Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1953

Vol. 136 No. 14

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

Dr. Ryan

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.

The three Supplementary Estimates which I am submitting for the approval of the Dáil to-day are rendered necessary by the Social Welfare Act, 1952.

This Act provided for the unification of the existing insurance schemes relating to national health, unemployment and widows' and orphans' pensions into one scheme with one fund and one stamp covering all the services formerly covered by the separate schemes. This unification of the formerschemes took effect on the 5th January of this year under an Order made by me and the Social Welfare Act, 1952, is now fully in operation.

As a result of this a token Supplementary Estimate for £10 is required this year for the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare in order to provide for increases in the cost of postage and advertising arising out of the implementation of the new Act, which are offset by an increase in the amount appropriated in aid of the Vote from the new Social Insurance Fund and by certain savings on other sub-heads.

The Social Welfare Act, 1952, in addition to making provision for the unification of the existing insurance schemes also made provision for substantial increases in the various benefits, pensions and allowances hitherto payable under the Acts relating to both insurance and assistance schemes. One of the most important of these schemes is that covered by the Old Age Pensions Acts, and here various improvements were made which resulted in increased payments to pensioners. The existing rates of pension were increased generally by 1/6 per week as from the 4th July, 1952, and a new means table was introduced as from 2nd January, 1953, under which a person whose means amount to £52 10s. per annum can obtain the maximum pension of 21/6 per week, and a person with yearly means up to £104 15s. can get the minimum pension of 6/6 per week.

The benefit which has accrued to a large number of pensioners from this new means table can perhaps best be illustrated by the fact that prior to its coming into force 15,252 persons had pensions less than the maximum of 21/6 per week. These had pensions of 16/6, 11/6 and 6/6 per week. As from the 2nd January, 1953, 14,386 of these became entitled to the maximum pension, leaving only 866 in receipt of a pension less than the maximum, and these were receiving pensions of 16/6 per week.

In addition, a considerable number of persons whose means exceeded £65 5s. per annum but did not exceed£194 15s. per annum have, since 2nd January, 1953, become entitled to pensions of from 6/6 to 16/6 per week. These people were formerly not entitled to any pension.

Further improvements effected by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, were that the first £80 per annum of a military service pension and the first £52 5s. per annum of voluntary or gratuitous payments are disregarded when assessing the means of pensioners.

It is estimated that the various provisions which I have mentioned will result in an increase of expenditure on old age and blind pensions in the current financial year of £541,000, and I am asking the Dáil to provide this amount.

The Social Welfare Act, 1952, filled a long-felt want by increasing the amounts payable in sickness and disablement benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts where the recipient of these benefits was married and had a family dependent on him or her. Thus a married man with two children received 50/- per week in benefit after the 5th July, 1952, as compared with 22/6 or 15/- per week before that date.

During the first quarter in which these increased amounts were payable, that is, from the 7th July, 1952, to the 5th October, 1952, the increased expenditure arising from them was to be recouped to the National Health Insurance Fund by the Exchequer, and it is to provide for this recoupment that I am now asking you to approve of the Supplementary Estimate for £214,400 for national health insurance which is before you to-day.

If there is any further information in connection with these three Supplementary Estimates which Deputies would like to have I will do my best to supply it.

Mr. O'Higgins

The House has agreed that the three Estimates be taken together. I am sorry that the Minister in introducing the first Estimate on the Order Paper, No. 60, did not give the House more information with regard to the increased sum required for advertising by his Department. I do not know why this Housewas asked to vote money to the Minister to enable his Department to advertise. I am sure that the sum of £350,000 being asked in the Supplementary Estimate for the purposes of advertising is not usual. It is not so very long ago since the Minister's Government and Party had to fight three by-elections in this country. It is less than 12 months ago and during the course of these three by-elections the Minister's Party used the Department of Social Welfare for political purposes by advertising extensively in the provincial Press, in Mayo, Waterford and Limerick, the benefits that were supposed to accrue to recipients and claimants for old age pensions, to the many thousands of unemployed, in relation to unemployment assistance and to various classes of voters who might be affected by the sudden appearance in their local papers of advertisements by the Department of Social Welfare telling them what a great new deal the Fianna Fáil Government were giving to them.

That was a scandalous abuse by the Government Party, for political purposes, of the functions of the Department of Social Welfare. It could not have been excused on any pretence whatsoever. It was unusual for any Government Department to advertise so extensively in the provincial Press. No case could have been made for that particular form of advertising except the case of expediency. The very life of the Government was threatened in these three by-elections and accordingly precedent was thrown to the winds and the local newspaper editors in these three constituencies got Government advertisements that they never got before.

This matter was raised in the Dáil by Parliamentary Question. The Minister told the Dáil in defence that his Department was anxious to advertise the new—and he would like to have said unexpected—benefits that were coming to the people on and after the 31st July, 1952, and that, accordingly, he took the unprecedented step of bringing these benefits home to everyone by advertising not merely in the daily Press but also in the provincial Press.

