Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1954

Vol. 144 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 61 — Social Insurance.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,577,800 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund (No. 14 of 1950 and No. 11 of 1952).

When the Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare were being discussed in Dáil Éireann in December last, I stated that it would be necessary to bring in a substantial Supplementary Estimate for Social Insurance before the end of the present financial year. That Supplementary Estimate is now before you.

It provides for an additional payment by the Exchequer of £1,568,000 to the Social Insurance Fund in 1953-54 under Section 39 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. That section provided that the Exchequer would pay into the Social Insurance Fund the amount by which its expenditure exceeded its income in any year. For the year 1953-54 expenditure on the various benefits provided out of the fund and on administration was originally estimated at £7,250,000, of which just under £2,000,000 had to be provided by the State, the balance coming from the contributions of employers and employed persons and from income from investments.

It is now estimated that expenditure of the Social Insurance Fund in the current financial year will amount to £8,500,000, or £1,250,000 more than the original Estimate. In the original Estimate income from contributions was put at £4,750,000. This amount is now estimated at £4,500,000. There is, therefore, a deficit of £1,500,000 to be made good and this amount is provided by the Supplementary Estimate before you.

The amount may seem large but I should point out that the year 1953-54 is the first full year in which the provisions of the new Act were in operation. Owing to the radical changes in the financial structure of social insurance effected by that Act it was extremely difficult to estimate the amounts of the expenditure and the income of the fund when the Act would be in full operation.

In the provision made for expenditure on unemployment benefit in the original Estimate allowance was made for the probable increase in expenditure due to the more favourable conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit under the new Act; for example, the longer duration of benefit arising from the modification of the contribution conditions, the fact that agricultural workers, who were not previously insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, would be eligible for unemployment benefit, and the further fact that persons who had exhausted some or all of their title to benefit under the old legislation would be able to qualify for benefit afresh.

It was assumed that the altered conditions referred to would result in approximately 10 per cent. of the persons who were in receipt of unemployment assistance immediately before the appointed day becoming entitled to unemployment benefit. In the event, however, it was found that the actual transfer from assistance to benefit was in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent.

Allowance was also made for an increase in the average rate of benefit as a result of the increased rates provided for claimants and their dependents. The extent of the allowance made has, however, proved inadequate, the rate of unemployment benefit being substantially higher than the figure on which the Estimate was based.

These factors, taken in conjunction with the overall increase in the live register in the early part of the financial year — an increase largely attributable to the legislative changes made by the Social Welfare Act, 1952 — have resulted in a very substantial increase in the amount expended on unemployment benefit.

The more attractive rates of disability benefit have resulted in a greater increase in the number of claims than the increase which had been allowed for this factor in the original Estimate. In addition, the inclusion of payments for adult and child dependents of claimants was a new feature of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. At the time of preparation of the original Estimate the short experience of this new feature indicated that about one-third of the claimants would have dependents, whereas present indications are that in the case of men a figure of 50 per cent. is more correct.

In the course of the December debate on the main Estimate I referred to an increase in disability benefit claims which could not be explained as arising from deterioration in the health of the population. Within recent years there has been a steady growth in the number of medical cerficates received and the figures for 1953 are over 50 per cent. greater than those for 1948, though in the intervening five years the number of persons insured has increased by only 2 per cent. I have since taken the matter up with the medical profession and asked them to ensure as far as possible that only those genuinely ill will receive medical certificates. Doctors may contend that there is always an element of doubt as to whether a person is ill or not. There is, however, a well-established procedure for dealing with such cases in the medical referee scheme. This scheme was instituted for the purpose of making available the impartial advice of independent medical referees on questions of doubt as to incapacity and should be utilised fully by the medical profession for the purpose. Again, where a medical certifier is satisfied that an applicant is not ill he should not hesitate to refuse a certificate. In addition he should, in accordance with the procedure laid down for dealing with such cases, notify my Department of the fact. This is most important, as steps can then be taken to ensure that the applicant cannot obtain benefit by means of a certificate from some other source.

I feel certain that, having called attention to these matters, I will have the full co-operation of medical certifiers in ensuring that the social Insurance Fund is not imposed upon. I am also having an examination made by officers of my Department of other steps which may be taken towards the same end, but I should emphasise that the full co-operation of certifiers is the most vital factor in the situation.

As Deputies are aware, men's insurance contribution cards are now surrendered in January and women's cards in July. The men's cards which were surrendered in January of this year covered a period of 15 months, while the women's cards which were surrendered in July of last year covered a period of only nine months. As the sale of stamps is always heaviest at the termination of the period of currency of the cards, these changes in the date of surrender and the period covered by the cards which have been surrendered in the present financial year rendered estimation of the amount which would be received in respect of contributions difficult and resulted in the overestimation which I have already mentioned. I have now dealt with the principal factors which have resulted in the need to provide a further sum of £1,568,000 for the Social Insurance Fund in the present financial year. There are small variations in other items of income and expenditure which have been taken into account but which I do not think it is necessary to enumerate.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister has made a statement to the House which I think ought to cause grave concern not merely to the members of the House but to the country outside. The extraordinary difference between the Estimate and what has actually happened cannot be disposed of just as lightly as the Minister would appear to think in the rather brief statement he made and without going in any way fully into an explanation as to how it occurred.

I do not think any of us here want to say—in relation to the operation of this particular Act or any other Bills which the Minister has brought before this House—that "we told you so," but there is here I think full evidence of haste—unnecessary haste—and going ahead with proposals and giving proposals legislative effect without having properly considered the impact of the proposals which were being put before the House and the country. The effect of that is, of course, that for a start— this, be it marked, occurs long before this particular piece of legislation gets into its full sweep—the taxpayer is now being called on for an additional £1,250,000. How much greater that sum will be in the future remains to be seen, but there are only two ways— which can be taken separately or both together—of meeting it, either by calling further on the taxpayer or by increasing the rate of contributions, or by both.

The Minister told us that in respect of one aspect the estimate was 10 per cent.; in actual practice it has turned out to be 30 per cent. Surely that requires more than a passing mention from the Minister. There is full evidence of legislation being rushed before this House and being rushed through the House without full discussion and full consideration, merely for political purposes. The problem is not dealt with on the merits and is not fully analysed and understood.

The Minister told us that the estimated income from contributions was £4,750,000. Again, he did not get within £250,000 of the estimate. Why? The Minister tried to indicate that that was due to everything but the real cause, namely, increased unemployment. He never once mentioned it. He attributed it to people chopping and changing and coming under different headings and different schedules —anything but the real cause—increased unemployment in the country and, therefore, fewer contributions.

It is staggering to be told by the Minister that in five years the number of sickness claims has increased by 50 per cent. Every member of the House, irrespective of which side of the House he may be, and the people outside will be shocked at that figure. This, at a time and during a period when we are told that medical science is grasping more thoroughly, more efficiently and more successfully with illness generally and in particular with some of the types of illnesses that were mainly responsible for laying people off work. The Minister tries blandly, by implication, to attribute the entire of that 50 per cent. to loose certification by the medical profession. That was the only explanation, in so far as it could be called an explanation, that he gave. He said he had made representations to the medical certifiers that they should be more careful in future.

As one who was fairly closely connected for a long number of years with the old National Health Insurance committees before there was unification, and even subsequent to that, may I say that that statement has been made and those representations that the Minister says he has made, have been made to medical certifiers for the last 35 years?

Of course, what the Minister is saying in effect is that there has been an increase of 50 per cent. in malingering by the workers. That is really what he means. He does not put it into those words but anyone who knows anything about it will agree that that is the only conclusion that can be drawn. If there is an increase of 50 per cent. in malingering, why are the workers malingering? Is it because they prefer to eke out an existence on the health benefit rather than on a full week's wages? Is it because they have been unemployed or fear unemployment? Is it because they were under-employed or part-time employed?

