is put to a sufficiently severe test without having to undergo another test afterwards.

In regard to appeals I had a case of a widow's pension appeal which was going on for two years. It seems ridiculous that a case should be held up for over two years for investigation by anybody. I agree that the referee probed every source possible in order to try to award this widow a pension but apparently there was one particular period of delay for which nobody could account. The application was turned down after about two and a half years. She was kept dangling and waiting in the hope all the time that she might get a pension but, as I say, after two and a half years she was eventually turned down. She probably was not entitled to it as there was some question over the number of stamps for a certain year which disqualified her. My plea is that the investigation of claims should be carried out as speedily as possible. Generally speaking, there is not a very long span of life left for widows and old age pensioners. They do not know when they are going to the next world but I doubt if the next world would be of any great benefit to them if their claims there are not dealt with more speedily.

I will be very brief. May I point out that I find that the means test, although the ceiling has been raised from £39 to £52, is a great hardship on old age pensioners for in a number of cases in my opinion very deserving people are deprived of a pension? While the Minister raised the ceiling to £52 it was still an increase of only 33 per cent. and things have gone up by a good deal more than that. At every other old age pensions meeting that I go to I find a number of borderline cases where the inspector will come along and make up the £52 in a most exacting manner. I have nothing to say against the inspector because he is only doing his duty, but the fact remains that the investigation is so through and exacting that very deserving cases, in our opinion, are deprived of the old age pension. I would like the Minister to consider raising the ceiling to at least 70 per cent. above the £39 because that would be only in keeping——

On a point of order. Is the Deputy not advocating——

He is advocating legislation.

——something to which Deputy Dr. Ryan is opposed?

Deputy Davin is very quick this mórning.

He got up on the wrong side this morning.

Every old age pensions committee is up against this matter. Whether we like it or not we find that we are depriving some of these old people of what they are entitled to. I have come across cases in County Dublin where people have actually been given the old age pension for six months by the committee and by the Department of Social Welfare and then some friends of theirs—I suppose you could call them good friends—come along and report that a married daughter of the old age pensioner has come from America, England or Dublin and is giving him money and the pension is cut off or reduced. I am sure that the Minister never meant that to happen but that is the position and it is not as it should be. I am not asking the State to give money away for nothing; I am asking the State to be reasonable towards these unfortunate people who in most cases live alone. May I again refer to the over-throughness of the inspector in trying to find out if the hen is laying and how much the garden is producing? In matters of that kind there should be a spirit of give and take because surely the amount of money they are getting is not going to keep old age pensioners in luxury and comfort. The big delay in the investigation of cases in certain areas is also a matter for comment and I would like if that could be speeded up.

Another point is the investigation of people who have applied for the blind pension. In many cases in County Dublin especially they will not get a certificate unless they are examined by a doctor in the Eye and Ear Hospital. I wonder if it would be possible for the Minister to appoint a doctor who would once every six months, say, investigate such cases in their homes? I know that it is hard for some of these people to get into the Eye and Ear Hospital and I had on a number of occasions myself to supply transport. I am not objecting to it; I would do it at any time, but there are a number of people who cannot get transport at all. If more power could be given to the medical officer to give such a certificate it would eliminate a good deal of the difficulties of these unfortunate blind people.

The Department always sends an inspector in a case of that kind to the house.

They send an ordinary inspector.

They send a medical inspector where necessary.

The device of asking them to go to the hospital is to speed up the examination so that they will get their pensions at an earlier date and not have to wait for the visit of the ophthalmic surgeon.

In County Dublin they usually ask them to go to the hospital.

I have also received complaints from time to time of the slowness in paying out national health insurance benefits and I had on occasion to take this matter up with the National Health Insurance Society. If a man is married with a family and needs money to purchase the ordinary essentials it is too bad if he has to wait two, three, and often four and five weeks. Something should be done to improve that because over the years I have received a number of complaints. I really do not know what is wrong as I have been told that the doctor's certificate has been sent on. Every poor man will not get credit for a week, a fortnight or three weeks when he is ill. Some people, especially those with a big family, expect to be paid at the end of the week. A man who receives a very small salary is not in a position to have money saved. The time when a man is sick and no money is coming in is the time when he should get paid and he should not have to wait for three weeks until he has gone back to work and then get it all together.

I will be very brief. I must say that I personally was amazed here last night listening to the badtempered type of speech—for the first time in this House as far as I am concerned—delivered by Deputy Dr. Ryan. I would advise Deputy Dr. Ryan's friends, Deputy Davern in particular, when they read that badtempered speech in print to remind Deputy Dr. Ryan that when he has time he should read the speech he delivered in this House on the 22nd October, 1947, relating to the very same matter and see how he can possibly reconcile his attitude on that occasion with his attitude here last night. However, that is for the future.

It would be very hard for Deputy Dr. Ryan to put up with Deputy Davin's interruptions last night.

I challenge the next Fianna Fáil speaker, if there is another to get up in the House, to state, for the information of the people, if they had been left in office by the will of God and the will of the people and returned to power in February, 1948, what kind of social security scheme they would have brought into operation and then we would know where we stand and the people would know what decision they should make as between the contents of the White Paper circulated by the present Government and whatever scheme they would have had—it is still secret to members of the Fianna Fáil Party and it is certainly unknown to the citizens of the country.

I must say that Deputy Davin is not improving in his charitable remarks.

That is a free challenge to Deputy Burke, who, every day that he speaks, is coming nearer to the people on this side of the House. One day he will walk in here, to-morrow morning, perhaps, or late at night, and sit down on this side of the House instead of over there.

God forbid!

Deputy Davin should know that he voted for the reduction in the road grants.