That was fair enough so far as it went. It was inclined to be accepted by this House when that reply was given some seven or eight months ago. The ways of Government Departments are extraordinary because precedent is a thing precious to most Government Departments. There was no precedent in the Civil Service for advertising extensively in the provincial Press and when the month of January, 1953, came about new unexpected benefits by our legislation were being conferred on the people of this country. The second half of the Social Welfare Act came into operation and, strange to say, there were no advertisements carried in the provincial newspapers in North Mayo, in East Limerick and in the county of the constituency of Waterford. Such advertisements as were published by the Department of Social Welfare consisted of one run in the Irish Press,of course, and theIrish Independent;I do not know whether anything was published in theIrish Timesor not; theCork Examiner,I hope, carried its proper share.

Why was that? It was because when the month of January came about there were no by-elections threatening the ministerial life of the holder of the office and accordingly it was not necessary to reach every homestead in this country advertising the benefits of the Social Welfare Act.

We have been, as the Minister well knows, a very patient and constructive Opposition but I want to protest against the singular abuse by the Minister of the functions of his Department.

He misused the Department and departmental advertising for political purposes when these three by-elections were being fought. He comes into the Dáil now asking the taxpayer to foot a bill for Fianna Fáil election expenses to the tune of £3,500. I think that is a bit thick. Certainly one would have expected from the Minister, in introducing this Supplementary Estimate, some effort to explain his extraordinary conduct, and I think it would be wrong if this Estimate were passed without some protest in regard to thematter. People have their own views with regard to what happened. I have no doubt that the abuse of Government advertising which was carried out in those by-elections will receive its due penalty in due time.

With regard to the other two Supplementary Estimates moved by the Minister, no opposition, of course, will be raised to the increased money sought in relation to old age pensions. I am very glad to hear from the Minister that there are now in this country fewer than 1,000 old age pensioners—at least there were when the modification of the means test came into operation—in receipt of less than the full pension. I think that will be welcomed by Deputies on all sides of the House.

The Minister asks for an additional sum for national health insurance. Might I raise this matter on behalf of Deputies on all sides of the House because it is a perennial complaint— the persistence of delay in decisions on national health claims? I know this has been raised from time to time, and I would urge on the Minister, now that the administration of national health insurance is part of the Civil Service functions in his Department, that some effort should be made to expedite decisions in these cases.

Mr. Davern

It is going through a revolutionary period—the whole system.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It has passed through a revolution and who was responsible for that revolution? Deputy Norton.

Mr. O'Higgins

The National Health Insurance Society due to the foresight of Deputy Norton, as Minister for Social Welfare, was absorbed by the Department of Social Welfare some three years ago in order to ensure that when the comprehensive social insurance scheme came into operation there would be no time lag. It is perhaps unfortunate that Deputy Norton is not there for the time being to administer the new scheme.

Mr. Davern

He is looking after Tulvar.

Mr. O'Higgins

I urge on the Minister to turn his mind from Tulyar and matters of that kind and get down to putting a little bit of effort into expediting consideration by the national health insurance section of his Department of the particular claims that fall to be considered. Despite the levity displayed by certain Deputies, the facts are that unfortunate claimants, who do suffer illness and unemployment and who make claims for benefit, find that it takes a considerable length of time before a final decision is given as to whether they are entitled to benefit or not. I cannot see why that should be so. Our courts of law each day and each week give pretty speedy justice to litigants in far more complicated sets of facts than whether a person is or is not ill or has or has not paid proper contributions. I certainly do not see why it should take as long as 12 months, from time to time, before a final decision is given by the Department as to whether a particular person is entitled to benefit or not. I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter into which he should inquire with the determination that the same speed should be observed in the investigation of national health insurance cases as is observed in dealing with other claims in the Department. In that connection I should like to say that as a Deputy I find that the administration of the old age pension section of his Department has improved considerably as a result of the efforts of his predecessor. That improvement has been carried on by the present Minister. Certainly even when there is an appeal against the decision in an old age pension claim, the matter is dealt with finally in a very short space of time. I cannot understand why the same set of circumstances should not apply in national health insurance cases.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

While I am aware that a general discussion is not allowed on this Vote on the administration of the Department, I should like to make a few comments. I believe that the manner in which aged people in this country are provided for is very significant. One section is provided with very substantial allowances.Together with those allowances they are also provided with gratuities. Those are the people who formerly occupied sheltered positions, State employees and others. I cannot see for the life of me why these sections of the community should enjoy privileges while the backbone of this country, the small farmer and the working man are not allowed similar privileges.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the Deputy referring to?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am trying to be as brief as I can. We are dealing with the Supplementary Estimate of £542,000. I was just making comparisons with the manner in which other sections are treated. What is significant is that we provide not alone pensions but allowances for those people who are deemed to have completed their service to the State and who have gone into retirement. I believe this old age pensions measure was first introduced in the year 1908 and it was definitely a very advantageous system. Deputy Davern mentioned that the Social Welfare Department was going through a revolutionary period. He is not very far from being correct in that respect because the previous Minister, Deputy Norton, initiated that revolution. I believe it cannot be stopped until some measure of justice and fair play is got for the sections which benefit under it. I remember the time —I suppose Deputy Davern remembers it just as well as I do—when old age pensioners had to go to the home assistance officer and they were allowed an extra 2/6 home assistance by your man.