I do not want to make this appear any worse than it is. I do not want to draw any conclusions from this extraordinary picture which the Minister has put before the House other than are warranted but I do seriously suggest that it is a matter that should be of the very gravest concern to the Minister, his Department, the House and everybody immediately interested. It will be a matter of very grave concern to the already overburdened taxpayers when they find that for this particular service alone, before the Act goes into full operation, they have to stump up an additional £1,250,000.

The Minister has a duty to the House to give a much fuller and much more satisfactory explanation of that extraordinary increase of 50 per cent. in claims for sickness benefit. He certainly owes the House an explanation as to the difference between the estimate of 10 per cent. and the actual 30 per cent.

One can understand now the Minister's reluctance in relation to another piece of social legislation to tie himself to any estimate as to the cost of operating and implementing it. One can only hope that whatever estimates were made in connection with that piece of legislation were much nearer the bone than the estimates in connection with this service. If the costs of the other legislation are to be increased in proportion to the increase in the cost of this service, I am afraid a blister has been laid on the community that is far greater even than some of us feared.

Mr. Norton

I listened with a good deal of perplexity to the statement made by the Minister in justification of this Supplementary Estimate. I do not think the Minister can pretend to be satisfied with the baby that has been handed to him by the Department of Social Welfare in the matter of estimates. I do not think the Department is entitled to any credit for the mess which has been made of estimating with regard to the Social Welfare Act. It is understandable that in connection with a new Act of this kind one cannot hit the mark with precision and, inevitably, estimates tend to drift from original concepts. I do not think we have got a full explanation as to why the Estimate has fallen short to the extent of £1,500,000. The Minister's statement did not convey any adequate explanation of his hopeless mis-hit in the matter of estimating the cost of this scheme.

The Central Statistics Office publish what are recognised nationally and internationally as very valuable statistics. That office has a high reputation for the breakdown of statistics relating to population and to all kinds of transactions. In view of the fact that the Department had access to that source of information, it is rather extraordinary that, as Deputy Morrissey said, the estimated dependency in connection with disability benefits was 10 per cent. whereas it turned out to be 30 per cent. The fact that the Department are out by 20 per cent. in estimating dependency, although excellent figures are available from the Central Statistics Office, requires something more than a rather cursory: "Ah, well, we made a mistake." It is clear that somebody cannot read figures or cannot estimate with anything approaching reasonable accuracy, if the figure is given as 10 per cent. and it turns out to be 30 per cent.

I think that the Minister has hardly treated the House fairly by the rather casual explanation which he gave of this hopeless Estimate as disclosed in his own statement. I think that the Minister might have given us a breakdown estimate of what exactly has caused this underestimation. We are told that the estimate of contributions was £4,750,000 but in fact the actual sum received was £4,500,000. What caused that underestimation? It was easy to ascertain what was the employed population of the country at the time the Act came into operation and by additions and subtractions to make certain calculations. Why the drop of £250,000 in the contribution income in one year? We have got no adequate explanation of that. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister what exactly is the cause of the short-fall in revenue attributable to. Is it attributable to the fact that the Department miscalculated the number of insured contributors or to the fact that the Department miscalculated the extent of unemployment, or is it due to the fact that there was a miscalculation of the number of insured contributors allied with a miscalculation as to the extent of unemployment that would exist over a period? It should be possible to get that information from the Department.

On the question of what caused the remainder of the short-fall we are told that dependency was miscalculated. In one instance it turned out to be 30 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. How much of the Supplementary Estimate is due to that fact and how much of it is due to the various other claims made on the fund which were not adequately estimated at the time that the general Estimate was prepared? I think we ought to get that information from the Minister. We are discussing this in Committee and I desire to reserve my right to speak on this again when I get the information that I require. It is not possible to discuss the Estimate unless you get an answer to certain questions so that you may be able to base your deductions on them.

I heard the Minister say that since 1948 the number of persons drawing sickness benefit had increased by 50 per cent., and that over a period of five years. That is a very serious figure and there must be some explanation for it. In the way in which the Minister referred to the matter one would think that either of two things had happened, (1) that insured persons are malingering. Does the Minister stop short at saying that they are malingering? Let us bear this in mind in connection with what the Minister has suggested, that all those persons with a claim for benefit have got a certificate from a doctor to the effect that they are ill, and that these certificates have been submitted from the insured persons. In view of the fact that they have been, or ought to have been, examined by a doctor before benefit was paid, and as the certificates have been received by them from a doctor, it passes my comprehension how it can be suggested that there is malingering on the part of these persons.

The Department itself and the Minister are indulging, I think, in what apparently is intended by the Department to be a warning to the doctors. I suggest that it should be possible for the Minister, if there is malingering, to deal with it, but it is hardly fair to refer to this matter in certain global language and give the impression that all the traditional illness which is now existent is due to malingering on the part of insured persons or to a conspiracy between the doctors and the insured persons. This is a matter which should not be left where the Minister has left it in his speech. He has left it in a most unsatisfactory position. Nobody knows whether the doctor has been guilty of ill-attention in the issue of certificates or whether the doctor has been fooled by the insured persons. Until there is some evidence that an insured person has been malingering, I am prepared to believe that the person is genuinely ill especially when the illness is covered by a certificate from a medical officer.

Is the Department itself helpless in this matter? As the Minister well knows, the Department has four medical officers in its service. I do not know whether the number has been increased or decreased within the last couple of years, but these doctors are there as watch-dogs for the Department. If they think that an insured person is receiving benefit improperly, the Department can refer the case to the district medical referee. The district medical referee is not there for the health of the insured person or as a kind of a welfare officer for the insured person. He is there, in fact, as a kind of watch-dog for the Department, so that if there is malingering the Department itself has a method of dealing with it and, in fact, does. If I have any complaint on this matter it is that the Department sends persons to the district medical referee who ought to have their benefit continued. Very frequently persons are sent to the district medical referee and the payment of benefit is stopped. It is only reinstated when the district medical referee reports that there was no justification for stopping the benefit in the first instance. There is no use in the Department saying that it is the doctor who certifies who is responsible. The Department has its own remedy if there is malingering for dealing with it, besides making blind swipes at people who are genuinely ill and who can suffer considerably by the stoppage of the payment of benefit.

I have had quite a considerable number of complaints, and so, too, have had my colleagues, about the difficulty in getting sickness benefit paid on the expectation that a person is ill and of the tangles which subsequently arise, even after the benefit has been put in train in the first instance. I do not know what state this section of the Department is in or what conditions there are, but if what I complain of is due to inadequate staff in the section, then I think the Minister should examine the matter and make sure that the section which deals with the claims of insured persons for sickness benefit is adequately staffed. He should ensure that there will be no delay in paying benefit through insufficiency of staff. Many of those claiming benefit will be out of work and will have children depending on them. Therefore, there should be no delay in paying benefit to them. The Minister should examine the matter and apply the remedy to whatever set of circumstances may exist in that section at the moment.

General MacEoin

It is quite obvious that there are people in need of the money which the Minister is asking the House to vote. But in asking for that sum, like my colleagues Deputy Norton and Deputy Morrissey, I feel that the Minister has failed to face up to the facts of the situation. He tells us that there is a reduction in the revenue, the estimated income, and, of course, it is clear that that reduction in income is due solely to increased unemployment, and not only that but that the policy of the Government and the Central Bank is having its effect and is being reflected on this Vote. The Minister should have adverted to that. I know it is not reasonable from the political angle to expect him to admit that; but, mind you, truth can sometimes be better than concealment, and I think he should face up to that by admitting it.

Secondly, when the Minister tells us that there is an increase since 1948 of the benefit or illness claims and that he thinks that the doctors should be warned on that matter, I would like to know from the Minister what the figures were for each year, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54, and I think he should have broken down those figures for us. I suggest that in replying he should give the increase of illness in each of the years; but I am prepared to assert that the increase in this year, 1953-54, is greater than in other years for this reason, that when you increase the cost of living to the worker and increase the cost of the loaf and so on, you automatically lower the vitality of the people and have more illness as a result, and there is a delay in their recovery—that if they had been properly sustained, and everything like that, they would be able to come back to their employment more quickly or at an earlier stage.