I have long experience of handling old age pension cases. Deputy Davern, my half-brother in name, might agree with me in this: I find that a considerable amount of delay takes place in the handling of old age pension cases between the committee and the deciding officer at headquarters because the pension officer has no personal contact and refuses in many cases to attend the meetings of the old age pensions committee. The deciding officers do their work in a real red-tape fashion, in a callous fashion—I say that without regard to the Government of to-day or the Government of yesterday, and perhaps the Government of to-morrow—without any consideration for the feelings and requirements of the poor people who are entitled to old age pensions.

The Minister may hold the view, as his predecessor in some cases held the view, that members of pension committees are more than generous when they come to consider applications submitted to them. The pension officer in all cases, in my long experience, takes the opposite view, and, if the pension officer could be persuaded, or still better, instructed, because some of them are not susceptible to any kind of persuasion, to attend the meetings of the old age pension committee to listen to the information which could be given to them—they are generally not locals and are not in touch with the people, living as they do far away from the people, and the poor people especially, and mixing with a different class of people—by the members who know more than anybody else about the domestic circumstances of the claimants, many of the disputes which have arisen, due to the absence of the officer, could be settled there and then and a good deal of unnecessary delay cut out. I hope Deputy Davern will not object to that suggestion.

There is very little delay now.

I have come across such cases and have sent them to the Minister. I do not like bothering the Minister of any Department with matters of general administration, and I write in in the ordinary way, but, because of the refusal in some cases of pension officers to attend, when they could attend, pension committee meetings, I have had to report cases of delay to the Minister, and that is why I make this suggestion for the Minister's consideration. If it could be done without any inconvenience to the administration or the other work the pension officer has to discharge, I should be very glad if the Minister would consider it. If he cannot see his way to issue instructions to pension officers to attend these meetings, he should use his influence to persuade them to do so when they have no other important work to do.

Mr. Brennan

I agree with the suggestion put forward by Deputy Davin as to the issuing of instructions to pension officers to attend these committee meetings. I think it is an ideal suggestion.

They are already bound to go on the request of the committee. The committee does not know its job.

I know cases where they have refused.

Mr. Brennan

I am a member of a pensions committee, and I can recollect a few occasions on which the suggestion was made that the pension officer should attend the next meeting. It is not always possible for me to attend and it may have happened that the officer in question did attend, but whether he is bound or not to attend at the request of the committee, Deputy Davin's suggestion is a good one and much of the delay would be obviated if it were adopted. When the pension officer goes to a claimant's house, he goes armed with certain powers which are governed by certain regulations. He makes inquiries of the person concerned as to his financial position—the number of cattle he has, the number of acres of land he has, the value of his crop last year, and so on. In the case of the average old-age pension claimant, the very fact of an official putting questions to him more or less knocks him off balance and he is inclined to answer questions with the intention of being truthful, but often to give replies against himself. That, in itself, is a reason why the suggestion put forward by Deputy Davin is a good suggestion.

Not alone should the official appear before the committee, but the particular claimant involved should also appear, provided it was humanly possible for him to do so, so that the case could be thrashed out at the meeting. Whether the pension officer has discretionary powers or not in arriving at an assessment of the moneys which a particular claimant may have received during the year, I do not know, but my experience is that when a case comes before the committee and the committee decides to grant a certain pension, let it be a full pension or a partial pension, the pension officer invariably opposes it. Whether he feels himself bound to oppose it or whether he has to do so under the regulations, I do not know, but he invariably does oppose it, and that causes much of the delay. Deputy Davin's suggestion is a good suggestion, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to act on it.

With regard to the method adopted of assessing income, an old age pension claimant may have been an ordinary working man—unskilled, if you like— who, because of a thrifty nature, has managed to save a certain amount of money over, perhaps, 50, 55 or 60 years' hard work. When the pension officer comes to make his assessment, above a certain figure, he starts to get his pound of flesh, so to speak. The claimant is assessed on the basis of a return of 5 or 6 per cent., whereas the money all the time is lying in the Post Office at 2 or 2½ per cent. These people in no circumstances will agree to have it anywhere but in the Post Office and you will never compel them. to invest it in stocks and shares from which they could get 5 or 6 per cent. In such cases, these moneys should not be taken into consideration at all or, at least, the pension officer's evaluation of the income from these moneys should be based on the interest accruing from investment in the Post Office. That is the most that should be done.

I want to refer to the question of unemployment benefits. Within the past month or so quite a number of people have become unemployed. The people concerned are single men. It has been brought to my notice that a number of these young men, who were qualified for unemployment benefit, were refused unemployment benefit at the local labour exchange on the ground that they were single men, for whom alternative employment was available on bogs 40, 50 or 60 miles away. I am not making a case for the single man of whom it could be said that when his hat is on, his house is thatched. I have in mind a single man who is the only support of a widowed mother and, perhaps, a family of four or six young people. In that case, he should be entitled to draw unemployment benefit. I realise fully the difficulty of deciding whether a single man has as much responsibility as a married man would have or not. I know that there is right of appeal but, unfortunately, in the event of appeal there is a time lag of three or four weeks before a decision will be arrived at. In the meantime, there would be no money coming into the house.