Mr. Davern

They were reduced 1/- by your colleagues in Fine Gael.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I was merely commenting on a remark by a previous Deputy. However, it is quite true and correct that the previous Minister brought in a number of measures which were exceptionally beneficial for thatsection of the community which has to live on old age pensions. The Minister seems to be laughing at this but these people had to make paupers of themselves and run to a county councillor or a T.D. to ask him to approach the local home assistance officer to see that he would give them an extra 2/6 weekly before Deputy Norton took up office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address himself to the Estimate.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

No one could object if this Supplementary Estimate was much more substantial than the figure of £542,000. I know that any money paid out in old age pensions or for any other type of allowances must come out of the people's pockets. I know that money does not fall from heaven in this country. No money is available from any other source but from the people's pockets. If one section get extra benefits the community must provide for those benefits. I claim that the old age pensioners are not getting their rightful allowance in comparison with other people. No one will contend that the old age pensioner has been treated by any Government in this country in a fair and just way.

The way he is being treated does not at all compare with the way in which the people I have mentioned have been dealt with. The privileged sections of the community have not to undergo any rigid means test. There is no counting the number of hens they may keep.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are only discussing old age pensions and we cannot go over all the pensions in this Estimate.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Excuse me, I think those are important matters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They may be, but not on this Estimate.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Surely no one will contend with the present diminishing value of money that 21/6 a week is a fair allowance for any man to live . A man of 70 years is not in aposition to supplement that by doing other work. I think it is very much out of place to ask a man of 70 years of age to exist on a sum of 21/6 per week. There may be some case for it if other sections of the community were similarly treated, but, as I have said before, that is not the position. Other people get £9 or £10 a week, and when they retire a four-figure retiring gratuity is usual.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy cannot keep to the Estimate, I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am sorry if I transgressed, but I speak to the Estimate when I refer to the inadequacy of the present old age pension allowance. I would like—I think every other member of this House as well as myself would also like—to see some further legislation having particular regard to the diminishing value of money to enable this House to pass a further increase for the old age pensioners. I believe there is no section of the community more entitled to those increases than that particular section.

I would like to impress upon the Minister that the greatest sufferer under the means test imposed in this measure is the worker's wife who happens to be older than the worker himself. I feel sure that matter has been brought to the notice of the Minister before. If the wife of a man who is working with a farmer or with a county council for £4 5s. a week happens—it does happen in some cases —to be older than the man himself and she arrives at the pension age before he ceases to work that woman, although she may be living in grave hardship in a cottage without an acre of land, cannot get one single penny pension. There are a number of those cases from Donegal to the Mizen Head.

I am surprised that during its 30 years of existence this House has not devised some measure that will help such people. It is very difficult for any member of this House or any public representative to explain to a woman living in a cottage without a pennyother than the £4 5s. a week which her husband is earning to maintain herself and his family why she is not entitled to a pension.

Mr. Davern

She is entitled to 6/6.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

She is not entitled to a penny if her husband is earning £4 5s. a week. It is very difficult to explain to such a woman that she is not entitled to a pension when she may see her neighbour's wife with 30 cows enjoying the full pension.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss legislation on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

While I know that discussion is very limited on a Supplementary Estimate, I would like to get information on a matter which I believe is quite appropriate on this Estimate. I refer to the change in the system for dealing with pension appeals.

I believe some change has recently been made by the Minister and his advisors. Heretofore it was possible for a member of this House to approach directly the deciding officer dealing with those appeals. The Minister has now put that approach completely and entirely out of the way. The only person so far as I know at the present a Deputy can approach is a person who has no function whatever to allow an appeal. He is a kind of a Sydney Stanley, a contact man who is supposed to take your views and pass them on to the Central Pensions Appeal Board, a very high sounding name.

I believe that has always been Fianna Fáil policy. I was not a member of this House in 1946, 1947 and those years but the same position operated. Fianna Fáil denied to the people elected by popular vote the right to approach and put their case personally before the State officials at that time. That was changed by our capable Deputy, Deputy William Norton. When he became Minister for Social Welfare he established a right for every Deputy to approach and discuss on a personal basis with the deciding officer any relevant facts on a particular claim. I believe that wasan admirable way of doing business and a system that should not have been changed, but this dictatorial outlook of the present Minister—and I am sorry to say it, because in other ways he is quite a good man—prevents any Deputy from approaching the Pensions Appeal Board. They are now a sacred kind of body; I do not know on what pedestal they are but one cannot touch them. We do not know even where they sit. I ask the Minister to inform the House clearly his reasons for making such a change in such an admirable way of doing business. Many things may arise on a particular appeal which it would be desirable for a Deputy to put before such an officer. Now it is very difficult for any Deputy to do that, as we are debarred from meeting the deciding officer.

Mr. Davern

It is news to me.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Deputy might not have been over there lately.

Mr. Davern

I call there now and again.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Deputy may be taking things easy, resting on his oars now. He seems to think this problem does not exist at all. Everyone knows the old age pension headquarters is in Lord Edward Street. Probably I get different treatment to Deputy Davern. There is no one to meet me or any other Deputy but a liaison officer, who will take the views and transmit them in writing to the Central Pensions Appeal Board. I believe the former system was a better one and I would like to know why it was changed. It is most unfair and most unjust to Deputies that when people approach us and put certain facts before us we cannot put these facts forward clearly and forcibly before the responsible officer. The present Minister has denied us that right for the past five or six weeks, but I hope that in a very short time he will restore it to us.