Major de Valera

A recent report seems to indicate that we are one of the best-fed nations in Europe.

Mr. Morrissey

We were.

General MacEoin

I cannot hear the Deputy very well.

Mr. Morrissey

The more we have to eat the more we have to pay for it.

Major de Valera

I am merely referring to a report that contradicts the Deputy.

General MacEoin

The fact of the matter is that everybody knows that there has been a lowering in the standard of living of the workers in general.

Dr. Ryan

It is only Fine Gael that knows that. Everybody does not know it.

General MacEoin

The Minister does not know it as much as the poor unfortunate fellow who is going through it.

Dr. Ryan

Only Fine Gael knows it.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot go into the standard of living on this.

General MacEoin

I am saying that the reason why this money is required and the reason for the increase in the illness and the increased benefits that have to be paid for a continuation of illness is due to a great extent, as I am asserting, to the policy that the Central Bank laid down that people were eating and drinking too much and were too well clothed, and that the Central Bank and the Government are to be congratulated on the success of their programme, but the taxpayer is going to pay for it in this particular way and the productivity of the country is being reduced by that number of people being unemployed.

I have no brief for the medical profession, but the Minister actually convicts them for careless certification, saying that they have not taken proper care in the issue of certificates. That is a serious matter, because whatever may happen in the cities I do not know, but I do know that in the country if a person is in receipt of disablement benefit under the National Health Act and if he is well everybody knows it and he cannot malinger, and if he has been in employment there is a demand for him to return to his work. Therefore, I hold that that excuse or probable cause, as the Minister said, of the increase by 50 per cent. is not a proper excuse, and I trust that he will advert to it at some greater length when he is replying.

It is no comfort to anybody in this House to know that the vitality of our people is being lowered steadily, and it is certainly a surprise to me to learn as the Minister says that since 1948 it has taken place. That surprises me. Why from 1948 I do not know; there is a point, I presume, in the Minister selecting that as the date. However, he will tell us about that, I presume, on this Estimate, which, fortunately, is in Committee, and some other Deputies of this House will have an opportunity of referring to the matter again if the Minister does not give satisfaction.

Mr. Corish

It seems amazing that there should be such underestimation in the provision of moneys for social welfare in this country. But if that has been the position I suppose we have got to accept it. As has been pointed out, the Minister has made some amazing statements, and I think that one of the most amazing was that the claims for National Health Insurance in the past five years had increased by 50 per cent. I do not want to refer to things that have been mentioned by the previous three speakers, but I want to raise this particular point on social insurance, and I raise it because in view of the discussion that has taken place it seems to me that the Department, in an effort to cut their losses, have given directions to some of their officers over the past six months to effect economies. I think that they have been very, very successful in that; and the particular branch of the Department that seems to me to have been picked out is that section that deals with the payment, or should I say the non-payment, of unemployment benefit. I do not know whether Deputies have experience of hearings given all over the country by the appeals officers to those who appeal against decisions to disallow unemployment benefit, but I have, and I have had in the last six months especially the experience of seeing practically every single appellant turned down by the appeals officer—people against whom it was alleged that they were not genuinely seeking work. It seems in some cases to be a bit of a joke to accuse a man or woman in this country of not genuinely seeking work when the unemployment figures are at the figure they are now and have been for a considerable time. I might quote one particular instance, a question which was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary last week in respect of one particular town, where there were 13 appeals before the appeals officer for unemployment benefit, and of those 13, 12 were disallowed and one case was deferred. Those 12 were accused of not genuinely seeking work.

An Ceann Comhairle

This has reference only to the sickness side of social welfare, I think. I do not think that the section refers to unemployment. I want to be guided on that. I think that Section 39, sub-section (9), deals only with national health.

Dr. Ryan

It deals with both.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then I am wrong. I am sorry. The Deputy may continue.

Mr. Corish

It is unusual for the Ceann Comhairle to be wrong.

An Ceann Comhairle

I asked for guidance.

Mr. Corish

I am seriously suggesting that there must have been some direction given to those appeals officers around the country to cut down, and cut down to the bone, on these appeals. In that respect—I forget now whether it is a provision in the Act or whether it is merely done by regulation—the sooner the Minister and his Department revert to the old system of a Court of Referees the better it will be because it seems that at the moment one has not the slightest chance, if it is being charged against an appellant that he is not genuinely seeking work, of having an appeal upheld by the appeals officer. In the past six months especially when the Department became aware that they would have to ask the Dáil for this £1,500,000 they made a determined effort under this particular section to try to save money thereby throwing a certain added incidence of expenditure on to the local authorities because the people who were turned down must have recourse to the home assistance officer.

It seems also, as Deputy Norton pointed out, that if the Minister and his officials thought there was malingering or wrong certification by doctors in relation to National Health Insurance claims, the Department itself had a remedy. Spot checks could have been made around the country. It is extraordinary that it is only after five years we have a public announcement about this. The increases must have been gradual. Perhaps the Minister when he next speaks will tell us what the percentage increase has been over the years since 1948 in relation to the claims for National Health Insurance. I suggest that he and his officials have neglected their duty if that position was allowed to go on, a position in which, as the Minister alleges—he does it by inference and innuendo—there must have been malingering or illegal certification by medical officers.

Dr. Ryan

I am not rising to wind up the debate. I merely want to give some information for which I was asked. Deputy Norton asked me to give more detail in relation to this increased expenditure. The amount in regard to disability has increased by £226,000: that is the estimated amount now asked for.

Mr. Morrissey

What was the original estimate?

Dr. Ryan

£2,636,000 for disability. I am asking now for an extra £226,000.

Mr. Norton

Can the Minister say whether this £226,000 is needed because of inaccurate estimating as to dependency or because of greater certification?

Dr. Ryan

It is due to both: first of all, inaccurate estimating with regard to dependency and, secondly, an increased incidence of sickness.

Mr. Norton

Could we get a breakdown of that?

Dr. Ryan

It would be too difficult. Possibly I could get it if I had the time. It was estimated that of all those applying, 30 per cent. would have dependents; actually, 50 per cent. have dependents. Some figures were quoted and, perhaps, they were not properly interpreted by the Deputies. That, however, was a mistake in estimating in relation to that particular figure. The Act was only a short time in operation when the estimate was made and it looked as if the experience would be that 30 per cent. would have dependents. The figure worked out at 50 per cent. I admit that only a very short-time sample was taken, but I do not think anybody can be blamed for that, because it could be assumed the pattern would be the same for the entire year. The estimate was also checked against unemployment and the unemployment figure appeared to bear out that figure of 30 per cent.

Added to that there was an increase in sickness. A printed circular was issued to the doctors in 1947. I do not think there was any political reason for that. I take it the Government was taking the five-year period 1947-1952. I will give the increases each year from that time on. The number of certificates issued in 1947 was 1,200,000; in the next year there was an increase of 126,000 on that; in 1949 there was an increase of 112,000; in 1950 there was an increase of 172,000; in 1951 there was an increase of 145,000; in 1952 there was an increase of 150,000. Each of those represents an increase on the year immediately preceding. I have only an estimated figure for 1953 and it appears to be almost an increase of 200,000.

Mr. Norton

From 1,200,000 in 1947?

Dr. Ryan

To 2,000,000, yes.

Mr. Morrissey

Is that purely sickness benefits?

Dr. Ryan

That is purely sickness certificates.

Mr. Norton

All signed by doctors?

Dr. Ryan

Every one of them. I do not think that I have any worse opinion of people than Deputy Morrissey or Deputy Norton. Possibly if I were in opposition I would adopt the same line as they are adopting. I am trying to find out to what this is due. I find it very hard to explain it. I do not care what Deputy Morrissey and Deputy MacEoin say from the Fine Gael viewpoint, there is no more sickness now than there was in 1947.

Mr. Morrissey

There ought not to be.