I wonder would the Minister consider giving discretionary powers to the social welfare officer of the area so that, when such an individual would claim unemployment benefit at the labour exchange, the case would be brought immediately to the notice of the social welfare officer, who would be informed that unemployment benefit is claimed on the ground that the claimant has stamps to his credit and that he is not in a position to travel 40 to 60 miles to a job of any kind. I suggest that, immediately on being notified, the social welfare officer would visit the home of the individual concerned, investigate the case and satisfy the Department that the case is a genuine one and that the young man in question is really in the same position as the father of the house would be. I am not making a case for the single man who has no commitments, who, when his hat is on, his house is thatched.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer. It is not specifically mentioned on the Order Paper, but I take it that it comes under unemployment insurance. I refer to wet time insurance. That insurance has been in operation for some years. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the unwieldy method of collection. In order to be recouped the amount he pays out under this scheme, the employer must fill up a number of forms. In most cases, the amount involved is so small that the employer would not bother to make the returns but would prefer to be at the loss of the money rather than go to all the trouble involved in filling up these forms. I am sure that this matter has been brought to the notice of the Minister, not only since he became Minister, but when he was Deputy Norton. It is an unwieldy method. After eight or nine years' practical experience of the working of that particular insurance, I am sure it is not beyond the capabilities of the Department to devise a more simplified method by which employers could recoup the moneys paid out under this scheme. I would suggest that the Department should consider this matter and they might also get the opinion of employers, either in Dublin or elsewhere, that would help them to arrive at a simplified method.

There are very many tenants' associations, debating societies and other small groups scattered throughout the country who would be very glad if the Minister would make available to them the facilities that he made available to a group at Longford, a month or two ago, whereby an expert on the new social welfare scheme would explain to them the intricacies of this scheme. I would urge the Minister to send a team around to societies who ask for these services, in order that healthy discussion of the new scheme will take place amongst the working classes whom, of course, it mainly affects.

The other matter that I want to ask the Minister is, will he be good enough to make representations to his counterpart in Great Britain, the Minister of Labour, in regard to the issue of travel vouchers? Very many categories of Irish workers in Great Britain have received for many years past a 7/6 travel voucher that would enable them to come home on their holidays. They could travel from any part of Britain to any part of Ireland on this 7/6 travel voucher. In March last, that concession was withdrawn by the authorities in Whitehall. I would strongly urge the Minister to use his good offices with the Minister in Whitehall so that our Irish workers would receive that concession. I know that very many of them will not be able to come home this year. They have not the money saved. They did not get sufficient notice. If they had got 12 months' notice, they might have been able to save the fare. As it is, they will not be able to come home unless our Minister acts quickly and asks the British Minister to act quickly.

I must say at the outset that, with one notable exception, the contribution to the discussion of the Estimates has been extremely helpful. Deputies have approached the consideration of the Estimates with a desire to recount their own experiences and to be helpful. I prefer, therefore, to deal with their helpful contributions first, and I shall deal later with the destructive contribution made by Deputy Dr. Ryan.

Deputy Davern raised the question of the abolition of disablement benefit. I should like to point out to the Deputy that before disablement benefit could be abolished it would require legislation. I take it the Deputy wants the abolition to take the form of not merely the discontinuance of the disablement benefit as such but the provision in its place of a higher rate of benefit. That would involve legislation. The Deputy will appreciate that that is not practical politics on that narrow front at this moment with the Dáil on the eve of Adjournment. However, in the new scheme of social security which will be introduced, provision will be included whereby the rates of sickness benefit will be substantially increased from, let us say, in the case of a man with a wife and two children, 22/6 at present, to 50/- under the new scheme. In addition, where the person has a number of contributions to his or her credit, he or she, once certified to be sick and having the required minimum number of contributions, will continue to receive sickness benefit so long as he or she is sick. In other words, disablement benefit will be abolished then, and it will be abolished by allowing the person to receive the full rate of sickness benefit appropriate to him or her for the full period of sickness. Therefore, in the case of a person who is seriously ill at present, after six months, no matter what the gravity of that illness, a person goes on disablement benefit. A person may continue on that disablement benefit at present for the rest of his or her life. Under the new scheme it is proposed that where a person is ill sickness benefit will be payable. Where a person has a certain number of minimum contributions, that payment will continue without reduction for the rest of the life of that person, so long as that person is certified to be incapable of resuming work. Therefore, the Deputy will see that he will not have to wait very long until that very substantial and, in my view, long overdue reform will be put into operation.

Again, the Deputy raised the question of extending the free period of insurance. The Deputy thought that at the moment the free period is 12 months but it is 18 months. Here, again, legislation will be required to extend it further than 18 months. At all events, I think there is a way out for the person who leaves insurable employment, if he leaves it to become self-employed. If a person desires to become self-employed then he can continue as a voluntary contributor for national health insurance and widows' and orphans' pensions purposes. If such a person will only reflect for five minutes on the benefits he can receive by becoming a voluntary contributor, while self-employed, for the relatively small contribution which she or he would be required to pay, the benefits are so obvious as not to require more than a moment's thought to induce him or her to become a voluntary contributor.

Deputy Davern raised the question of additional benefits with, I think, particular reference to dental benefit. The present position is that the full amount of the additional benefits is being utilised for the various purposes for which these benefits are made available. So far as dental treatment is concerned, the position is that the society pay the full cost of the treatment and half the cost of the dentures. That is a substantial contribution to make. If you try to make it greater by paying the full cost of the dentures then you are going to make the benefit available to a lesser number of people. The full amount allotted at the moment is being used up for the purpose of providing the present scale of benefits. If you increase the scale of benefits the effect will be to deprive a certain number of persons of these benefits.

Why not allot more for the purpose?

At the moment it has to come out of the accumulated funds on a kind of actuarial examination over a period of five years to see what is available. If the actuarial examination does not shed more for this purpose it is not possible, nor is there authority to do it. You can, of course, resort to the old but very imprudent practice of feeding the dog on his own tail. I would point out that no dog has ever got stout on that process of feeding or lasted very long. If you do that with the society, you will get——

This dog had a tail big enough to buy Store Street.

That has been done on the basis of the same prudence that has to govern the allocation of moneys for these additional benefits to-day.