In connection with widows' pensions, the main people I refer to are widows of farmers. When they apply, their means are assessed on the earning capacity of the farm over the previous 12 months or two years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in this about widows' pensions.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I thought the Minister referred to widows' pensions and that the Vote covered it.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Then I cannot discuss it. Deputy O'Higgins referred to delays in the payment of national health benefit. We are all very glad to see improvements in the rate of payment to national health patients, but unfortunately—due, as Deputy Davern said, to the revolutionary change—delays are taking place. I feel sure that the Minister, having heard the views of this House on this point, will take steps to see that those delays are cut down as much as possible.

Finally, I make a special appeal to the Minister to try and get the Minister for Finance to agree to proposals for an increase in old age pensions. In that he will have the support of every Deputy and of everyone in the country, from Donegal to Cork. I would also ask him to allow the former system to be restored in regard to appeals, so that Deputies may meet the deciding officer personally.

Mr. McGrath

I am sorry I was not in to hear the Minister's speech. I want to draw attention to the great delays in settling national health cases, unemployment claims and children's allowances. There have been great delays certainly in the past few months in the payment of national health claims. When you contact the local office in Cork, you are told they have no records at all of whether the person was paid or not, until the agent comes back from his round, that you can consult him the following morning before eleven, when he goes out again. The officials in the office in Cork are absolutely helpless. It is very unfair to keep people waiting six or seven weeks for a settlement of such claims and to find you have no redress at all unless you come to Dublin.

The same thing is happening withchildren's allowances; there are very long delays and they cannot be settled anywhere except in Dublin. The very same thing happens with any dispute over unemployment claims; they have to be sent to Dublin for some officer to decide. I was told by Deputy Norton when he was Minister for Social Welfare, and also by the present Minister, I think, that very often those cases are dealt with by an official in Dublin who is much junior to the man in charge of the employment exchange in Cork. Trifling disputes over trifling sums have been the cause of holding up a man's claim for weeks and he is referred to the home assistance officer in the meantime to carry on. It must be clear to everyone that this whole Department of Social Welfare is too big to be run from the City of Dublin. It is about time we had some authority in the provinces where we would have the deciding officer in a central place, able to decide whether a man is entitled to get his unemployment benefit or assistance or not, without waiting for this routine of letters going up and down. It is entirely wrong that there should be no record of claims for national health in a place like Cork, where there are so many industrial firms carrying on. When a man is out sick he has to wait and Deputies and others are told there are no records. That state of affairs must not be allowed to continue. In the same way, there are numerous delays over children's allowances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the Estimate dealing with children's allowances or unemployment assistance.

Mr. McGrath

These cases are causing local Deputies any amount of trouble. I find that when I come up here and get on the telephone, not to mind interviewing the deciding officer, I can get satisfaction, as a rule; but it is all wrong that a person should have to travel 160 miles to get an affair settled for a man in Cork. I appeal to the Minister to make some arrangements to have those cases dealt with locally, at least in the big centres, and not inflicting hardship on people by leaving them without theirbenefit and causing an amount of trouble to public representatives.

Dr. Esmonde

With regard to the time allowed for an appeal against the rejection of applications for old age and blind pensions, as the law stands there is a period of a week allowed for an appeal against the committee's decision. The Minister will appreciate that, postal services in outlying districts not always being what they should be, there may be considerable delay before a letter arrives. When the letter arrives, there may be considerable delay before the recipient can get somebody to read it for him and subsequent delay while he waits for somebody to write the reply. In these circumstances, a week is not sufficient, and it has been responsible for a great deal of hardship, of which I am personally aware. Admittedly, the Minister has discretion to allow approximately a fortnight, but I feel that, if it were extended to 21 days, it would alleviate a lot of hardship.

So far as old age pensions are concerned, in a country such as ours, with a great Christian tradition, it should be our aim and object to make the latter days of old people as happy as possible. I admit that there has been an increase recently in the amount of the old age pensions, but everyone will concede that, in the case of the pensioner who lives alone, and even in the case of two pensioners living together, it is extremely difficult for them to live on the sum of money at their disposal nowadays. I am not making any great point about it, but I ask the Minister to consider that he would be doing only common justice—and would have the support of all Parties—if he gave them a small increase to enable them to meet the terrific rise in the cost of living. If any particular section of the community find themselves up against it, they are protected by a trade union or some other organisation and they look for an increase, but the old age pensioners have no redress. If the cost of living goes up, they have nobody to fall back upon, so that it is up to Deputies to state the case for them and impress on theMinister the need for considering their position.

Another aspect is the means test, which in some cases operates too harshly against people. The Minister ought to consider some amelioration of it. In the case of a person who has a little money, which he possibly has saved by his own industry and hard work and put aside for his later days, some officer is sent down from the Department—I am not decrying the officer who is merely doing his duty— to cut his pension down from the full amount which he is entitled to get from the State. I suggest that the Minister should look into that point.