Dr. Ryan

There should not be and there is not. Now we want to get the explanation. Before the increases were given a man might be quite genuinely sick and not claim benefit because he would only get 15/- per week. He might not consider it worth his while. Now he is getting 50/- and he considers it worth his while to make a claim. He is not a malingerer. He is claiming because he thinks it worth his while. That is part of the explanation. The benefits are more worth while and therefore more are claiming. But that does not explain the increase from 1947 to 1953 because there is a fairly uniform increase the whole way through and I find it very difficult to explain it.

That increase has been going on for years. Probably Deputy Norton has seen some of these figures. He will remember that medical referees are sent out from the Department—Deputies generally may not be aware of the procedure—to different centres in the country where people in receipt of benefit are asked to report for examination. I do not think people are asked to come when they are only away from work for a week or two. The experience always has been that a good percentage of those invited to come along to the Referee go back to work and do not face the Referee. I think the estimated figure is 30 per cent. What is the reason for that? Of the two-thirds that remain and present themselves to the Referee a fair number are sent back by the Referee as fit for work. We can only conclude from that that the doctors are not as strict as they might conscientiously be in issuing certificates.

I think it is a great pity we cannot get this scheme administered strictly but fairly because Deputies must agree that if there was a strict observance of the regulations in relation to benefits generally, and if we had the same amount of money at our disposal we could do something more for the really genuine cases. That is the point of view from which I look at it.

As I said at the outset, I have no worse opinion of the people than Deputy Morrissey, Deputy MacEoin or Deputy Norton but I am trying to solve this problem. Deputies opposite have made no suggestion as to why there should be 2,000,000 certificates now as compared with 1,200,000 in 1947. I am looking for the explanation. That is all.

In relation to unemployment, the original Estimate was £1,830,000 and we are now adding £935,000. I do not think these figures have been properly understood. I mentioned the 10 per cent. which the Department estimated as representing those on unemployment assistance who would also be eligible for unemployment insurance. In fact, 30 per cent. of those in receipt of unemployment assistance were eligible for unemployment insurance. On consideration of that, I saw that it would have been a tedious matter. Every claimant's card would have to be examined in order to give a good estimate on that matter and of course we had not time to do that. Anyway, that was the mistake as far as that was concerned. There were two mistakes made, first of all, with regard to those who were changing from unemployment assistance to unemployment insurance and, secondly, the number of dependents that the person claiming would have. Then, of course, there was the other matter that was foreseen at the time, that 19,000 agricultural labourers coming in for unemployment insurance would make a difference. That was taken into account.

There is another item I did not mention in my opening statement because I have not been able to get any good estimate on the matter but I hope to be able to get an estimate later on, and that is the clause in the Act which enables a man who is qualified at 65 to draw unemployment insurance. If he is qualified at the age of 65 then, provided he is seeking work and cannot get it, he can continue to draw it for five years. As Deputies are aware, before the Act was brought in he could only draw it for three months and then had to requalify. I do not know what that is costing. I have no idea and I am not going to say that it is costing a lot, but it is an item in the calculation of this increased expenditure.

The next item is maternity allowances. Proportionately, I suppose, we underestimated. We estimated for £16,000 and we are now looking for something like £2,500. Then there are widows' and orphans' pensions. We are only dealing with contributory pensions. The original Estimate was £1,258,000 and we are looking for a Supplementary Estimate of £95,000. Therefore there was an underestimate with regard to widows' and orphans' pensions. The next item is the marriage grant. The Estimate was £59,000 and the Supplementary Estimate required is £9,700. Then there is the maternity grant. The maternity grant Estimate was £65,000. We got too much there and we can surrender £2,100 out of that. Administration expenses were estimated at £882,000 and the Supplementary Estimate is for £17,000. On the income side, the contributions were estimated at £4,821,000, and, as I told you, we were too optimistic with regard to that to the extent of £260,000. Investments were estimated at £483,000 and we are getting £28,000 less.

Mr. MacBride

That is the return on the investments?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. The investment return was another item which was estimated at £32,000 and we are actually getting £42,000 or £10,000 more. In case I might be asked about the investment business, I should say that there are two items in it which were affected. The first was that the interest rate was very slightly lower than anticipated. Secondly, there was an amount of money from the fund tied up in building Áras Mhic Dhiarmada and at the same time there was no rent from C.I.E. However, when C.I.E. begin to pay rent the interest on our money comes back again. The period of building meant that money was being spent and there was no return for it.

Mr. Davin

What rent is being charged to C.I.E.?

Dr. Ryan

We are negotiating about that at present and I will not mention it.

Mr. Davin

You do not know?

Dr. Ryan

Not exactly.

Mr. MacBride

We will make up the money to C.I.E.

Dr. Ryan

That is a relic of the Coalition Government time.

Mr. Davin

What rent is your Department paying?

Dr. Ryan

They are going to work up to a position in four years' time when they will be paying.

Mr. Davin

What rent is your Department paying for the portion you occupy?

Dr. Ryan

The Minister for Finance will pay us 4 per cent., I think it is. I am not sure about the percentage, but whatever the percentage is on the amount spent, if we had not provided the money he would have to supply it and he will give us 4 per cent. on the amount spent from the fund.

Mr. Morrissey

He could give 5 per cent.

Dr. Ryan

It may be 4½ per cent. I am not sure about the percentage, but he will recoup us what we would earn on the fund otherwise.

Mr. Morrissey

You could earn 5 per cent.

Dr. Ryan

Under the Act, of course, the cost of administration comes out of the insurance fund; it is on the insurance side. The Minister for Finance is, therefore, relieved, as it were, of a part of it on the insurance side and so he gets it back in that way. Then I come to the Dáil in order to make up any deficiency in the insurance fund met by the Minister for Finance, although he pays all the deficiency in the end.

Mr. Davin

Is not that fiddling with figures?

Dr. Ryan

It is, but that is Government finance. There is one thing very difficult about the income from contributions. It was very difficult, not so much to work out how many stamps would be sold in the year, because I think they were about correct in that as they estimated that the employment position would be about the same. I am not talking about unemployment, but they estimated that the employment position would be about the same as it was in the previous year. Actually, I think it was 1 per cent. higher. The fact that the years were changed made a great difference. The women's cards that were handed in last June had only nine months' contributions on them. If they had been handed in at the end of September there would be 12 months' contributions and that would make a difference.

Mr. Morrissey

Did you not know that when making the estimate?

Dr. Ryan

The men's cards were handed in on the 1st January and they had 15 months' contributions. Some people are a bit slow about handing in cards and employers are a bit slow about stamping them. Then, by the time the money passes through the Post Office and comes to our Department it is almost certain that a part of it will not reach the Department by the end of March. We do not know what that will amount to and in this estimate we are allowing for a certain delay in that money coming in.

Mr. Norton

How much are you assuming will not come in?

Dr. Ryan

I would not like to say how much. I would want notice of that question.

Mr. Morrissey

I think the Minister is perfectly right. I do not think the Minister should dream of making any further estimate. He is very wise but the Minister is not quite so wise when he chooses an occasion like this to be sort of impertinent about the Fine Gael Party and about the inter-Party Government. The Minister has not improved the position one bit by his explanation. I do not think that, in our experience, as bad a picture has ever been put before this House. I think it is a damning indictment of the Minister and his Department. In view of the figures which the Minister gave for all the years, I was amazed to hear the Minister say that he and his Department were satisfied that a considerable part of the increase in the claims for sickness benefit could be attributed, or was attributable, to the increase in the benefits payable. They were perfectly satisfied with that. Was the Department or the Minister himself aware of the figures which he had given for the years prior to the increase in the amount of benefit——

Dr. Ryan

I said so.

Mr. Morrissey

In 1950 there was an increase of, I think, £172,000 over the previous year.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Morrissey

That was before the increase in benefits. If that is so, how can the Minister allege that his Department and himself are satisfied that one of the principal reasons——

Dr. Ryan

One of the reasons. I do not think it was the principal.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister emphasised it, but it does not hold water for one moment. There is an explanation: there must be an explanation for this. If there is—and, as I say, there is—the Minister has not found it; and, if he has found it, he has not given it to the House.

Dr. Ryan

I have not. I am looking for the explanation.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister knows quite well that since the National Insurance Acts were first instituted there have been accusations of malingering and of loose certification. Is that not so?