Deputy Davern raised, also, the question of social welfare officers' areas. It is only three years ago since these areas were outlined and, in fact, since the grade of social welfare officer was created. Inevitably, the first allocation of zones had to be provisional. One had to gain experience of their working before one could say with any certainty that they represented anything roughly approaching perfection. The question of the size of these officers' areas is constantly under examination to see what alterations are necessary. There may be areas in which the work is light and where the officer might be able to take more work. There may be an area in which the work is heavy and in which you have to take off some of the work from the officer. There may, over a number of zones, be a situation in which it is necessary to create another zone in that particular larger zone in order to allocate another officer to take some from each in order to balance out the work. I can assure the Deputy that that matter is at present under consideration. In fact, it is constantly under consideration-my aim and the Department's aim being to ensure that a person is asked to look after an area which he can reasonably overtake. Nobody wants to sweat the social welfare officer or to ask him to do an impossible job. Certainly, I do not. Anything that makes for an even distribution of the work and that does not impose an unreasonable burden on the social welfare officer will always have a sympathetic reception so far as I am concerned.

Deputy Davern mentioned that he thought the volume of work at present falling on secial welfare officers made surveys difficult. As a matter of fact, during the past two or three years special instructions were issued to officers to deal effectively with noncompliance cases. A very considerable volume of work has been undertaken in that field. Many persons, who previously treated the law with the utmost impunity, have now been required, thanks to the vigilance of the social welfare officers, to comply with the law in that respect.

Deputy Davern raised the question of the late surrender of cards. As the Deputy probably knows, the Minister has power to waive the penalty for the late surrender of cards where he is satisfied the responsibility is not the responsibility of the insured person. As a matter of fact, in the great majority of cases that come to me, I waive the obligation to pay the penalty, and permit the person concerned to pay his contributions, even though they are not paid in time, where I am satisfied the insured person is not, in fact, responsible for the delay in surrendering his cards or where, as a matter of fact, he is not in conspiracy with an employer to avoid stamping the card. Unfortunately, we meet too many cases of workers who conspire with their employers not to stamp their cards; but when they lose their employment, or when they are sick and discover the employer will not pay them sickness benefit, they immediately proceed to howl that the employer has not complied with the law, whilst all the time they sheltered the employer against the vigilance and the penalties which ought to have been visited on him for noncompliance with the respective pieces of social legislation.

I have no sympathy for the employee who lends himself to that kind of practice. Where, however, it is clear that the insured person is the victim of the employer's unwillingness or failure to stamp the card, we have to look at the thing in a sympathetic way. If I would address one word of advice to insured persons it would be that they should make sure that their cards are stamped regularly, because I have seen so many cases where the non-stamping of cards has involved, in a great many instances, loss of sickness benefit or unemployment benefit to insured persons.

I think Deputy Davin will appreciate that it would be undesirable that we should institute as a matter of routine practice an arrangement whereby people need not worry about the later surrender of cards or about non-compliance, because the moment any difficulty arises they would be allowed to pay their arrears or put stamps on cards. We must keep to the normal practice that the card should be stamped each week and surrendered at the proper time, and the element of collusion, and even conspiracy, in non-stamping must be put down ruthlessly in the interests of the insured persons.

Deputy Davern spoke of the training of disabled persons for re-employment. I have considerable sympathy with his objective, but I would like to say that that is not my responsibility. The training of persons in order to rehabilitate them to take their place in industry is more appropriately a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce, which has its associations with employment and industry and commerce generally. My functions do not permit me to go into that domain, but I would like to see the question of training disabled persons to take their places again as workers in the community dealt with sympathetically and with a view to rescuing many people from something which will only lead to a life of inactivity and being compelled to exist on rates of benefit which never do justice to their original means of living.

The question of the amount of home assistance granted by local authorities was raised by Deputy Davern, mistakenly, I think, on this Vote, because I have no function in the matter of the granting of home assistance generally or in any particular case. Under the 1939 Act, that function was reserved to the local authorities, but it has been exercised since then through the county managers. In future, county managers will not exercise that function. It will be exercised by a committee of the local authority on which members of the local authority will be represented.

Mr. Brennan

That is obtaining at the moment in some areas.

It is an unofficial arrangement. A sagacious county manager might adopt a device of that kind, but, under the Local Government (County Administration) Bill, the function will be the function of a committee of the council, and the ordinary members of the council who are elected in the local elections will have cast upon them the responsibility of deciding the scales of home assistance generally and the amount of home assistance to be paid in any particular case. I hope, with Deputy Davern, that that will result in a more humanitarian approach to the sufferings of people who are compelled to rely on home assistance as a means of livelihood. I share his view that the present scales payable in many areas are in need of a substantial step-up.

Deputy McGrath raised the question of what I might describe as the strike and lock-out section of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I will repeat now an assurance I have already given, that I have informed the trade union congresses that if they have any suggestion to make to me of what they think represents hardship in the existing Act, I will be prepared to examine the matter sympathetically. I invited them to submit proposals to me. I have not yet received the proposals, but what I said before still stands, namely, that if they submit the proposals I will consider them sympathetically with a view to obviating any hardship or possible cause of hardship.

Deputy McGrath referred to the devolution of authority from the central headquarters of the Department in Dublin to local employment exchanges. I share the Deputy's desire in that respect, namely, that we should as far as possible give to people, according to their official status, responsibility which can properly be put on their shoulders. I do not want to see any kind of shuttle service under which all cases are sent to Dublin when they really can be decided locally. That matter is being considered.

It has been for two and a half years.

Two years ago you gave me a promise.

I think it was about 12 months ago, but I will not fall out with the Deputy over a year. The Deputy knows the problem was there for years.