Mr. Hickey

Deputy Davern spoke about a revolution in the Social Welfare Department, but I am at a loss to discover where it is, because it is sad to see the method of dealing with appeals and national health cases at present. In order to give the Minister an idea of what I have in mind, I can tell him that no later than last Monday I was asked to act for a young fellow who was unable to leave his bed through illness and to meet the appeals officer with regard to a national health claim. I am prepared to admit that delay is bound to arise in particular cases, but I met the officer who I found was considerate and efficient but tied up in the usual red tape. The remarkable feature about this case was that the sick man had handed in 41 certificates, which were there on the file. I ask any Deputy if there was any justification for making a man wait 41 weeks before the appeals officer decided the matter.

I have said before that there are a number of national health cases in respect of which I am at a loss to know why there is such a delay in making payment. I know a case of a man who was out ill for seven weeks and who handed in seven certificates. He went back to work in the eighth week and he had not received his national health benefit. I do not agree with Deputy McGrath that the officers in the Cork offices are helpless. I think we have most efficient officials in these offices and in the labour exchanges.

Mr. McGrath

I agree, but they have not got records.

Mr. Hickey

I cannot accept that either, because any time I made inquiries about delays, I found they could put their fingers on the claims almost immediately. I want to repeat what I have said before on many occasions, that there should be an executive officer to decide these issues.

I know of a case of a widow with a non-contributory pension whose daughter secured employment and whose pension was reduced because her daughter had gone to work. She reported the matter to me and I made inquiries. The official in the Cork office had all the particulars before him and there was no dispute on the facts. I was surprised to learn after some weeks that the claim had not been decided, and I called into D'Olier House in Dublin and asked who was dealing with cases of the kind from the Cork City area. I asked the young gentleman to whom I was introduced what was the cause of the delay and he told me that he was preparing a statement for the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin Castle. Does the Minister think that any such system as that can be efficient? There was no disputing the facts and yet that case had to come to Dublin to be decided, although, in the last analysis, the deciding officer had to rely on what the responsible official in Cork stated in his report. I suggest —I have advocated it for years—that the time has arrived when the managers of the different Social Welfare Departments should have executive authority to deal with all these cases, and, if a case is to go forward for appeal, let it be put to the appeals officer in reasonable time.

With regard to old age pensions, I must say that I regret that the amount is not large and I am afraid that every one of us is somewhat thoughtless with regard to the position of old age pensioners. These people are now receiving 21/6 a week, the purchasing power of which sum, related to what it could buy in 1939, is 9/-, according to what the Taoiseach told us last week.

I ask any member of the House to pause and think how he would spendthat 21/6 per week which, at the present value of money, will purchase only 9/- worth of articles. He is expected to get three meals a day: all he could get would be 1/- for each meal in the week, without anything for clothing, boots or any of the other necessaries of life. I know of widows who are living alone and who are paying 4/6 a week for their cottage. They have to eke out an existence on what remains of the 21/6. How can such persons—and there are many of them—be expected to eke out a living on such a small sum per week?

An Ceann Comhairle

Could the Minister increase it by an administrative act? That is the only thing that the Deputy can discuss. Administration is all that can be discussed on this Estimate.

Mr. Hickey

The position of widows, old age pensioners and those in receipt of national health insurance is extremely difficult. I think that everybody in this House should consider seriously increasing the amounts payable to those persons in order to enable them to purchase the bare necessaries of life—which they cannot do at the moment.

Mr. Cogan

There is nothing so grotesque or absurd as a city Deputy who purports to represent a rural constituency. We heard Deputy O'Higgins launch a violent attack on the Minister for Social Welfare for daring to advertise the social welfare benefits in the provincial papers. I think that that action on the part of a Deputy who claims to represent a provincial constituency ought to open the eyes of other Deputies to the situation which is developing in this country in which city men take complete control of the whole of rural Ireland, seek to dictate how things ought to be done in rural Ireland——

Mr. Hickey

That is a serious matter.

Mr. Cogan

——and seek to misrepresent rural constituencies. The Minister was perfectly right to advertise the benefits of the Social Welfare Act in the widest possible way. Infact, I think there was a moral obligation on the Minister to advertise those benefits. Those who came into benefit as a result of the passing of the Social Welfare Act are people in a number of walks of life—agricultural workers, old age pensioners, the unemployed and the sick. They are entitled to have the benefits conferred upon them by the Social Welfare Act brought to their immediate notice so that they may claim those benefits. The same remarks apply to the increase in the children's allowances. Deputy O'Higgins stated that it is adequate to advertise those benefits in the daily Press. I acknowledge that the daily Press has a very wide circulation in this country and that it is very influential as a medium of advertising. At the same time, the provincial Press enjoys a wide circulation. In some areas, particularly in the remote rural areas, it is possible that the provincial Press has a greater influence and is a more effective medium of advertising than the daily Press. In many cases the weekly provincial paper is the only paper that reaches a home. In addition, it is often very intensively studied in such homes. For that reason I think the Minister would have done a great injustice to a large section of the poorer people of this country if he had not advertised the benefits of the Social Welfare Act last year in the provincial papers. Deputy O'Higgins said that there is no precedent for such advertising. We all know that there are many such precedents. We know that many Acts and regulations which affect the people—particularly the people of rural Ireland—are invariably advertised in the local papers. Increases in agricultural wages are invariably advertised in the provincial papers. That is done because the information is intended to reach people in remote rural areas.