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Morrissey

Surely it will be agreed there would have to be an absolute conspiracy amongst the medical profession, as Deputy Norton said, for the claims to have increased 50 per cent. in five years. Those five years, or the greater part of those five years, were a period in which the workers' standard of living had increased to the highest level known in this country. During that period, particularly during the period 1948-51, the income of all workers, by way of remuneration and wages, had increased to a far greater extent than at any similar period in our history. How can you assert or allege that at a time like that, when employment, certainly over the three years 1948-51, was more readily available to workers in this country than at any similar period since the State was founded, and when the wages and lower salaries were increased more than once —in a period before there was any increase in sickness benefit—that workers deliberately elected, without being ill, to pretend illness so that they would get roughly for being ill one-fourth—I am taking a very rough figure—of the amount they would get for working?

Is there any reason known to the Department, to the Minister or to anybody else which can explain that at a period when, as I say, the workers' standard of living had been raised to a higher level than ever before and when work was more freely available, certainly up to 1951, at the highest rate of wages that ever ruled in this country, we should have an intensification of malingering and of faked illness? As I say, there must be some explanation but the House has not got it and we are entitled to get it. If the Department and the Minister do not know it they should know it.

It is not good enough to come in here lightheartedly, in the vein in which the Minister has come, looking for an additional £1,250,000 to be taken out of the pockets of the people in a year in which they are called upon to bear a load of taxation which they are unable to carry. It is not good enough merely to state that the Estimate for unemployment was £1,830,000 and that, due to the fact that they were unable to judge the situation and, if we take the Minister's own words, due to the fact that they did not understand the legislation which they themselves were putting through the House and the effect it was going to have, the Minister now wants no less than £930,000 more in respect of that service alone. Nothing like this has ever been presented to the House before. I think the Minister should be in sackcloth and ashes. If ever an Estimate deserved to be rejected, if it were not for the fact that its rejection would involve hardship, not on the Minister or his Department but on the sick and the unemployed, this Supplementary Estimate would certainly deserve to be rejected.

The Minister's second speech certainly did not clarify the position. It certainly did not give any reason whatever for these extraordinary series of miscalculations. Let us think for a moment of the numbers of millions of pounds that are being dealt with in this Department. The Minister on occasions boasts of the fact that his Department alone is spending more than one-quarter of the entire taxation raised in this country. He boasts of that but it is not something to boast about. Is it not an extraordinary reflection on all the boastful talk we have heard, particularly in the last couple of years, about the enormous strides we have made with the health services of this country, about the amazing success of the measures which were supposed to have been taken for the prevention of disease in this country—the success of scientific developments, the discoveries in medicine and surgery, that have shortened so considerably the period of illness—that all those claims are given the lie absolutely and emphatically by the disclosures which the Minister for Health has had to make here to-day?

I do not want to take it any further. Unfortunately I cannot take it any further. Unfortunately I cannot ask the House to refuse to give this supplementary sum because, as I say, the hardship involved in that step would not fall on those upon whom, perhaps, it should fall but rather on innocent people who are ill and unemployed. The Minister is not going to get away with it, either in this House or outside in the country, by these cheap gibes about the previous Government or about any particular political Party in this House. It is a serious matter, an exceptionally serious matter.

It is a very serious matter, indeed, if it is due to some other reason. I cannot accept for a moment that malingering on a scale that would account for an increase of 50 per cent. in five years is the explanation. Can anybody picture the social position, and its impact on our economic life having regard to the comparative smallness of our insured working population, that in the last year, in the calendar year, 2,000,000 sickness certificates were issued? I would like to see that brought into proper relation to the numbers of our insured—and I want to emphasise insured—working population of this country. It is a staggering figure. It is something that cannot be lightly dealt with as the Minister has sought to deal with it here. Perhaps the Minister has no other course, but the Minister will have to find the reason and give it to the House. Otherwise, if he does not, this is not the end of it—it is only the beginning.

Mr. Norton

Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many persons were receiving sickness benefit each week in 1947 and how many were receiving sickness benefit in the corresponding period in 1953? Would he also tell us what number of days are covered by the 2,000,000 sickness certificates which have now been issued?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

I am afraid, in reply to Deputy Norton. I would want to have notice of those questions.

Mr. Davin

You are there a few years now. You ought to know.

Mr. Norton

We are going to vote for this because it is necessary in order to ensure that the under-privileged section of the community will be able to get the benefits provided under the Social Welfare Act in order to sustain them. But the Parliamentary Secretary can now revel in the distinction that has been thrust upon him of having been responsible for an Estimate which probably creates a record as the most inaccurate Estimate ever presented to this House. The figures must have been calculated in the dark. Somebody must have put out the light when these figures were being totted. Fancy the Minister saying we estimate we need £1.8 million, when in fact they needed £935,000 on top of the original £1.8 million for unemployment. I am not quarrelling about the total sum but about the inaccuracy on the part of this Department which has access to so much statistical information. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if this occurred during the inter-Party Government's time in office? Dr. Ryan and Deputy Kennedy would make the welkin ring. But now the precision estimators blandly come along themselves and say: We made a mess of it, we are £1,250,000 short. We were nearly £1,000,000 short on unemployment alone. This Estimate is out anything between 20 and 50 per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary ought, when this Estimate is over, give some consideration to what method of atonement they will adopt towards the Dáil for their very obviously inept display in the presentation of Estimates.

Obviously somebody should give the Minister a lesson in estimating because nobody could understand what he said here in relation to Store Street this evening. Even the scientists engaged in splitting the atom could not get what the Minister had in mind. Here once again are the facts. C.I.E., bankrupt as they were and not able to pay their debts, decided they would embark on building Store Street. Let me mention as an aside that they also decided they would demolish a fine hotel in Glengarriff and build a new one. They had no money to build a new one but that did not bother C.I.E. and they paid fees to an architect to plan a scheme for the demolition of the old hotel and the building of a new one.

Then C.I.E., bankrupt and unable to pay their own bills, decided to build Store Street. They could not at that time pay the rates on the Kingsbridge property but that never bothered them. They decided to build Store Street. They got a certain distance. Then it was left a gaunt ruin because they had no more money to go on. They did not know what to do, and like other people who spend extravagantly they could not pay their bills. We decided to buy it and complete the building rather than have it as a crows' rookery down on the Liffey side, an example of the fatuity of C.I.E. as then constituted. But we liquidated moneys invested to the credit of insurance funds in British securities and with the moneys thus liquidated we completed the C.I.E. building at Store Street and paid off C.I.E. whatever they had spent on it. A situation was then created in which foreign-invested money held to the credit of the insurance funds was utilised to complete Store Street and to pay off C.I.E. what they had spent on it in order to enable them to pay other bills which they had been unable to pay. That created one difficulty. It was this. In the new Department of Social Welfare it was not the invested funds that should provide the building but the State, and to the extent to which these funds were withdrawn from investment and invested in the building they were going to lose the interest they would earn which would normally go to the benefit of the Department's funds. But what we said to the Department was this: We liquidated the foreign assets, we built Store Street. We will lose the interest but you pay us the interest on the funds instead of providing the building. What is the result to-day? Instead of our £1,000,000 being invested in growing peanuts in Kenya, it is now invested in the building in Store Street and gives the Department of Social Welfare a headquarters it never dreamed it would have. It has taken a lot of civil servants from premises around town and made these premises available for other civil servants in branches that are overcrowded. The result is that the money has been put to good use and so far as the funds are concerned they are safeguarded by the State passing into the fund a sum of money which would be spent providing premises elsewhere. These are the simple economics of the Store Street building. I think they are sound from every point of view.

This is almost like scolding a child a dozen times over for the same offence. This is the most hopeless Estimate ever to come before the House—hopeless from the point of view of a sheer, inept Estimate. While we vote for it because of the purpose to which the money is being devoted, I hope some effort will be made between now and this time next year to get a less inaccurate Estimate than was presented on this occasion.