The Deputy and I are on common ground; we are both heading for the same objective. I hope it will not be long until we can place in the hands of responsible local managers the responsibility of deciding cases locally without any need for reference to a central headquarters. The Deputy also referred to the delay in investigating cases. I think he was referring to old age pension cases.

More especially cases referred to his Department by the Department of Defence—allowance claims.

We act as agent for the Department of Defence in these matters. When we undertake an investigation, it is the same as an old age pensions investigation or a widows' and orphans' pensions investigation. I do not think there is any delay so far as we are concerned in investigating these cases. When we are asked to make an investigation we make it and then send it to the Department of Defence. If the Deputy will let me have particulars of any one case, I will undertake to check those particulars to see if there was any delay.

I got replies from the Department of Defence indicating certain delays in your Department. I will send the Minister whatever information I have on that matter.

Mr. Brennan

There is no body between the Social Welfare Department and the Department of Finance of a kind similar to what obtains where old age pensions are concerned, no intermediary.

The case Deputy McGrath refers to is, I think, the case of an applicant for a special allowance under the Military Service Pensions Act. When that person makes an application, the Department of Defence, no doubt, consider it. Then they ask us will we investigate it. We investigate it and furnish a report to the Department of Defence and it is considered there. If the Deputy will send me any one case in which there has been some delay in investigation, I will get after it and find out what the cause was.

I will send you a copy of the reply of the Minister.

If you give me the name of the person, I will get particulars of the case. I should like to say to the Deputy that, so far as old age pension cases are concerned, not only is there no delay in investigating the cases, but the officer has to furnish a report if he is not able to clear the case in a particular period of time.

What is the period?

About two months. Although we are now paying more old age pensions than were ever paid since 1908 when the Act came into operation and are now dealing with more appeals than ever before, the number of appeals on hands to-day is the lowest in the history of the old age pensions section. If any Deputy questions that, let him put down a parliamentary question and I will get the actual figures.

I gave you the case of an appeal which took two and a half years.

I will deal with that later. I will get the Deputy, if he likes, decisions in these cases in a fortnight. Will he be pleased with the decisions?

The same as I was with that.

Let me deal with Deputy McGrath's case. He raised the case of a person claiming a contributory widow's pension. In a lot of these cases, the difficulty in deciding the matter is because the husband's insurability is obscure. He may have been a person who had employment intermittently with one employer and then another employer and then somebody else. There may be a gap in his insurance where he has not returned a card for a certain period and because of that he has not the required number of contributions, with the result that there is a doubt as to whether the widow qualifies for a pension. If the Department are to decide that on the facts before them, they will decide it and I am sure will be glad to decide it on those facts.

In the particular case I referred to there was one stamp short. That was fixed up by some employer by whom he was employed. Then, after considerable delay, it was found that there was not the average number of contributions up to a certain period—I think three or five years— that the contributions were not sufficient. That was the result of the investigation.

So far as the Department is concerned, in these cases. where entitlement is doubtful because of a deficiency in insurance stamps, if the Department were to decide the matter on the evidence before them in the first instance they could give a speedy decision. What they do in a lot of these cases is to admit at once the right to a non-contributory pension and to pursue the investigations to establish entitlement to a contributory pension. That often involves a considerable amount of work so far as the investigating officers are concerned. These are most troublesome cases. The chief difficulty is that the person who could give valuable evidence is dead, namely, the insured person, and if an employer knows that his previous employee is dead and he did not stamp cards at the time, he is going to be very reluctant to admit that for a year or two years he did not stamp cards for that man. There is no witness available to question his word. All kinds of difficulty of that sort arise. I must say that that section of my Department deals with all those difficult cases in the most sympathetic way.

The object in the long run is to try to establish entitlement. The experience in that respect is the very reverse of what people sometimes mistakenly allege is the function of civil servants, namely, to deprive people of pensions. In the widows' and orphans' section they display patience and care to try to establish entitlement to a pension. While it may be vexatious to have to wait a long time for a final decision, speaking for myself I would prefer to wait for that time in the hope of getting a favourable decision which will last for the rest of the person's lifetime instead of getting an unfavourable decision on perhaps insufficient evidence.

It is unfavourable anyhow.

There is a law of averages and the Deputy's ship may come into port the next time. While I am on the question of delay, and this applies to the point raised by Deputy Burke—I do not know what view the House will take of this—I think one of the causes of prolonged investigation in old age pension cases is the existence of local pensions committees. A local pensions committee may meet once every two months. If the committee meets on the 1st of the month and a person makes an application on the 2nd, the application will be in the officer's hands for two months until the committee meets again. Some committees may not meet even as frequently as that. If there was any machinery for filtering an application through the committee, it would be investigated much more quickly. It is a matter for consideration whether in fact the pensions committee is of any real use whatever to old age pension applicants.

I should like to ask whether it would be possible for the Department of Social Welfare to sanction the payment of the full pension where there is no question of dispute or doubt; whether the Minister could arrange that only cases where there is a likelihood of dispute or doubt will be put before the old age pensions committee instead of putting all cases, including those where there is no question, before the committee.

In any case, that would require legislation. It is not possible to consider it as a practicable proposition to-day. From my experience of these matters, I would say that going before the local pensions committee does not add anything to the applicant's claim. Firstly, the local pensions committee reports on the maximum merits of the application; secondly, it does not matter to them if they give the full pension because they have not to pay it. Neither has it to be paid out of the rates. They have the idea that it does not matter what they give. They say to themselves: "The fellows in Dublin will have to find that and therefore it is all right." In fact, the very existence of the local pensions committee often necessitates an application being held up for consideration by the committee for as long as two months.