Therefore, there is no foundation whatever for the absurd suggestion by Deputy O'Higgins that the advertising of the benefits of the Social Welfare Act in the provincial Press had a political foundation. It must be remembered that the benefits of the Act are very far-reaching. In many cases the benefits to the sick and the unemployed were doubled. There wasa substantial increase in children's allowances and, as well as that, the system of payment was altered. It was absolutely essential that these facts should have been brought to the notice of the people concerned in a very clear way; otherwise an injustice might be done to them inasmuch as they might not be aware of the benefits to which they were legally entitled. For these reasons, I think it was foolish for Deputy O'Higgins to come in here and to make a sort of political charge in respect of an ordinary routine and administrative act.

Everybody sympathises with the view that the benefits afforded to the aged, under the Old Age Pensions Acts, ought to be improved, where possible. In the first place, we cannot discuss this matter very extensively on this Supplementary Estimate and, secondly, we ought to realise that a substantial amount is being done. In this Supplementary Estimate we are asking for £500,000 on top of £8,290,000: in other words, we are now paying out almost £9,000,000 in old age pensions alone. I have not the figures for other years, but I believe that they would reveal that the present expenditure represents a considerable increase on that of previous years and that, every year, we are stepping-up the benefits and the expenditure under this heading.

Many comments have been made to the effect that 21/6 is an inadequate reward to the aged. In that regard it can be said that old age pensions have been increased by 4/- per week since the change of Government took place two years ago and, having regard to the difficulties of the financial position, I think that is a substantial concession. While a large number of old age pensioners have other sources of income—to the extent, at any rate, that they receive assistance in some form or other from their families—a number of old age pensioners, perhaps only a small number, are entirely dependent on the old age pension, and I would recommend that particular minority to the sympathetic consideration of the Minister. I do not intend to say any more in regard to that matter now.

I should like to see the agricultural worker and the man in the low wage group automatically receive the old age pension when he reaches 70 years of age irrespective of whether or not he has been working up to his seventieth birthday.

Mr. Desmond

There is very little that I have to say except that I am in full agreement with the remarks made by Deputy Hickey, Deputy McGrath, Deputy Esmonde and Deputy M.P. Murphy to the effect that it would be to the benefit of the people in the rural areas if the Minister were to agree to have greater decentralisation. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us the number of cases in which appeals were taken by the appeals officer against the decision of the local committees, and the number of appeals dealt with at headquarters where the full amount was given in spite of the appeal brought against the local recommendation. That information would tell us the amount of money that is being spent on bringing objections to pensions granted by the local committees.

Speaking from experience, I deplore the present idea of moving back to the system of an appeals board. I think it only fair to say that I believe the officials in Dublin approach the hearing of appeals from a human point of view. I cannot recall any instance where they adopted the attitude of cutting down, if possible, the amount of a pension. I realise, of course, that they must act on the instructions not of the Minister but of the Government which lays down a certain fixed standard for dealing with border-line cases.

I agree with Deputy M.P. Murphy that no matter how well-intentioned the members of an appeal board may be, there could be occasions when it would be of great assistance to them if they could be made aware of the local circumstances on which appeals are based. That information is not always made readily available to them by the local officer bringing the appeal against the original decision in favour of a claimant.

I would say that, since 1948, theapproach of appeals officers has, in many cases, improved. The Minister, when giving advice to them, should lay emphasis on the fact that in dealing with border-line cases, they should consider all the facts and see that the benefit of the doubt went to the applicant rather than to the local appeals officer. I believe that while, on the whole, the officials are well-intentioned, the fact is that at times in rural Ireland, we come across the odd official who has his eye constantly fixed on the horizon of promotion. Consequently, he believes in dealing drastically, not with human beings but with "numbers" as he regards those whose claims for the old age pension come before him. That is not a befitting way for an official or anyone else to deal with the claims of old age pensioners. That approach should be based from the Christian viewpoint.

This question of decentralisation, is of primary importance to the people in rural Ireland. There is an appeals board in Dublin. What case, therefore, can there be for not setting one up in Cork, in Galway for the West and in other important provincial centres? Why send all the cases to Dublin when they could be more satisfactorily dealt with locally? Surely, the Minister could find within his Department a number of officials who could deal as conscientiously with these appeals in the different centres throughout the country as they do in Dublin. If that were done, the people would be better satisfied. If one takes an appeal of any kind, one can say this, that there is the feeling in the rural areas that if it has to be decided in Dublin everything is already lost. People have the feeling that their case will not be considered in Dublin in the way they would like it to be considered. I believe that if appeals were heard locally by the higher officials, there would be greater satisfaction amongst the people concerned, with the added advantage that appeals would be disposed of with greater speed than at present.

I do not know what advice has been given since the present Minister took over, but I know that, when Deputy Norton was the Minister in thisDepartment, he laid emphasis on the fact that the approach of the appeals officer should be a humanitarian approach on the grounds that in 99 cases out of 100 the applicants were not looking for anything to which they were not entitled. Previously, some appeals officers did not approach these problems in that light. There might be the danger now that they would revert back to that position. If that should happen it would adversely affect the lives of many of our people who, in the vast majority of cases, are honest and just in respect to the claims which they make. I would appeal to the Minister to instruct his appeals officers that, when dealing with appeals brought against decisions of the local committees they should do so in a manner befitting officials in a Christian country.