Mr. MacBride

I am indebted to the Minister for giving us some information in regard to this rather staggering Supplementary Estimate. It does seem somewhat extraordinary to come to the House to look for a Supplementary Estimate which is necessitated by an underestimation of nearly 90 per cent. on the original Estimate and to furnish no particulars in the documents circulated beforehand. I should like to know from the Minister the basis on which the amount for unemployment was calculated. Presumably, when the Estimate was prepared there must have been an estimate made of the number of people who would be unemployed in the course of the year. That, in turn, presumably, had to be broken down into the different types of benefit that would be payable. It would be of interest to the House to know the number of persons unemployed who were budgeted for when this Estimate was prepared.

It would seem, whether the officials of the Department, the Minister or the Government were responsible for it, that there was gross underestimation of the unemployment position. For that I would criticise, not so much the officials, as the Minister and the members of the Government as they should have foreseen that unemployment in 1953 would reach new levels by reason of the policy which they were implementing. However, we now have the fruits of that policy and we find that practically an additional £1,000,000 is required in regard to the unemployment fund.

It would be useful if at some stage a somewhat fuller analysis were made of the social welfare payments and charges which are attributable to unemployment and if these were made available to the House so that the country might realise the cost of unemployment to the nation.

I am not sure from the Minister's explanation whether any portion of the £1,500,000 which is now being sought is to be used for administrative purposes. Is any of this amount required, for instance, in regard to Store Street?

Mr. Norton

£17,000.

Mr. MacBride

For administrative purposes? Does that include, for instance, provision of new furniture in Store Street or are there lurking in this Supplementary Estimate fairly substantial sums for the provision of equipment for Store Street or other offices held by the Department? May we take it that the £17,000, which the Minister referred to, for administrative expenses includes everything other than the actual payment of benefits? The House is entitled to that information before being asked to pass this Estimate.

We might also be told what the additional £17,000 for administrative expenses consists of. Is it additional staffs? Is it additional equipment? What is it for? I know that £17,000 may sound a small sum in a Supplementary Estimate for £1,500,000 but, nevertheless, the House is entitled to know exactly what this £1,500,000 is for.

I should like the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House, first, whether all the moneys sought in the Supplementary Estimate, with the exception of £17,000, is for the payment of actual benefits, sickness or unemployment benefit, and, secondly, how this additional £17,000 for administrative expenses is made up. Is it more newspaper advertising, or what is it for?

The House is entitled to complain, first, at the gross underestimation, an underestimation that suggests either complete inefficiency on the part of the estimating machinery of the Department or, alternatively, that would seem to indicate that an attempt was made for one reason or another to keep the Estimates down to conceal the true position at the time the Estimates were introduced. The House is also entitled to complain at the lack of information and the way in which the Supplementary Estimate is presented to the House.

Mr. Davin

I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to take this opportunity of displaying his fitness to the House and the country for the responsible position which he has occupied for almost three years and to take advantage of this opportunity for the purpose of giving a clearer explanation on the questions that have been addressed to the Minister than have been given up to the moment.

For the best part of 40 years in a transport concern, I fiddled with figures. I may be getting a bit stupid, as I am a little older now, but I do not understand the mathematics by which the Minister endeavoured to explain the present financial position of Store Street in connection with the allocation and division of rental, if I may describe it as such. The Minister talked about 4 per cent, forgetting for the time being that he gave subscribers to the National Loan 5 per cent., and he probably also overlooked the fact that 6¾ per cent. is charged to local authorities for housing.

Mr. MacBride

The Minister said he did not know what the percentage was.

Mr. Davin

I am trying to get from the Parliamentary Secretary, who may be a much abler man than the Minister, some explanation of the future financial commitments with regard to Store Street. What is the annual charge to be borne? What is the period for which that annual charge is to be borne in connection with the rental of Store Street? How is it to be allocated as between the Department of Social Welfare, who occupy probably seven-eighths of the premises, compared with C.I.E.? The Minister hinted that there was some bargaining going on with somebody. Could it be possible that this bargaining was going on between the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance? If so, what is it about? Or, is the suggested bargaining going on between the Department of Social Welfare and C.I.E. direct? Let us have some explanation of the position. The Civil Service has been in occupation of Store Street for some considerable time. C.I.E. have gone in there and have been using it for some time as comfortable storage premises for their buses without, as far as I know, being sure that the movement from Aston's Quay to Store Street will bring them one additional penny of revenue.

For the past couple of years, since the present Government came back into office, we have heard a good deal in this House about what happened when the inter-Party Government were in charge of C.I.E. and of the country. Surely it is not possible that the bargaining now going on, if it is going on, between the Department of Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance or the Government, of which Dr. Ryan is a member, will end in putting a further heavy charge on C.I.E., the company that is now operating with the assistance of over £1,000,000 subsidy.

I also want to know something more about the circumstances in which the contract for the movement of furniture and papers was handed to a certain concern by the Department of Social Welfare, without any public advertisement. I am not quite sure of myself on this, but it appears to me that the usual procedure was departed from by whoever took it upon himself—either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary—to give a contract to a turf-carrying company for the removal of furniture and papers from other places to Store Street, without inviting public tenders. The usual procedure, as the Parliamentary Secretary very well knows or ought to know, was that the Board of Works carried out that kind of work for all State Departments. The excuse given here for the departure from the usual procedure was— and it was a damned disgrace to say so in this House——

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

The Deputy is a bit wide of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Davin

——that the work done by C.I.E. in previous cases of the kind was unsatisfactory—an uncalled for reflection on the staff of C.I.E.

Acting-Chairman

I am afraid the Deputy is getting a bit wide of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Norton

I wonder is Deputy Davin getting wide of the Supplementary Estimate because the Minister stated that in this Supplementary Estimate there is a sum of £16,000 or £17,000 additional to the Estimate which we have already voted. We know that this turf-carrying company got the job of carrying papers and files into Store Street. Presumably the Department pays its debts. Therefore, if it has done that, some of the money which was paid to this turf-carrying company is for the administrative excess which the Parliamentary Secretary is asking the House to vote. We can delay the question as to whether it is in order or not so as to provide the Parliamentary Secretary with an opportunity of reading out a list of the items comprised in the additional £16,000. These, I imagine, will provide plenty of nails on which to hang an argument.

Mr. Davin

May I point out to the Chair that I am the person who is at a disadvantage because it was the Minister who sprung this on me? If I had known that he was going to introduce this I could have come in armed far better than I did with information. If he has been allowed to introduce it, why should I not be allowed to speak on it?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

The only item included in the £17,000 is the increased awards to civil servants.

Mr. Norton

Has the turf-carrying firm been paid yet?

Mr. Kennedy

I could not answer that off-hand.

Acting-Chairman

There can be no wide discussion of administration under sub-heads A and B.

Mr. Davin

May I point out that it was the Minister himself, without previous notice to me, who introduced this question of the financial arrangements regarding the rents of Store Street? I did not bring it up for the first time.

Acting-Chairman

I did not quite follow that the Deputy was talking about the rental arrangements. I was not objecting to that, but I did object to the carrying of furniture being discussed.

Mr. Davin

The carrying and the removal of furniture is part of the makeup of Store Street. I take it that the staff would not be there at the moment unless furniture was put there by someone.

Acting-Chairman

There is no money provided in this Supplementary Estimate for that.

Mr. Davin

Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that there is no money being provided for this outrageous departure from previous practice?

Mr. Kennedy

Yes, I can give the Deputy that assurance.

Mr. Davin

Who is going to pay this firm?

Acting-Chairman

We are not concerned with that at the moment.

Mr. Davin

May I say that the present Parliamentary Secretary is the very man who said, on the borders of my constituency, that the Civil Service was overstaffed, that it was carrying an overload of 25 per cent. Notwithstanding that, he comes to this House, and neither the Minister, who is the boss, nor the Parliamentary Secretary himself, can give the members of the House the information which they and the country are entitled to receive.