As against that, let us see what we do in respect of widows' and orphans' pensions. If a widow claims a widows' and orphans' pension, it does not go through any local committee. It goes to the Department of Social Welfare, and an officer immediately proceeds to investigate the case. There is no committee, and the result is that he can immediately investigate the claim for a pension. In the case of old age pensions, the application has to go to the local pensions committee. Frankly, I think a scheme by which old age pension applications would be dealt with directly by an officer of the Department of Social Welfare without the delay of having to send it to a pension committee would be a better way of dealing with the matter, as the officer can decide whether or not a pension should be awarded. If the pension is awardable, the person gets the pension. If, in the view of the officer it is not, the applicant can appeal and the appeal will be heard by the central pensions committee, which will give a decision on the merits of the case as they appear to the committee. Frankly, I think that is a more speedy method of dealing with applications for old age pensions. However, I do not come down on one side or the other, but it is a matter that the House might consider and discuss perhaps at greater length on some other and perhaps more appropriate occasion.

Would the Minister bring it more fully to the notice of intending applicants that they are entitled to apply four months before they attain the age of 70? Then this talk of delay would not be heard in the future.

I thought there was no widespread doubt on that point.

It is not too well known.

If the ordinary method of bush telegraphy we have in the country is not sufficient to make it known, I will certainly cause that information to be relayed so as to make it known more fully. Deputy Burke said he came across cases in which there was delay in paying national health insurance benefit, the delay amounting to three or four weeks. It is very easy to make general statements and indicate that all the delay is on the part of the society. I will undertake that, if any Deputy sends me a case where he thinks there has been unreasonable delay, I will have the matter specially investigated. In 98 per cent. of the cases which I have investigated, the delay has been due always to causes usually within the control of the insured person—he has not put in his card for a particular period, there is a card missing, his employer has not stamped his card, there is a discrepancy in the age, he has changed his address, or he has quoted a wrong number. A whole pile of these causes contribute to the delay. If any Deputy thinks—this is a standing invitation—there is unreasonable delay, I will have the case investigated.

Following the discussion on this Estimate last year, I asked the society to send out a special circular to the agents, telling them of my desire that claims for benefit, when received, be submitted expeditiously and that the benefits be distributed with the same expedition. My idea and that of the society was to ensure that there would be no delay in the treatment of claims and the payment of benefits. Considering the very large number of claims and the number of cases in which benefit is paid, I think the society is a remarkable efficient organisation.

There is no question in the world about that.

I am sorry Deputy Davin has left the House, as it seems to me that he made what I can only regard as an intemperate attack on the deciding officers who deal with old age pension cases. Deputy Davin described them as dealing with cases in a callous manner—to use the Deputy's own phrase. I think that is an unfair attack on officers who are not in this House to defend themselves. Deciding officers in regard to old age pensions have no easy job. They are expected to do a very distasteful job in a responsible way. If they wish to curry popularity, they could give the full pension in all these cases, but that is not their function under the Act. Their function is to investigate the circumstances and if satisfied that the circumstances merit the grant of a full pension, to grant it; if there is any doubt, to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant; and only in cases where they are satisfied that the means amount to a certain sum, to adjust the pension accordingly. So far as I know—and I have intimate contact with these officers—they do that work in a conscientious way. What pains me more than all that is that a Deputy with Deputy Davin's long service in the House and long experience of the old age pensions section, should describe the officers in such a manner. I think it is unfair to them. It is particularly unfair that they should be criticised in that manner in an Assembly where they have no chance of replying. From my experience of them and my knowledge of their work, I am obliged as a matter of duty and as a matter of conscience, to say that I do not think they deserve the criticism which was unjustly levelled at them to-day. They do their work conscientiously and no one can complain as long as they do that. I leave it to the experienced Deputies here to say whether that is not the invariable experience of anybody who has had to interview these deciding officers.

Deputy Brennan raised the question of a single man with dependents who has become unemployed and is entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. He instanced the case where such a person was offered turf work and deprived of benefit because he did not take it up. So far as the Department is concerned, its function in the matter is as follows. Employment on turf work away from home is offered only to single persons. Married men are not offered employment away from home on turf work. The employment is offered to a single person, provided he is suitable for turf work and that his knowledge of the work is such that he is likely to make an efficient worker. In these circumstances, the person is invited to take up work in a Bord na Móna turf bog. The Deputy mentioned that he might have no money to pay his way there.

The particular type of individual I refer to is the single man who is placed, in my opinion and in the Minister's belief, in the category of a married man, inasmuch as he has a widowed mother and other members of his family to attend to. I believe that man should be in the category of a married man.

The Deputy made the point that the person would not have money to travel the 40 or 50 miles. If he is offered and accepts Bord na Móna work, he is given a free travel voucher to get there. He has this yardstick before him: is it better for him as a single man to accept this turf work where, after a week, he will have some income, or remain at home depending on unemployment insurance benefit? That is the test which he has to put to himself.

The Deputy makes the case that he has a widowed mother and a number of brothers and sisters and therefore, in relation to the family, he is in the same position as a father. I cannot decide whether that is so; neither can the Deputy; and clearly the officer in the employment exchange is not to have absolute discretion to decide whether it is so. What happens in a case like that is that if the officer in the exchange thinks that this is a case where a person could take the employment, if he wished to, and does not take it, he fails to satisfy the condition that he is unemployed and genuinely unable to obtain suitable employment. In that case, the person ceases to qualify for unemployment benefit. But he has an appeal against that decision: he can go to the Court of Referees, which is constituted of three elements—one, the employers' representative; another, the workers' representative; and the third an independent person not responsible to me or to the Department for his decision, but perfectly free to decide anything he likes within the law. To that tribunal, to that person in the position described, the applicant can go and can say: "In view of my domestic circumstances, which are here set out, I think it is unreasonable to ask me to go into a turf camp." If they say: "Yes, we think it is unreasonable," the person will continue to draw benefit.