Mr. Sweetman

In my constituency during the past four to six months I found complaints about delays in the payment of disability benefit that certainly did not reach me before. I do not know whether it is a coincidence. I do know if there were the same delays before—but that they did not reach me—the position is that in the last four months particularly, from about November, I have received many more complaints about delay in regard to the payment of benefit in County Kildare than had been put to me previously. There was a question in regard to one specific instance on the Order Paper last week where a man had been seven weeks without payment of his disability benefit. There was another case in Monasterevan where the man concerned had to be taken to the county hospital. I am sorry to say that he had to be taken there because of real need, where the case was one where benefit was definitely due.

There are undoubtedly at present cases of delay in the constituency and the Minister should take steps to ensure that delay will be eliminated and the benefits paid. They are, of course, the type of case more than any other where need is not merely great but is urgent. The Minister will appreciate that much more than I do, undoubtedly, and it is the type of casethat requires immediate attention. If it means, so to speak, taking certain shock troops out of the Department and sending them in to clear up an area, if the problem is confined to County Kildare, I hope the Minister will do something to ensure that payment can be made immediately.

Dr. Ryan

I shall deal first with the matter raised by Deputy O'Higgins. I was asking for certain money for advertising and he accused me of using money for advertising in Mayo, Waterford and Limerick during the by-elections there. Advertising was done in the local Press and in the daily Press at that particular time, admittedly, but no more was done in Waterford, Limerick or Mayo than was done in any other county in Ireland. It was necessary because there were 800,000 people affected by the new insurance scheme and the benefits were all coming in around the first week of July. The Party opposite moved to have the election fought around that time. I think they made a valiant attempt to have the polling before the new benefits came in. As a matter of fact, they did say, off the public platforms, that the people should not believe in these new benefits because they would never come and the advertisements had to be put in to tell the people that the new benefits were coming to them whether a by-election was being fought or not.

Mr. Sweetman

Of course, that is not what was said off the public platforms.

Mr. Corry

There was a lot more said.

Mr. Sweetman

There was, by the Deputy, in Piltown.

Mr. Corry

We put the run on you quickly.

Mr. Sweetman

And he never came back.

Mr. Corry

I nailed a lot of your lies.

Dr. Ryan

As Minister for Social Welfare, I have to carry on my business whether there is a by-election being fought or not, and the fact that there is a by-election being fought cannot prevent me bringing to thenotice of certain individuals that they are entitled to certain benefits and therefore should apply for them.

That advertisement was put in practically all the local papers—not all— and in all the daily papers because there were 800,000 people affected. Deputy O'Higgins wanted to know why the same thing was not done in January. The number affected in January was only a few thousand people. As a matter of fact, the 15,000 people who were getting less than the full old age pension did not need to see the advertisements, because the officers looked after them and gave them the old age pension when they applied for it because they knew what their means were. I got several letters. I got one letter from a local paper threatening me that they would never report me again if I did not give them an advertisement in January and I wrote back and said I would have to put up with that and I did put up with it. I suppose they will report me again. Maybe it would not do me any harm if they did not.

Mr. Sweetman

There may be times when the Minister would wish not to be reported.

Dr. Ryan

I was carrying on my job innocently enough as Minister and I am accused now by Deputy O'Higgins, but what surprises me is the man who could have the mind to accuse me of that sort of thing.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister is very innocent.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to the complaints about delays in dealing with national health insurance claims. I quite admit that there was very great delay and very great confusion in two particular directions—national health insurance and children's allowances. The reason was that the whole thing had to be re-examined. Any claim under national health insurance that came in had to be re-examined to see whether the person had dependents or not because up to that stage, it made no difference whether a man had dependents or not, he got the same amount. The same applies in respectof children's allowances: the thing had to be re-examined with regard to the number in family. There were very big delays there also.

I was principally responsible, I am afraid, for this. I tried to get this whole scheme through without increasing the staff of the Department of Social Welfare. We added no staff whatever and at the same time I said to the Department, "You must put these new schemes through and get them into working order as quickly as possible." They did. They did their best. There was a great deal of confusion, I admit. There was no extra staff. As a matter of fact, we are facing the coming year now with a lower staff than we had last year. I think it is a great credit to the Department that they have tried to do things in that way. I am told by the Department that for the last four or five weeks things have come back to normal.

There will be always certain cases, of course, where delays will occur because there may be something wrong with the claim, sometimes, perhaps, due to the Department but very often due to the insured person, because the card is not properly stamped, or something like that, and it means a long delay. But, apart from that odd case that will occur, I am assured by the Department that we are back to normal and if Deputies have complaints to make I would like very much that they would let me know what they are. I am very anxious to get this whole scheme working smoothly and I do not want to have people who are sick and who are depending on the money having to wait for it. I would like to see the whole machine running as smoothly as possible and I would welcome complaints from Deputies about individual cases and maybe it would help me to get things going better in future.

Mr. Hickey

What about the suggestion of leaving it to the local manager to decide most of these claims?