Mr. Finan

I, like other Deputies, feel that it is rather unreasonable to ask the House for the colossal sum of £1,500,000 when the Minister is unable to inform the House explicitly what the money is required for. I think the fact that we have such an Estimate before us shows poor foresight on the part of the officers of the Department, especially in view of the fact that the original sum was not quite £2,000,000. I had not the opportunity of hearing either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary explain what precisely this money is to be used for. I think that the members of the House who did hear the Minister are at almost as much of a loss in that regard as I am.

I think it is only fair, when a member of the Government asks the House for the sum of money set down in this Estimate, that we, the representatives of the people, are entitled to be told what precisely the money is for, and why provision was not made for it in the original Estimate. I believe it was indicated some time ago that an Estimate like this might be expected. I think that the items as set out in the sub-heads do not reflect any great credit either on the activities of the Department or on the policy of the Government generally. For example, we see here a sum of £1,765,000 for unemployment. I think no greater condemnation of a Government could be found than is to be found in that demand.

One would imagine that, at a time when two by-elections are taking place, it would be considered rather unwise to publish the extraordinary position we have in the country in regard to unemployment. If a sum of £1,765,000 has to be found at this time for unemployment benefit, then it would appear to me that there must be something radically wrong. I do not think anybody could defend a situation of that kind. Despite what we may be told about the changes which have taken place in social welfare and the increases which are to be paid as a result of admitting new applicants, I submit that there cannot be any defence whatsoever of a situation which puts on the State, and on the employed workers in it, responsibility for the provision of £1,765,000 for unemployment.

I have heard many things said here about unemployment. At times I was inclined to think that the position was being exaggerated, but here we have conclusive proof that there was no exaggeration, and that the problem of unemployment is a growing national menace in our midst. We are told that out of the National Development Fund provision will be made for the relief of unemployment. I think it foreshadows a very dismal future for our people if something cannot be done to ease this unemployment situation and to make the draws on that fund considerably less. Unless something is done, then the result inevitably will be that those fortunate enough to find themselves in employment must continue to bear a greater burden in order to provide for those for whom employment is not available. The net result will be that the pay packets of those in employment will be so diminished that there will be little purchasing power left for their recipients. I think we should have some explanation or some indication from the Government as to what they propose to do to remedy that situation. Surely they cannot disclaim responsibility; and while I give the Government full credit for all schemes they might introduce to relieve unemployment, and have always done so, and while I thought they were proceeding on the right road before Christmas, I must confess that I as an ordinary Deputy am alarmed at the situation that this reflects. There may be a good explanation for it, but if an explanation is not forthcoming Deputies are entitled to draw their own conclusions and to assume that this money may be used for a purpose which the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to disclose or to cover up some arrangement which may be made in connection with the Store Street accommodation. It is quite open to that interpretation. I say that if the Parliamentary Secretary has a full sense of his responsibility he will remove any doubt that may come into existence in the people's mind as to what this money may be used for, and will indicate clearly to this House precisely what the moneys will be used for. Otherwise I have no doubt that capital may be made of it. If the Parliamentary Secretary can justify this Estimate I am quite prepared to accept it, but in the absence of that I do think that Deputies may reasonably draw a certain conclusion which may not be in accordance with the facts but must be accepted if they are not explained.

Captain Cowan

I regret that Deputy Finan has made the kind of speech he has just made. Were it not for that speech I do not think I would have intervened at all. The suggestions and the innuendoes that were in the last few words of his speech ought not, I think, be permitted to go unchallenged. After all, we have, as Deputy Finan well knows, very complicated accounting machinery. Every penny that is spent has to be spent in accordance with the authority of this House. We have the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is not an officer of the Government but is an officer appointed by this House to supervise the expenditure of money, and there is no possibility that any person with a proper state of mind can reasonably infer that moneys passed by this House for expenditure can be devoted to other purposes, to cover up, as Deputy Finan said, or to use in a way that Deputies in this House would not approve of if they knew what was the reason behind the Vote. The Minister has come before the House and has disclosed that there was an Estimate that was not as near the mark as one would like Estimates to be. He has explained that to the House, and I think that any person familiar with the difficulties that face a new Department such as this will know how difficult it is in the first couple of years to be reasonably precise in regard to an Estimate. The Minister has frankly told the House that there have been increases in medical certification which cause him very serious concern and which he is trying to get to the bottom of, and the Deputies who have spoken in regard to that point, Deputy Norton and Deputy Morrissey, want to know what is the cause of the increased certification. Deputy MacEoin, of course, said that the health of the country has deteriorated so much and that that is the cause of it. Deputy Morrissey did not accept that, neither did Deputy Norton nor, I think, any other Deputy in the House.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not accept that you improve health by increasing prices of essential nourishment.

Captain Cowan

I do not think that that would be relevant to the present discussion at all, because if one were to examine the cases that come within this particular Estimate one might find that there would be no grounds for that suggestion in regard to it. I look on this Estimate in a completely different way to the way in which it has been looked at by Deputy Morrissey and Deputy General MacEoin, and certainly in a much different way to the way that Deputy Finan has looked at it. I am glad that under the legislation we have passed we are in a position to make provision to the extent of the moneys that are mentioned here both in the original Estimate and in the Supplementary Estimate for people who require that assistance from the State. I think it is a good thing that our legislation is in such a way that we are enabled to make provision for that, and while there may be criticism of the fact that the Estimate was not 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. or 80 per cent. accurate a year ago the important thing is that we have statutory provision to ensure that the payments to which the people are entitled will be paid to them. That is from my point of view the main aspect of this Supplementary Estimate. I am glad that the Minister has brought it in because it shows that as far as the Minister is concerned he is determined to see that the provisions that our statutes give to people who are unemployed and to people who are ill will be honoured. And we are honouring our bond to those people by passing here this evening this Supplementary Estimate.

I do not think that the occasion should be availed of to make the innuendoes and the nasty suggestions that Deputy Finan made in regard to it. This is not the Estimate on which one can talk about the provision of schemes for employment. We will get many other opportunities to discuss that. What we are discussing now is our social welfare code and the provision we make for the people who unfortunately for one reason or another, for a short time or a longer time, are unable to earn their own livelihood. I say that in passing this Supplementary Estimate we are honouring our obligations and our bond to the people; and while it is perfectly legitimate for Deputy Norton, as a previous Minister, to criticise the bad estimation of the Minister or the bad estimation of the Department over which he presided not so long ago, the other matters that have been mentioned are not in my view relevant or proper to the Estimate. I am glad that we are honouring our bond in passing this Supplementary Estimate and that we are showing the people that whatever amount of money is necessary to fulfil our statutory obligations to them will be made available by the House. I think that is the principal and most important part of this Supplementary Estimate and it certainly has my wholehearted approval.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary deputising for the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not think so. At the outset it was agreed by the Chair that this Estimate was in Committee.

Captain Cowan

Yes, it is in Committee.

Mr. Morrissey

One would think that on an Estimate of this size the Minister should be here to conclude himself. In saying that I am not making any reflection, nor is my remark intended as such, on the Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to make that clear.

Mr. Davin

At this stage, and in view of the fact that there have been very few occasions since he has become Parliamentary Secretary that we have heard from him, could we not have a few words from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If any other Deputy wishes to speak and offers himself the Chair will call on him. If no other Deputy offers, then the Chair will call on the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Norton

When the Minister spoke in the first instance, he made what a number of Deputies considered was an inadequate explanation of this Supplementary Estimate. In other words, there was no satisfactory explanation as to why there was underestimation. I then said, when the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair, that we would not regard the Minister as being entitled to conclude until we had got an explanation from him of these items. Now we got some explanation from the Minister. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary will say. I do not know whether he will give an explanation of some of the other points raised or reply to some of the other questions asked. The Chair has accepted the position that this Estimate is in Committee, and if the Parliamentary Secretary now discloses some information in reply to the questions put to him, I feel I am within my rights in taking up the matters raised by the Parliamentary Secretary. If he merely replies to points already raised in the debate, I shall not bother; but if we get more information on the instalment system which has been adopted here this evening, then I claim I am entitled to speak again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has been the practice of this House that when no Deputy offers the Chair calls upon the mover of the motion to conclude. If any Deputy wishes to put a question, the Chair will allow him to put the question.

Mr. Norton

We have asked the questions and we are waiting for the answers. If we get the answers, well and good. If we do not get the answers and if more information is made available, we are entitled to reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that is a matter for the Chair?

Mr. Davin

Is it not a fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has a certain delegated authority? If he has, then he should not be allowed to remain silent in relation to the exercise of that authority.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no function in that matter. If no Deputy offers, I will call on the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Norton

We asked the Minister for certain information and the Chair consented to the Estimate being discussed in Committee, in which we were perfectly entitled to discuss it, when the Minister replied to those questions. The Minister then left the House and did not sit in for the remainder of the discussion, though, as Deputy Morissey has said, this is an Estimate for £1,500,000. Since the Minister left the House we have put questions to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary has maintained a magnificent silence. I notice he is now going to break his silence. Perhaps he will break the sound barrier. If he gives us some further information which we have been seeking surely we are entitled then to deal with the information the Parliamentary Secretary gives us. All this arises because the Minister had a slovenly brief and did not give any adequate explanation of the Estimate. We are now corkscrewing the information out of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister by instalments and we should be allowed to deal with whatever information the Parliamentary Secretary gives us now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Norton will agree that we want finality in the debate.

Mr. Norton

Nobody wants it more than I do.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since no Deputy offers I am calling on the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Davin

If the House is in Committee is a Deputy not entitled to speak three times?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Davin wants to speak I will call on him.

Mr. Davin

I have no wish to repeat what I have already said.

Mr. Norton

We do not want any statement from the Parliamentary Secretary. We will pass the Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude.

Mr. Kennedy

Whatever competence I have or have not, I claim that our appeals officers, from my knowledge of them, are humane people and do their work very conscientiously. They give the benefit of the doubt in all cases of appeal. Deputy Corish singled out a particular group on a particular occasion where ten of the appeals were turned down and another was deferred. That is not the general picture in the country; neither is it the general picture in County Wexford.

It has been my observation of social legislation over the years, let it be old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions or anything else, that the sum tends to go up all the time, year by year. Every Deputy who approaches a Minister, irrespective of what Government is in office, approaches him not to find out as to why a particular person should not get one of these benefits but to make the case that the person should get the full benefit. I have never known of any Deputy at any time to make the case that a claimant should not get a benefit. So it is that the sum is going up every year whether it be old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions or anything else. Deputy Finan should bear in mind that whilst we admit that by far the greater part of this sum is made up of unemployment benefit there is at the same time a considerable sum for widows' and orphans' pensions and disability.

Mr. Finan

I said I had no quarrel with that.

Mr. Kennedy

Deputy Morrissey stated that for the past 35 years there have been complaints of malingering and wrong certification. That is so. There is, unfortunately, no civic spirit to end that. I think the Minister appealed for a public spirit to put an end to that. I firmly believe as a result of my observations and because of the opinions generally expressed that there is loose certification and the sooner we have a public spirit that will put an end to that the better it will be. I recall the state of things here in 1932 or 1933 when unemployment assistance came in. We had a queue outside the labour exchanges composed of people who were not entitled to these benefits and it took a couple of years to weed out the genuine claimants.

Mr. Davin

The Parliamentary Secretary is wrong in 1932. He should correct himself.

Mr. Kennedy

I should have said 1933. The Minister made a very full statement when he brought in this Estimate. A number of Deputies addressed questions to him and he gave detailed replies. I have nothing to add beyond repeating what I said in reply to Deputy Davin that all this £17,000 approximately goes to the civil servants to meet the award they got.

Mr. Davin

Will the poor carrier remain without his money?

Mr. Kennedy

I do not know. I do not know as much about the matter as Deputy Davin does. I do not happen to know him at all.

Vote agreed to and reported.

Mr. Morrissey

On the report, am I entitled to comment on what has happened in Committee?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has not been the practice of this House, but if the Deputy wishes to speak he may do so.

Mr. Morrissey

I just wanted to ensure that for once I would use a rather valuable service which Deputies have available to them although they do not avail of it as often as they should. In view of the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary I do not think it matters very much whether or not he was concluding because he did not add anything whatever to the debate. Obviously he knows even less about the matter than the Minister does. Though one might be inclined to think that could not be possible, apparently it is. For the few minutes he was on his feet he talked about a number of matters which had nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion.

What is now before the Dáil is a demand for nearly £1,500,000 in addition to the original demand, and that is put forward from the very seat from which we were told by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Finance that there would be no Supplementary Estimates; that they would set their faces absolutely against them. We are told blandly from that seat that there is an increase of 50 per cent. in the number of people claiming sickness benefit, and that increase in sickness is alleged to have taken place during a period when we spent millions of pounds per year, infinitely greater sums than ever were spent since this State was established, for the prevention and cure of disease. The only explanation, which I for one absolutely refuse to accept as the true one, we get from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, is that it is due to malingering and to a conspiracy between the workers and the medical certifiers which brought about an increase in a period of five years, particularly the five years we are dealing with, of 50 per cent.

I said when speaking previously that I have never seen an Estimate like this presented in this House before and I sincerely hope that we will never see one again, although, frankly, I am very much afraid we will. If we are to contemplate for a moment that the estimation, in so far as there is estimation in relation to the service which we passed into law last year, is going to work out the same as this, all I can say is, God help both the taxpayers and the ratepayers. It might be, though one doubts it again, a lesson to the members of the Government and to some of those who sit behind them not to be so impatient when members of the Opposition insist on examining in greater detail measures brought before this House, not to be so prone to accuse people of obstructive methods when they are trying to analyse measures brought before this House and when they are trying, above all, to ascertain what the cost of them will be.

Mr. Briscoe

That is a great apology for obstruction.

Mr. Morrissey

It is not an apology. It is a complete justification, not of obstruction, but of examination. Will the Deputy explain to his constituents about this £1,500,000 which they will have to fork out and tell them that they have been malingering and dispayer honestly obtaining sickness benefit to the extent of about 50 per cent. in the last five years? Will Deputy Briscoe tell them a few things like that?

Mr. Briscoe

Do not be insulting my constituents. Why pick on them?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Briscoe should not interrupt.

Mr. Briscoe

He is insulting my constituents.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not. I have asked Deputy Briscoe to explain to his constituents——

Mr. Briscoe

No one said that my constituents are malingering except the Deputy.

Mr. Morrissey

In so far as they are part of the 50 per cent. increase, according to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary, not according to me.

Mr. Briscoe

That is another retreat.

Mr. Morrissey

There is no retreat. The Deputy comes in at the tail end of the discussion, not having sat here for five minutes when the Minister or anybody else was speaking, and he wants to butt in because something has been said that is exposing—— (Interruptions). I was on the point of sitting down. I cannot say that the Deputy has not learned all the tricks.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not say I have all the tricks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Morrissey to continue.

Mr. Morrissey

I am trying as hard as I can as a member of the Dáil to say that I do not agree with what the Committee has just done. I want to make it perfectly clear that I think the Committee should not have been satisfied with the explanations which they got from the Minister or from the Parliamentary Secretary, if I may call them that. I think the most damning indictment of the whole Estimate was made by Deputy Cowan. He is a very skilful debater, and he can put a pretty good face on a bad case; there is no doubt about that. He will not spare any effort or skill, certainly, when the Government are in the dock, but he failed completely. The case was so bad that he could not adduce one single argument for it. He was putting up skittles of his own to have the pleasure of knocking them down. He was delighted because we were honouring our bond and meeting our financial commitments, as if we had any option in the matter. The Deputy was thankful to the Minister for bringing in the Supplementary Estimate. The Minister had no option in the matter. I am sure that if the Minister could have avoided bringing in this Estimate, particularly at the present moment, he would not have brought it in. Of course, he had no more option in the matter than the Deputy had in supporting it to the best of his ability, and his ability in that matter is fairly considerable, but just not sufficient to make this particular case a convincing one. However, we will have another day yet.

Report of resolution agreed to.