But in the meantime, what happens? In any reference I made to the particular individual, I stressed that he may not have money to carry on in the intervening period before his appeal is heard. That may be a matter of three, four or five weeks, and he would be without any money in the meantime.

The Deputy will appreciate the difficulty that his refusal to accept employment in the camp means that he does not satisfy the statutory condition.

I am viewing him as a married man.

What happens if benefit is paid to him for three or four weeks and the Court of Referees then say: "You are in no sense a married man; your brothers and sisters are well able to look after your mother in your absence and it would do your mother good if you went down and cut turf and sent your mother home some money."

Mr. Brennan

There is a better answer than that.

We have paid benefit for four or five weeks illegally because the Court of Referees, which is the statutory body set up under the Act, decides that the particular individual has not fulfilled the conditions which would entitle him to benefit. It is a difficult position and the only way out that I can see is by making a reasonable, independent body examine the position and decide can he go, or should he be allowed to go.

Mr. Brennan

I suggest the Minister might be given that discretionary power.

I am giving it to a much more independent body, namely the Court of Referees. I come now to the forms which employers are required to complete under the Wet Time Act. These forms were revised about two years ago in consultation with the secretary and members of the employers' federation and the present forms are based upon what was then agreed with them. If, however, the passage of time has given the builders' federation any new ideas which will enable more simplified forms to be adopted, all they have to do is ask for a further conference and we will discuss the matter with them to see if still greater simplification can be secured.

Deputy Alfred Byrne (Junior) raised the question of the grant of vouchers or the payment of moneys to enable Irish workers in Britain to return home on holiday. He suggested that I should get in touch with the British Ministry of Labour on that matter. That is a matter that will have to be taken up with the Department of Industry and Commerce rather than with the Department of Social Welfare. Normally, we do not deal with the British Ministry of Labour; we deal there with the Department of Social Insurance, and this matter properly comes under the Ministry of Labour in Britain.

Deputy Davern and Deputy Brennan raised the question of the attendance of social welfare officers at meetings of the old age pensions committee. It has never been the practice for these officers to attend those meetings. To do so would seriously interfere with their ordinary work and make the discharge of their duties more troublesome if their time was taken up at meetings of these committees. The officer has a right to attend these meetings and speak at them. It is on instructions issued by the Department that he may attend such meetings, or if requested to do so by the committee. If their other duties permit them, social welfare officers generally will be glad to attend such meetings. My own view is that if they are available they ought to attend, but one does not want to see them detained at a meeting for many hours, to the neglect of other important investigation work. So long as we have pension committees I think there is a case to be made for close contact between the pensions officer and the pensions committee and I am sure a reasonable request from the committee and adequate notice given of such meeting to the social welfare officer will ensure that the officer will put in an appearance when his attendance is required.

There is only one other Deputy who raised matters to which I must now reply; that is Deputy Dr. Ryan. His contribution on this Estimate was the most remarkable contribution to which I have ever listened. Six Estimates are served up here for discussion and examination. Last night Deputy Dr. Ryan opened the debate, and made a speech lasting three-quarters of an hour without once referring to any matter of administration affecting the Department of Social Welfare, a Department of which he was at one time a Minister. Having, apparently, no constructive criticism to offer and not being able to belittle the achievements of the past year or the programme for the next year, Deputy Dr. Ryan secured a document issued by the Labour Party under the title, "Labour Party Proposals on Social Security," and spent three-quarters of an hour quoting from that document issued in 1947.

That must have been most embarrassing.

We shall come to the embarrassment in a moment. He spent three-quarters of an hour quoting from a document issued in 1947.

It was very relevant.

And he successfully managed to avoid saying a single word about the administration of the Department of Social Welfare for the past year or its proposed administration in the coming year. At the end of three-quarters of an hour he sat down, evidently feeling that his was a responsible contribution as an ex-Minister to a serious examination of the work of the Department of which he had previously been in charge. Deputy Ryan proceeded to quote what the Labour Party believed could be accomplished in the field of social security in 1947 if the Labour Party were elected to office.

At this stage I do not think we need go into all the possibilities of that document. There was a fair amount of vision in the document. There was a courageous approach to the problem of social security and, since that time, a fair amount has been done in travelling along the road which that document mapped out. At all events, it makes much more cheerful reading than does the miserable bleating of Deputy Dr. Ryan on a motion in this House in October, 1947, when the Government of the day was asked to modify the means test for pension purposes and when Deputy Dr. Ryan came in wistfully pleading that he could not possibly find another penny to modify the means test; that the motion in question must be defeated; that the Government could not find the £500,000 necessary to do that; and that, consequently, all the people then dependent on pensions subject to a means test would have to continue to put up with that means test which the Fianna Fáil Government did not propose to alter in the slightest degree.

Deputy Dr. Ryan might have been introspective yesterday evening and, if he was critical of some people's high hopes in the realm of social security, he ought to have remembered the miserable picture he painted on the 22nd October, 1947, of the field of social security. If the people have to make a choice between the understanding and the hopes in the Labour Party document of 1947 and the miserable bleatings of Deputy Dr. Ryan in October, 1947, and the future he carved out for the people dependent upon low rates of pensions, I will back every time the document issued in 1947 by the Labour Party. I think it represents some approach towards dealing with the claims of people affected by the motion which Deputy Dr. Ryan rejected on behalf of his Government in October, 1947.