Dr. Ryan

That suggestion was made about the local man having more power. Records are kept at headquarters. There will be one insurancecard in future and one stamp will be put on that card for each week. It is extremely difficult to work the system unless the card is kept in some central office, and that, of course, will be, for the present anyway, Dublin. I am afraid it would create a great deal of confusion. Deputy Hickey or any other Cork Deputy—Deputy McGrath—may say to me why not leave the Cork cards in Cork and put a responsible man there who will pay any claims that arise, whether they are sickness benefit, unemployment benefit or whatever they may be. To some extent that may work all right, but there is a fair amount of movement of people from other counties into Cork, and we all know there is a fair amount of movement of Cork people away from Cork, and every single case that arises like that will cause interminable delay and confusion if some are kept in Cork and some are kept in Dublin.

Mr. Sweetman

It might help to keep Cork people in Cork.

Dr. Ryan

Unless he brings his card with him when he is coming. I think it would create a great deal of confusion. I am very anxious to decentralise this Department if I can, and I am considering very seriously—not on the lines the Deputy has mentioned— whether a whole service could not be transferred, say, to Cork and Galway.

We have about five services—un-employment, sickness, widows and orphans, children's allowances and old age pensions. I am thinking seriously of whether we could transfer one of these to Cork and one to Galway. That is the only way in which it can be done. There is no use trying to decentralise partly when the headquarters are in Dublin. That is as far as I have examined the matter.

Mr. McGrath

Surely it would not be impossible, if you had any records, to transfer a person from one area to another? We were discussing the question of appeals where there are disputes on matters connected with the employment exchanges.

Dr. Ryan

As a matter of fact, I am hoping to have a referee in Cork todecide certain cases. We are doing these things as far as we can. There has been quite a lot of talk about pension appeals. Deputy Murphy and other Deputies raised this question. There is a complete change as a result of the Act that was passed. It is not a regulation in this case, it is the Act which laid down quite a different procedure for appeals. There is now only one appeal officer and he is responsible for deciding all appeals whether in regard to widows' pensions, old age pensions or whatever they may be. Naturally, of course, one man cannot do it all and he has four or five people working under him. The idea was to get uniformity, and I think everybody will agree with that—that if a man in Cork is allowed the old age pension, a man in the same circumstances in Mayo should also get the pension. That is the object of the scheme. One man is in charge and has a staff under him. He decides all appeals as uniformly as possible. In the Act it is laid down that he is to do this in a certain way from the files and, therefore, is not to be compelled to hear anybody on behalf of the particular person concerned. A liaison officer was appointed to convey anything that might be said on behalf of a particular applicant to the appeals officer.

I think every Deputy will agree that what we want is absolute fair play, that whoever the applicant may be he should get fair play and that no intercession or influence should count on the part of anybody, whatever Party he belongs to. That is the only way to get real fair play, namely, by having one appeals officer who will decide on what is submitted to him, and I think you will get it under this system. Deputy Norton brought in a Bill in which there was the same provision as was in mine. I have been accused by certain Deputies of copying Deputy Norton's Bill. I did do it in that respect. I am not saying that to bring any trouble on Deputy Norton, but because I agree with him absolutely that that is the fairest system. Even when I was in opposition I never agreed with approaching the appeals officer. I often wrote to him, but I never agreed with approaching him or trying to persuade him to give apension to which a person was not entitled. We should aim at a perfectly fair system so that a man who has no T.D. to intercede for him shall have the same chance of getting justice as the man who has a T.D. to intercede for him.

Deputies opposite spoke of some social welfare officers being harsh. Some of them may be a bit harsh, perhaps more harsh than others, but I can assure Deputies that that is not a good mark for any officer, because an officer in the Department of Social Welfare, like any other Department, will not get promotion by being harsh If he wants to get promotion, his record is looked up to see if he is judicious and fair in his reports. If he is harsh at all times, that will not earn him any good mark.

Mr. Hickey

I do not like the word "judicious"—some are too judicious.

Dr. Ryan

A man cannot be too judicious.

Mr. Sweetman

"Impartial" is a better word.

Dr. Ryan

All right, we will say impartial. I was also asked by certain Deputies whether the instruction given to these officers in my predecessor's time still holds, that is to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. It certainly does. I think any Deputy will admit that wherever there is any doubt the applicant usually gets his pension. I think that the whole scheme has been administered in a very sympathetic way and that you could not accuse the Department of Social Welfare of depriving people of benefits to which they were actually entitled. If anybody wished to do it, probably he could make a case that the officers of the Department have sometimes given benefits when they really should not be given, but we will not find very much fault with them for that.

Mr. Sweetman

You should not say that when the Minister for Finance is here.

Dr. Ryan

I should like in conclusion to make an appeal to Deputies. I amvery anxious to see the whole thing running very smoothly and I can assure any Deputy, whatever Party he belongs to, that I will not take it amiss if he writes to me complaining that any particular person has been delayed in getting his benefit because it will help me to get things smoothed out.

Dr. Esmonde

With regard to the time allowed for appeals against decisions of the pensions tribunal—at present it is one week—would the Minister not consider extending it to 21 days?

Dr. Ryan

I had that question before me recently and I decided to extend the time. I am not sure what the number of days is, but I think it is 21 days at the moment.

Dr. Esmonde

I suggest to the Minister that it should be 21 days.

Dr. Ryan

I think that is what it is now.

Question put and agreed to.