Deputy Dr. Ryan wants to know what has the Government done since in the field of social security. I do not know whether Deputy Dr. Ryan is suffering from amnesia or whether it is that he cannot read the achievements of the Government in the field of social security. While he could not make available £500,000 to modify the means test for old age pensioners in 1947, we made available £2,500,000 the following year to modify the means test and to increase old age pensions. As the Deputies on the opposite benches know quite well, over 100,000 persons, who were then getting old age pensions at the rate of 12/6 a week, are now getting them at the rate of 17/6 a week. In other words, within 12 months of taking office, this Government gave those people an increase of 5/- per week in their old age pensions, while in the previous 32 years they only got an increase of 2/6. Was that doing something for old age pensioners? Is it not a fact that, to-day, we are paying more old age pensions than ever were paid in the history of this country? It is easier to-day to get an old age pension, because of the considerable modification in the means test. For industrially employed and blind persons we have revolutionised the means test, and for widows and orphans, in receipt of non-contributory pensions, we wiped out the former four zones in which pauperised rates of non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions were payable, and we substituted two new areas. In each of these two new areas, the pensions are much higher than they were in any of the other four. Not only did we raise the rates of benefit, but we substantially modified the means test there again.

What was the position under Deputy Dr. Ryan's administration? I shall give the House one or two examples. Under the means test, which was in operation during Deputy Dr. Ryan's régime, if a widow, receiving a non-contributory pension, earned 1/-, that 1/- was taken off her pension. If that widow had a son or a daughter who gave the mother 2/6 a week to help her on the low rate of pension then payable, she could keep the 2/6 but if the son or daughter decided to give the mother 3/- instead of 2/6, then the 6d. came off the widow's pension. That was Deputy Dr. Ryan's means test. What is the position to-day? A widow to-day can get as much as 10/- per week from a son or a daughter and there will be no reduction in her pension. A widow can now earn 10/- a week, and there is no reduction in her pension. Compare that with the position under Deputy Dr. Ryan's régime when if she earned 1/- for a day's work, it came off her pension. The fact is that she is now entitled to earn 10/-, and to keep it all; that her son or daughter can give her another 10/- and that she can keep it all, and still there is no reduction in the pension of that person; while her pension, on top of that, is substantially higher than it was under Deputy Dr. Ryan's régime.

These facts are incontrovertible. Yet Deputy Dr. Ryan last night, as if everyone was as politically blind as himself, wanted to know what the Government had done since 1948. Not only have we spent an additional £2,500,000 on old age, blind and widows' and orphans' pensions, but we have substantially improved, by legislation, the maximum amount of compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Deputies on the opposite benches thought that we would not be in office long enough to modify the means test or to increase pensions. We have shown that, not only have we been in office long enough, but that we have increased pensions to a level which was never previously attained, and that there are very many more people getting better rates of pension than ever got them under the Fianna Fáil régime.

The Deputy's last criticism was that we promised to produce the White Paper but that it would be shelved; that there would be a row between certain members of the Cabinet about the White Paper, and that it would never appear. Even in the Irish Press we had a leading article which appeared while a Labour Party conference was being held saying that the White Paper had been shelved. Its impetuosity was such that it could not wait until the conference was over to see would there be any announcement made about the White Paper. The next day the announcement was made that the White Paper would be issued before the Dáil reassembled. Those on the opposite benches said that the White Paper would never be seen. There, again, the editor of the Irish Press, or the Dáil Reporter, or some of the numerous legendary characters who are interviewed by that paper said that we would never carry the White Paper any further. We have carried it further to the extent that we have now decided to integrate the National Health Insurance Society in the Department of Social Welfare. We have now got the basis on which to rear a wide scheme of social security, and we have introduced into this House a Bill which will provide a scheme of social security based on the provisions of the White Paper. That will be done just as relentlessly and as remorselessly as the other things which we have done in the sphere of social security.

We will keep driving you.

If we do that, then you will be glued to those seats over there because you will never get back.

That is the Minister's only interest in the matter.

Because you have directed all your fire against these proposals which you know are going to keep you in political opposition until you are very many years older. Even now, could some of the Deputies opposite cultivate a modest introspection and say: "When we said that the Government would last only three weeks, we were talking through our hats, but when we gave them an extension to three months, we were talking, if that were possible, through our two hats, since every promise of ours has been falsified by the facts, and this Government has done everything which we said it would not do in the sphere of progressive social legislation?" Could they now, after two and a half years of Cassandra-like prophecy——

We have not seen the Bill yet after two and a half years.

You will be terribly bilious when you do see it. You will have to do the explanation of it yourself as "the Dáil Correspondent".

Two and a half years lost.

"Two and a half years lost"? When the Bill comes here, I will produce the only one document which I could find on social security and to which Deputy Dr. Ryan put his signature. Wait until you see the document of the man who had a scheme ready. I will produce it when we are discussing the Bill. It is the only document on social security which the former Minister put his signature to so far as I can discover, and I presume all the documents were left in the Department. I think we are entitled to say to Deputy Dr. Ryan: "Put down on one side of a sheet of paper what we have done during the past two and a half years and on the other side your own masterly, magnificent inactivity during your year of office in the Department of Social Welfare." If that is done, then I think that intelligent people will realise that the past two and a half years have been fruitful years so far as the Department of Social Welfare is concerned, and so far as its work on behalf of the weak, the needy and helpless people is concerned. So far as Deputy Dr. Ryan is concerned, his one year in that Department was associated with a magnificent inactivity. The Department might as well not have a Minister at all.

May I ask the Minister a question? Will he see that the services of his Department will be placed at the disposal of tenants' associations and similar bodies who would like to have the intricacies of the new scheme explained to them?

I shall consider the matter. I do not know exactly what bodies the Deputy has in mind, but I shall consider to what extent we can meet their requirements.

Motion put and declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn