Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 1956

Vol. 159 No. 5

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

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £367,500 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.

There are three Estimates for my Department. The net amount provided in the three Estimates for the present year is in the region of £21,250,000. Only some £550,000 of this is for administration expenses, the remainder being required for the various benefits and assistance services administered by my Department.

Deputies will note that the Estimates now before the Dáil make no provision for the increases in the rates of unemployment benefit, disability benefit and widows' contributory pensions which were the subject of recent legislation. The Exchequer contribution towards the cost of these increases will be provided by means of a Supplementary Estimate later in the year.

The Estimate for 1956-57 for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, which provides for salaries and other expenses of administration, shows a net increase of approximately £4,000 over the provision for these services in 1955-56. The net increase in the payment sub-heads of this estimate is about £58,000 which is mainly due to increases in Civil Service pay under conciliation and arbitration machinery.

The Estimate for Social Insurance in which provision is made for the Exchequer contribution to the Social Insurance Fund, from which the various insurance benefits are paid, shows a reduction of £618,000 as compared with the provision for last year.

The reduction is due principally to a decrease of £454,000 in the provision for unemployment benefit and an estimated increase of £182,000 in the income from contributions. These figures are based on experience in the previous year in which the expenditure on unemployment benefit proved to be less than the amount provided and income from contributions considerably exceeded the Estimate.

The estimated expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund in the year 1956-57 on insurance benefits and their administration is approximately £7,957,000. This is made up as follows and does not include any increase in expenditure arising under the recent legislation.

£

Disability Benefit

3,042,000

Unemployment Benefit

1,919,000

Widows' and Orphans' Contributory Pensions

1,480,000

Treatment Benefits

225,000

Maternity Benefits

103,000

Marriage Grant

69,000

Administration Costs

1,119,000

The income of the fund for 1956-57 has been estimated at £5,843,000 made up as follows:

£

Income from contributions

5,288,000

Income from investments

555,000

The income from contributions is based on the existing rates and takes no account of the proposed increases in rates as from 3rd September next.

The difference between the expenditure of £7,957,000 and the income figure of £5,843,000, that is £2,114,000, is the amount that has to be made good by the Exchequer. To this amount must be added the sum of £2,000 due from the Exchequer in respect of late payments under the former insurance schemes. Accordingly, the total sum provided under sub-head A of the Estimate is £2,116,000.

It will, owing to the passing into law of the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1956, be necessary to provide a further sum for social insurance this year by means of a Supplementary Estimate. As I stated when speaking on the Bill it is proposed to increase the rates of the insurance benefits by approximately 25 per cent. as from the beginning of September next. After that date a man with a wife and two children will, when sick or unemployed, be entitled to 61/- per week instead of 50/- as at present, and a widow with two children entitled to a contributory pension will receive 46/- per week instead of the 38/- which she now receives.

I might mention, while dealing with the social insurance Vote that a matter which had given rise to some dissatisfaction has been dealt with recently. Under the regulations relating to the payment of marriage grant and maternity grant the time within which these grants could be claimed was limited to three months with power to extend for a further three months only. Amending regulations have recently been made which enable these grants to be paid when the circumstances warrant at dates more than six months after the event to which the grants relate.

In the Estimate for social assistance there is a total net provision of £18,523,000 for the current financial year, an increase of £97,500 on the provision for social assistance for 1955-56, including the Supplementary Estimate of £844,000 in that year. The House will recall that this Supplementary Estimate was mainly to cover the cost of the increases from July, 1955, in the rates of old age and blind pensions and widows' (non-contributory) pensions. The cost of these increases for a full year has to be provided in the Estimate for the current year, hence the increase in the amount required.

As I stated at the beginning of my speech, the cost of social welfare to the Exchequer in the current financial year is estimated at approximately £21,250,000. This large sum is paid out in many small sums mostly at weekly intervals to persons who are unable to work and maintain themselves and their dependents owing to advanced age, illness or inability to obtain work. The sums being provided to-day on these three social welfare Estimates also assist workers to provide for their young families and widows to maintain themselves and their children after the death of the breadwinner of the family.

The importance and value of the many payments in the form of social welfare benefits made to persons during times of difficulty cannot be over-stressed. The money required to make the payments does not all come from the Exchequer. Employers and workers contribute substantially to the fund from which insurance benefits are paid and I think it is a matter of much importance that, where possible, our social welfare schemes are on a contributory basis. It enables them to be improved as in the recent Act without any of the participants feeling too much the added burden imposed on them.

Nuair a bhí mé ag cur síos ar an Meastachán seo anuraidh, bhí mé ag caint ar chúis na teangan sa Roinn seo. Do rinne mé tagairt do san, mar is Roinn tábhachtach an Roinn seo ós rud é go bhfuil an oiread sin fear agus ban óga ag brath air. Mar gheall air sin, ba mhaith liom, má thugann an tAire Meastacháin eile ós cómhair na Dála, go mbeidh giota beag den teanga dúthchasach le cloisint againn.

There is a golden opportunity for a young Minister like the present Minister for Social Welfare to do a good day's work for the cause of the language in this comparatively young and new Department. As I said here a year ago, we expect a lot from him in this respect. I suggested that one of the things he should tackle right away was the accounts branch. When I was there for a short period, with the permission of my Minister, I tried to interest the Department in this, but I did not get very far. There is much more progress in the county councils and in the urban councils than there is in the Department of Social Welfare. The accounts branch will have to take off the blinkers and wake up to the fact that, side by side with the economic progress of the nation, must go the Gaelicisation of the nation. Otherwise, Pearse and his comrades went out in vain, and it was in vain that Pearse stood over the grave of O'Donovan Rossa and enunciated the principle of a Gaelic Ireland—"not merely free but Gaelic as well; not merely Gaelic but free as well."

Many Departments have done a great deal in helping to revive the Irish language. I do not expect them all to put up Fáinní or to do all their work through Irish, but surely they could begin in a small way? A county council worker can have his pay order either entirely in Irish or bilingual, but the odd time he falls sick and gets a cheque from the Department of Social Welfare it should be in the language of the country. He would be well able to cash it and he would not kick up any row about it. I again appeal to the Minister to do something about this matter. I am not one of those who say that the civil servants are doing nothing for the language revival, nor do I say that the language revival must come through the Civil Service; but I say that, if the ordinary citizens of the State did one tenth of what the civil servants are doing for the language revival, then that revival would come very rapidly and would come in a period of 50 years. I have a small knowledge of this Department and I believe a lot more could be done there. That is the reason I am making this plea here.

I am very glad that there have been further savings and economies in the Department. I do not think that any Department has carried out more economies than this Department. I said in regard to the previous Vote, the Vote in respect of the Department of Justice, that we were a nation losing 40,000 people a year. We cannot afford elaborate Departments. Any saving we make is all to the good, because the more we leave in the ordinary citizen's pocket, no matter who he is, the better for the country. The more he has to spend, the more he will turn the wheels of industry and the more ploughshares he will set moving to produce food for himself and his family. On the other hand, if we overburden him with officialdom, we make life impossible for him and he will pack up and go where the burden will be less. Therefore, economies, such as we had in the previous Estimate and such as we have in this Estimate in regard to personnel and the working of the Department, are all to the good.

It was also desired at one time, and the hope was expressed, that this Department would be centred in Galway or somewhere else. In his statement—I do not know exactly when he made it—the Minister gave certain reasons for not doing so by saying that the present building accommodated all the staff. There may be a very legitimate reason for not decentralising this part of the Government, but I think the next best thing to be done is to have economies in the staff. Unfortunately, we have one big city growing, with resultant loss to the country as a whole. While Dublin grows and spreads, rural Ireland is becoming a wilderness. I pay tribute to the fact that certain economies in the personnel were effected; but whereas there have been economies in some sections of the Department, I notice that there has been a slight increase in other sections. In establishment, for instance, we have had, since last year, the addition of one assistant principal and one additional staff officer. There is to be an increase in staff in one of the accounts branches. We should like very much to know from the Minister why this has been found necessary, with all the labour saving devices we have in accounts offices, such as adding machines and other machines that do not come to my mind at the moment. In the first case I mentioned, the salary is very big. Coming down to the lower staff, there could be economies in the messenger service.

While I am on that subject—I do not know if the Minister's approach would be sympathetic—I should like to deal with the Old I.R.A. men employed in the service. I mentioned this in connection with another Vote. To them, more than to any other group, we owe the fact that we are speaking here in Tigh Laighean to-day. Their endeavours and sacrifices have put us here. Their reward is very small. They are non-pensionable, being employed generally as messengers and cleaners. I want to make a plea, that as long as they are able to work, irrespective of their age, they be kept on as messengers and cleaners. I know there are certain former members of Cumann na mBan employed in the Minister's Department even though they have passed the age limit. I know the Minister has done the right thing there. I want the same thing done about the Old I.R.A. men. As long as they are able to do any work, even if they are over 70, I should like to see them kept on. There can be economies in the messenger service because their places need not be filled when they fall vacant. I hope the same attitude to Old I.R.A. men will apply in every other Department.

This brings me to another point. I want to know from the Minister what progress has been made in the building of labour exchanges. The centres that come to my mind are Ballina, Tralee and Westport. I think we are all agreed that it is very necessary to have a central employment exchange and not to have the individual who wants to sign or draw benefits going from Billy to Jack, as applies in Westport. In Westport recipients of social benefits would need to be athletes to get to all the places. One office was on the quays, another was up on a mountain top and the other was in a valley. That was the worst case I met during my time. Certainly the people were not getting a proper service there. I do not believe in having ramshackle places, or a glorified Aras Mhic Dhiarmada, in country centres but neither do I want holes in the wall. We should have proper exchanges everywhere. These exchanges give the people the greatest service and consequently we should have places worthy of the name.

At one time the Department hoped they would be responsible for the building of these exchanges and for the carrying out of the architectural planning. That, however, was passed back to the Department of Finance and we all know the bottleneck there is there. At the same time, the Minister should press on for the building of exchanges in all the important centres.

In his introductory statement the Minister said:—

"Employers and workers contribute substantially to the fund from which insurance benefits are paid and I think it is a matter of much importance that where possible our Social Welfare Schemes should be on a contributory basis."

It is the workers' and the employers' money that is being administered and it should be in the workers' interest and in the interest of all citizens that there should be no abuses in dealing with that money. There should be a civic spirit created against abuses of the fund. Over the years there has been negligence in the certification of illness. Certificates for illness were given out automatically in many cases without an examination. That did not occur in the majorty of cases but in a sufficient number of cases to lead to abuse. We have had cases of men signing in the emploment exchanges and going to work afterwards with the full collusion, in many cases, of their employers.

Most of these cases are due to a bit of "smart aleckism". Every one of us should combine to put an end to these abuses. Sometimes it is impossible to get a man at a particular hour, occasionally at a busy time like harvest, until he had first signed at the labour exchange. Every Deputy knows that happens. If this country is to progress and if we are to build up an Irish nation worthy of the name we must turn our faces against that. We do not grudge the workers the benefits they are getting; we do not grudge them the increases they will get next September or even better but the continuation of these benefits and of a good social welfare code depends on the citizens, workers and employees, setting their faces against abuses such as I have mentioned. I raise that point on the Minister's statement, that this fund is an employers' and a workers' fund.

I have said enough on that matter. Everybody has a pet theory of his own. My pet approach to the question of labour exchanges has been that they should be as near as possible to the other public buildings in the town. That applies to Athlone where you have the post office, the Garda station and, in fact, all the municipal buildings grouped together. The citizens can get a better service in that way. Not only the men and women coming into the town but the lay-out of the town itself benefits from such a scheme.

There are Votes here for footwear and other things like firewood. I think it is high time we examined this question afresh. I wonder would I be transgressing on the rules if I advocated that, in consideration of an improvement of future social benefits, we would consider the abolition of such grants and give them in some other form such as increased children's allowances? In relation to old age pensions, I should like to see when a man or woman reaches 80 years of age, the old age pension increased by 50 per cent. and, if they go beyond 90, it should be doubled. They become more and more of a burden on the home as they grow older. The tendency is to put them into the county home or, worse still, the mental hospital.

Whatever way this generation is developing, people are regarded as respectable when a member of the family is sworn in as mad to the mental hospital but they are disgraced when he goes into the county home where he will be with normal people. The possibility of giving increased benefits to people when they reach 80 and 90 years of age would perhaps do away with that and it should be considered in the future. I was at a consultative council on Monday and I am very glad that the Minister for Health has agreed to give a medical card to old age pensioners who are in full benefit. It should be given to every one of them whether they are in full benefit or not, because it might obviate the tendency to which I have referred.

That is the only contribution I can make to the concise statement of the Minister on this Estimate. On the whole, the cost of administration is not very high but in face of the existing economic situation the drive for economy should be carried on by him as well as by other Ministers. When you cease to have that drive the human tendency to open the gates to increased staff arises again, and then comes the flood.

I was absent for the Minister's statement and perhaps the answers to some of the points I wish to raise have already been given. The people who set about the establishment of this State had as one of their aims social justice for all our people and from the time the State was founded various Acts have been introduced. Widows' and orphans' pensions, children's allowances, unemployment assistance and the other social welfare Acts have all tended towards fulfilling the promise made in the Proclamation of 1916.

For many years I was interested in the co-ordination of the various social welfare activities, national health insurance, unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance. The 1932 Act, to a great extent, has made that effective but there are still some threads to be tied up. I happen to be a home assistance officer and wish to make an appeal to the Minister to devote some of his attention to eliminating the overlapping that occurs between different departments. I hope the time has come when a special effort will be made to recruit highly trained officers qualified in the social sciences. One of the desires expressed by various Governments was to wipe out the stigma of the old poor relief system and that to a certain extent has been successful. The old title of relieving officer has been changed to home assistance officer and the substitution of cash payments for food or food vouchers has been brought about. I would ask the Minister to proceed on the same lines during the coming year and see that a proper scheme is put forward for the recruitment of the very best types into the service.

In relation to old age pensioners, I think when the Minister introduced the temporary provisions for the old age pensioners at Christmas he had in mind that this year he would be in a position to introduce increases in the pension. I do not know whether the Minister has that still in view but, if not, I would press very strongly that the old age pension of 24/- a week would be further increased or at least that some amelioration should be given to these pensioners.

While the increase in unemployment benefit is welcomed by every Deputy— it is certainly an advance on the position last year—it exaggerates the difference between old age pension and unemployment assistance recipients. Is it the Minister's intention in the immediate future to increase the rates of unemployment assistance? As the Minister is aware, in very many cases those in receipt of unemployment assistance are forced to have recourse to the assistance officer for a supplementary allowance. If at all possible, allowances given to people in receipt of unemployment assistance should be increased.

I do not know whether the attention of the Minister has been drawn to the position of old people who have been in receipt of unemployment benefit of 24/- and who from September next will be in receipt of 30/- unemployment benefit. When they reach 70 years of age they will lose on the transaction and the position will be worsened for a married man whose wife is also over 70 years of age. As he has been in receipt of unemployment benefit for his wife, he will lose much more than if he had been single. I would ask the Minister what proposals he intends to put forward to cover such cases. The same thing applies in respect of persons who are in receipt of pensions from C.I.E. and similar organisations. When they reach 70 years of age they also will lose. I should also like to refer to the position of widows who are in receipt of unemployment benefit under the Social Welfare Act. They are allowed a rate of only 12/- unemployment benefit or 12/- national health insurance. Those people should be given this benefit at once. It means that a married woman who becomes unemployed will be eligible to receive 18/- unemployment benefit whereas a widow on the widow's pension will receive only 12/-.

I should also like the Minister to make some statement on the position as regards the Richmond Institute for the Blind—whether he intends to see that the corporation takes over control of that institution.

Deputy Kennedy mentioned the provision of labour exchanges in certain parts of the country. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, in both Finglas and Ballyfermot, people have to travel very long distances to go to the labour exchanges at Werburgh Street and Gardiner Street, at a cost of something like 6/- or 7/- out of their unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit, as the case may be.

In conclusion, I take the opportunity to thank the officials of the Department. I have heard complaints in this House as to delay in dealing with cases, but I must say that my experience of dealing with the officials of the Department in Aras Mhic Dhiarmada has been very good.

The Minister should keep in mind the difference there is between conditions in this country and conditions in Britain, especially when he has any proposals for the benefit of social welfare classes here. In this country, we have a small number of insured workers in comparison with our population, and a large number of self-employed persons and of very small farmers, with the result that the recent Social Welfare Bill does not cater for a very large section of our people. Any benefits which were given in the recent Bill— and I do agree that those benefits under present conditions were necessary, and that even further benefits are still necessary—were given solely to insured workers. That is a change in policy. Up to now, when it was felt that further increases were required, as a result, say, of an increase in the cost of living, such increases were given all round, to all persons who were receiving payments from the Department of Social Welfare. This is a change which is modelled on the British system, and which caters only for a very small section of our people, the insured workers.

Unemployment benefit at a higher rate is needed, but unemployment assistance at a higher rate is also needed. Contributory pensions, that is, pensions for insured persons or the widows of insured persons were increased, and that increase was desirable; but non-contributory widows' pensions also require increases, and the same applies all round. I think that in a country like this the Minister is going along a road which is not for the benefit of the majority of the people who are in receipt of payments from his Department, and it is a move with which I do not agree.

I am very much more against it for this reason, that recently there seems to be in operation an all-out drive to reduce the number in receipt of unemployment assistance. Having gone into the thing fully, I deliberately say that a drive is on foot to get as many people as possible off the unemployment assistance register.

Of course that is Government policy. We provide employment for them and thereby reduce the number in receipt of unemployment assistance.

You had provided on last Saturday 6,000 fewer jobs than at this time last year.

Who told you that?

The Central Statistics Office here in Dublin.

I am afraid you are misinformed.

On last Saturday, there were 6,000 fewer working than at the same time last year. In other words, there were 6,000 more unemployed; and that has been the position for the last few weeks. If there have been reductions in the number of unemployed, it is due, I think, to a drive that is afoot to get very many people off. It had been the practice that, where there was a small mountain farm of, say, around £5 valuation and the owner was living there with his son who was married and perhaps sometimes working on the road when such work could be got, and perhaps also with a small plot of potatoes and so on, he found that he did not have enough insurance contributions to qualify for benefit and had to fall back for a large period of the year on unemployment assistance.

What is happening now? Every one of those cases is being investigated or re-investigated. Social Welfare officers are going out, and if they find a married son on a farm of that type, the full benefit of that farm is put against that person and he is immediately swept off the unemployment assistance register. That is happening, and I think it is happening deliberately.

That is cod. You know that.

I am protesting against it. Some people whom I know who have been during the winter months and other slack times drawing unemployment assistance because of the fact that work was not available in the locality, and who have been doing that for years, are now being deliberately cut off. Investigations are taking place, and in every case where such an investigation has taken place, these married men who have no property of their own and who are living on a small patch of a farm in the congested areas, are being cut off from all benefit. I recommend to the Minister that that is a field where some intervention on his part is required.

While agreeing that he has improved the lot of the insured worker, there are numbers of part-time workers, who have never been insured or who have been insured only for such a short period that they do not qualify for unemployment benefit, who suffer all the time. That is something to which I object. The situation is different from that which exists in an industrialised country where there is full employment. The non-insured worker, the unemployment assistance recipient, the old age pensioner and the non-contributory widow are all entitled to increases. No increase has been given despite the fact that the cost of living has increased. The Minister mentioned a figure of a 25 per cent. increase in benefits to insured workers. A similar increase should be given in the benefits of non-insured persons who are social welfare recipients.

In connection with old age pensions, what happens in the case of a small farmer is that he has a son, or perhaps two sons, working his farm. The farm is under £30 valuation. Where the farmer does not want to transfer the farm, as he is allowed to do by the Department, the deduction from gross income is calculated in a manner with which I entirely disagree. Remember, the farmer does not do any work himself. He employs his son, or perhaps two sons, to do the work for him. When he applies for the old age pension the deduction is entirely too small. If he employed a farm labourer instead of his own family he would be entitled to a deduction in gross income commensurate with the rate of wages paid over the year to that agricultural worker.

I know one case in which an old age pension applicant was only allowed a deduction of £30 in respect of his son, even though that son was in full-time employment with his father. Again, I came across a case in which no deduction was made in relation to a boy of 16. The boy was supposed to be working free for his father, but that boy had to get certain expenses out of the gross income of the farm. He had to have his board and lodging and pocket money for pictures and cigarettes. The county council allows an abatement of rates in relation to a son employed on a farm when that son is 16 years of age, or over.

The third point I wish to raise is in connection with branch managers of employment exchanges. In some cases these people have to provide their own premises. As the Minister knows, the cost of running such an office has gone up considerably. The branch manager has to provide heating, light and other facilities. The cost of these has increased steeply over the last two years. He has to employ staff, and wages have gone up. He must carry out repairs and supply furniture. The cost of furniture and repairs has gone up. There has, however, been very little increase granted to these people. They are the officers of the Department who have benefited least as a result of wage increases. If the Minister looks at the records in the Department he will see that in some cases these managers are in receipt of as little as £3 per week. He should look into that matter and have it remedied.

The previous speaker seems to be very worried because the number registered for unemployment assistance is decreasing.

It is not decreasing.

The Deputy expressed himself as being greatly perturbed at the number of people who are being deprived of unemployment assistance in his county. Certainly that is the inference I drew from his remarks. I will regard it as an improvement when the Minister and the Government bring about a situation in which no one will be in need of unemployment assistance. Unemployment assistance is the last resort for any man or woman. It is the clearly laid down policy of the Labour Party and of other Parties, or some of them at any rate, that we must aim at reaching a stage in which unemployment assistance will be a thing of the past. Deputy Cunningham knows just as well as every other Deputy that unemployment assistance is, at best, a palliative and is, to some extent, demoralising. It was introduced because of exceptional circumstances; there was mass unemployment and some pittance had to be provided for those who could not take out any type of livelihood for themselves. It is, as I said, a last resort. I hope that when the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare comes up for discussion next year Deputy Cunningham will have even more cause for complaint because of a still further reduction in the numbers drawing unemployment assistance.

I will complain if the numbers are reduced in the way that I mentioned.

In what way? In relation to those who are in receipt of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, disability benefit and so on, we must all appreciate the work that has been done by the present Minister. He has indeed been most mindful, since he took office, of those sections of our community. Those who oppose him, like those who are favourably disposed towards him, must admit that he has done everything possible to cater for these people. He has given us several instances of that. Deputy Cunningham referred to the recent one increasing the benefits for the contributory widows and those in receipt of disability and unemployment benefit by 25 per cent. I do not believe any Minister or any Government could do more than that at the present time. We all like to hear of these benefits, particularly old age pension and widows' and orphans' benefits, being increased. However, Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party must bear in mind that, during their 20 years of office, they did not give much thought to the people in receipt of any of these benefits.

Nonsense. Every Bill we introduced——

We introduced those benefits.

I do not like to have to go into some matters, but I think, for the benefit of Deputy Kennedy, who was recently in charge of the Department of Social Welfare, it might be no harm to remind him of what Fianna Fáil did for those people. I was not going to refer to this at all but Deputy Kennedy and Deputy Cunningham must admit they did very little—in fact, nothing at all.

Nothing. During your 20 years in office, you did nothing. You had from 1932 to 1948, 16 years, in your first period, and what did you do for the old age pensioners over that extended period?

Is the Deputy addressing the Chair or Deputy Kennedy?

Now that Fianna Fáil are out of office they suddenly become very conscious of the plight of the people in question. The policy of Fianna Fáil to get those people to apply for home assistance allowances to supplement their inadequate old age pension allowance is not now with us. During the two terms of office of this Government, from 1948 to 1951, and from 1954 until the present time, it has been clearly indicated that they are much more mindful of the needs of the old age pensioners than Fianna Fáil. For that reason, I cannot understand why the present Opposition complain of the plight of these people seeing that they had an opportunity over a very long period to do something themselves for them and that they failed to do so and, as a matter of fact, completely ignored them.

That is a complete misstatement of fact.

Order! Deputy Murphy is in possession.

You allowed them to get 2/6 home assistance. That is all you did from 1932 to 1948.

Who introduced the Unemployment Assistance Act?

Deputy Murphy is in possession. He is entitled to make his speech without interruption.

He is not entitled to make misstatements.

You do not like facts but you have to take them whether you like them or not.

We would like facts but we are not getting them.

Those people know the position very well and I am sure they told you so on a few occasions and will do so again.

Deputy Murphy should address the Chair.

Fianna Fáil are mindful of the plight of those people when they are in opposition, as they are then mindful of the plight of other sections of the community. However, once they become the Government, they completely forget all they said while in opposition.

That is not true.

Time has proved it. You had a chance between 1951 and 1954 of doing something effective for these sections of the community but you failed to do it. I sincerely hope—speaking now on this particular section that we are dealing with on this Vote—that Fianna Fáil will never again have an opportunity of having anything to do with those people because it would not be to their advantage.

Look to the horizon.

My main reason for intervening in this debate is to mention a few items about which I am not quite satisfied. I should like some clarification as to the means test for old age and widows' and orphans' pensions. I know there is necessity for a means test and that it is the duty of the officers of the Department to do their utmost to administer the law as they find it, that is, the officers in Store Street, Dublin, or the social welfare officers down the country. At the same time, I am not satisfied with the manner in which many of these claims are dealt with. I feel that some social welfare officers deal too rigidly with applications and, unfortunately, whatever decision they come to is usually upheld in Dublin.

I have in mind cases somewhat similar to one mentioned by the previous speaker. If a farmer of £10, £12 or £20 valuation, or less than £30 valuation, applies for a pension and, due to some domestic circumstances whereby he may not be able to assign his farm to a particular member of his family, difficulties immediately arise in regard to his application. You will find a number of instances of three or four members of a family between 30 and 40 years of age living on the same holding. As Deputy Cunningham pointed out, the applicant himself may be an invalid and incapable of earning any income. The pension officer comes along and states that the income from his farm precludes him from earning any pension.

Surely, if a farmer has two sons working for him on the farm, he should be allowed the minimum agricultural rate for the work of his two sons. Any farmer who at the present time employs a man and does not pay the minimum rate of wages set out by the Agricultural Wages Board is liable to prosecution. If there is an obligation on a farmer to pay an employed person a fixed rate of wages there is a similar obligation on him to pay or at least set aside a similar rate for members of his own family.

I believe that in this country too many farmers' sons and particularly the type of farmers' sons I have referred to—small farmers' sons who are more or less self-employed on their own holdings—are not getting any consideration at all. Apparently the social welfare officers think these people should work for nothing. The Minister may say that to allow for two men on a particular farm would be too much and that probably instead of requiring two men to work a particular place one member of the family could do it. I want to inform the Minister that many small farmers such as I have mentioned and such as Deputy Cunningham mentioned of less than £30 valuation cannot, for reasons outside their control, assign their farms to a particular member of the family. These people are very dissatisfied with the rigid manner in which the means test is applied in regard to their applications. I feel it would be well if the Minister would discuss that particular question with some of his senior officers with a view to giving some more definite instructions to social welfare officers as regards the handling of such applications.

I have met a number of these cases in the past year. Consider the position of a farmer with three or four sons living with him and with possibly one or two working on the holding and one or two others earning. Between them, they have accumulated, say, between £600 and £900. I do not know whether this applies to other parts of the country but in West Cork the earnings of the family are usually deposited in the bank or post office in the name of the father or mother although this money, which is nominally the property of the father or mother as the case may be, is actually the property of the family. It was got through the earnings of the family and handed into a common purse, which is usually deposited in the bank. It is no use telling that story to a social welfare officer. He will charge to the full any money held by the father or mother although it can be clearly proved that it was not as a result of their earnings. There is also the case of the applicant for the old age pension whose valuation exceeds £30 and who, some time prior to applying for the pension, transfers any money which he has to a member of his family. Irrespective of the age of that member, the pension officers never accept such a transfer. It is always held that the transfer was made purely for pension purposes.

I am quite conversant with the position which obtains in West Cork. It is quite usual, when people reach the age of 70, for them to transfer their money and share it out between the members of their family. The Department of Social Welfare never accepts that view and more or less implies that these applicants are dishonest and that their statements that they have transferred the money are false. I think the Minister should not agree to these recommendations from his officers down the country because the bulk of these applicants are honest and genuine. If the Department of Social Welfare had a more reasonable and sane approach to the matter, and had more faith in these old people and in what they say, matters would be much more satisfactory in relation to the investigation of the means of old age pension applicants.

Farmers who have worked all their lives, often under difficult conditions, are quite entitled, when they reach the age of 70, to take things easy and to draw some allowance, and the old age pension is meagre enough. We must bear in mind other sections of the community who do not have to wait until they are 70 to avail of retirement allowances. It is not 24/- a week they get but several times that sum plus a nice gratuity. I cannot see why we should have such a narrow approach in our dealings with these self-employed people who have contributed as much, in their own way, to the welfare of the State, as anybody else. That system existed before the present Minister came into office. I am hoping that something will be done for these people with £16 and £17 valuation who can not have very much. I have seen farmers with a land valuation of £8 and £9 rejected for a pension. All I can say is that the appeals officer must know nothing about farming.

A good job they do not.

On this particular question I endeavoured to elicit some information from the Department relative to the activities of the appeals officer but unfortunately such information was not available. In recent years the tendency on the part of the appeals officer, so far as my knowledge goes, is to leave things as they are. Seldom or never does he make any change in any appeal submitted to him. That is a change. Previous appeals officers had not got that point of view. They examined closely and carefully every appeal which came before them, irrespective of what the local officer recommended.

The Minister is responsible for his Department.

I think I am entitled to make a comparison. I endeavoured to elicit some information as to the percentage of cases in which the appeals officer made any change from that recommendation.

The Minister is responsible for the decisions of his Department.

I submit that the percentage of cases changed was negligible. We have dealt with the applications of farming people and now I would like to deal with shopkeepers who have a somewhat similar, if stronger, grievance. I include publicans in that category. In the case of a small shopkeeper, a widow, applying for a pension, the appeals officer obtains from her supplier the amount of goods which she purchased during the previous year and he assesses her with a net income of 12½ per cent. of that amount. I am completely against that assessment of the total turnover and it is unfair to charge it against the applicant. I believe no shopkeeper, particularly the smaller type grocer, selling cigarettes, bread, tea, etc., would make 12½ per cent. net profit. However, that is the regulation that is laid down by the Department of Social Welfare. Publicans do not fare so well. The estimated profit of a publican is 20 per cent. of his turnover. I think the Minister should have that position reviewed. Publicans in a big way of business in Dublin or Cork may make that profit; I am not sufficiently conversant with the position to know whether they do or not. But I do know that publicans in provincial towns and rural districts do not make a 20 per cent. profit on turnover.

The income-tax people assess them at the same rate.

I am making the case that the publican in a provincial town or village, who has to stand behind the counter all day, may not sell even ten pints. The Minister should review the 20 per cent. assessed on publicans on turnover and the 12½ per cent. in the case of grocers and shopkeepers.

There is another section of the community in respect of whom there is a complaint which it may not be easy to remedy within the present framework. They are the wives of workers who happen to be older than their husbands. If the wife applies for a pension while her husband is still in employment and earning over £4 a week, she gets no pension. It is very difficult to explain the position to such people. I cannot suggest any remedy, but the Minister should review the position. It arises only in cases where wives are older than their husbands and the number would not be very big. The Minister should devise some way of getting over the difficulty because some of these women receive very little out of their husbands' earnings.

I am convinced that the Minister and the Government are doing everything they possibly can for the sections of the people covered by social welfare legislation. I hope that the grievances I have mentioned in regard to the enforcement of the means test and in regard to the estimate of net profits of shopkeepers and publicans will be reviewed by the Minister. I trust that he will be able to devise some means whereby the means test will not be enforced by his officers down the country in the rigid manner in which it is at present operated. I conclude by wishing the Minister every success in his Department.

The Minister, at least, is to be congratulated on making progress under the heading of social welfare since he took office. The fact that he has not made spectacular strides in that direction is proof that there are certain limitations to the rate at which social services may be expanded and I am sure the Minister now realises that the expansion of social services which he advocated when he was on this side of the House is not easy of accomplishment. In a country like this, which has a huge unemployment problem, an emigration problem, a declining population, we must of necessity set limits to the amount we put aside for those who are fortunate enough to be at present in employment. Other problems, such as the provision of employment for those who are unemployed, the creation of extra jobs per year, should take precedence over any social welfare scheme.

There are many things that remain to be done but, since 1932, the strides made in the field of social services are very creditable indeed. While I congratulate the Minister on any improvements which he has effected in his time, it is only right to point out, particularly in relation to a statement made by Deputy Murphy, that Fianna Fáil have to their credit the provision of the major portion of all the social benefits available to the people. If I understood Deputy Murphy correctly, he said that Fianna Fáil had done nothing in the way of social welfare. He probably did not mean it that way, but I think the statement, as recorded in the Official Report, will have that meaning. That was the only inference I could draw from it.

In reviewing the list of social services now available, it immediately occurs to me that Fianna Fáil were the sole architects of most of our important legislation in respect of social services. I have to name only a few: unemployment benefit, disability benefit, as recently included in the Health Act, widows' contributory pensions, widows' non-contributory pensions, orphans' contributory pensions and orphans' non-contributory pensions, not to talk of various expansions of existing services which were implemented by a paltry sum up to the time that the Fianna Fáil Government first set out to expand social services. The building trade workers' special insurance, the emergency fuel scheme and practically every worthwhile piece of social legislation that has been enacted in this country were brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government at some time or other.

In those days, members of the Labour Party accused us of not moving fast enough in that direction. I am sure the present Minister now realises that certain limitations must be set even to the very desirable work which remains to be done in the field of social services.

I want to get from the general to some particular points. I agree with the points made by Deputy Murphy in relation to difficulties placed in the way of people who seek these benefits. When civil servants are designing a questionnaire which must be filled in by applicants for any benefit, it seems to me they have in mind the biggest crooks that could be envisaged. That may be understandable if the idea is that the form will be foolproof, but it seems to me that the trouble involved in the unnecessary red tape could be obviated by having a little more laxity, even at the risk of exploitation by a few.

I do not know that I have ever met a person in this country who fully understands the qualifying conditions for unemployment benefit. The leaflets issued in respect of that matter are not very helpful. I suggest that the Department should issue a simple booklet in concise form explaining in simple terms the conditions and the qualifications for this benefit. There is the benefit year and there is the contribution year, and these vary. The contribution year and the benefit year in respect of females is different from the corresponding periods in respect of males, with the result that many people are not fully aware of when or how they may qualify for unemployment benefit. There are also exceptions with regard to new entrants and sometimes a new entrant qualifies with fewer contributions than an existing contributor, leaving people working in the same job not understanding why this should be because there are special conditions related to it. That time has been extended time and again, but I do not know if the Minister has sought to clarify the position with regard to new entrants.

I appeal to the Minister, if possible, to simplify the code in relation to unemployment benefit generally. If he does so it will be a great help to the people concerned. If it is not to be simplified, perhaps the qualifying conditions could be set out in simple form in an explanatory pamphlet. This would save Deputies a great deal of trouble in explaining what are the conditions prevailing in each case.

In the case of unemployment assistance, I am not going to accuse the Minister of taking any particular action, but the handling of cases at the moment would seem to indicate that there is a move on foot to completely cut out all unemployment assistance. Investigation officers sent out by the Minister's Department will come down on applicants time and again, reinvestigating cases without notice, and the result of the visit of the investigating officer inevitably is the discontinuation of the assistance, or a drastic reduction in the amount. I do not know if that is part of a campaign to put an end to unemployment assistance or to effect economies and save money at the expense of these unfortunate people who have to go on the dole.

I have been in touch with the Department over the past few months about a case which I will refer to by way of example. There was a single man in receipt of 12/- a week unemployment assistance who lived in a labourer's cottage. He got married, but he had been employed as a fisherman for some time before he got married. When he got married, his unemployment assistance was increased to £1 per week, but after two weeks the invesigation officer came along and asked him how much he had earned for the time he was fishing salmon. The man replied that he had earned £30, but the investigation officer added £6 to that, making it £36, and the result was that his unemployment assistance was reduced to 7/- a week. This man is living in a rented house; he does not own a stick or stone, and yet he has to live on 7/- a week, just because this time last year he earned £30 in a small boat fishing salmon.

A county council worker who resumes work and is knocked off work intermittently has no reduction made in his unemployment assistance. Anybody who knows anything about the life of a fisherman on the Donegal coast knows that he goes out at five in the morning and works until six in the evening, and may have nothing for his week's work. He may earn a few pounds the next week. After working for three months, this man earned £36 and now he and his wife are expected to live on 7/- a week. I have taken this case up with the Department but the appeals officer has upheld the verdict of the investigation officer. I am sure that this is only one of hundreds of cases of the same kind of people who are being victimised completely by these investigations. I submit that that is part of a campaign to effect economies at the expense of the most deserving section of people in this country. If that is so, it is a shame.

In every debate on this Estimate, the same old plea is made in respect of pensions for the blind. I think it is no harm to make it again this year, in the hope that some time or other it will not fall on deaf ears. The general complaint which I am going to make is in regard to embroidery workers. I think the condition under which one may qualify for a blind pension is that one is unfit to carry on one's usual occupation by reason of impaired eyesight. Embroidery workers are not given the benefit of that regulation, despite the fact that, in many cottages in the congested districts, embroidery work is the main source of livelihood.

When the woman of the house is no longer able to carry on her embroidery work as a result of defective eyesight, she naturally makes application for the blind pension and inevitably she is turned down just because it is felt that her eyesight is sufficiently good to enable her to carry on her household duties. That means that some of her family, at an early age, have to set off for England to earn a livelihood and to keep the home. Embroidery workers should be accepted, as embroidery is their principal means of livelihood. The benefit of the doubt should be given in such cases.

I should like the Minister to devote some attention to the question of employment exchange offices. In many cases, the local offices are not suitable buildings. I understand that the onus is on the branch manager to secure suitable premises, but I think it is time the Department stepped in, because these offices have come to stay. They are no longer buildings which are in temporary use and which, one day, will not be required. These branch offices for the administration of unemployment assistance have come to stay, and in many cases they are not suitable. It is not fair to expect the branch manager, in a town where housing conditions are difficult, to be able to obtain suitable accommodation. The Minister should step in and give a helping hand. If suitable accommodation is not available, suitable buildings should be erected. Deputy Kennedy had in mind the Hotel de Ville type of building. He hoped to have erected in each town, where such offices were located a building which would cover all the different offices in relation to local administration in the area where he would house the assistant county surveyor, the superintendent of the Guards, the investigation officer attached to pensions investigations, the branch manager of the exchange and the agent of what used to be known as the national health insurance. Any such offices in relation to local administration could be housed in one suitable building where people could call and be attended to conveniently instead of having them scattered around the back streets in different parts of the town where they are sometimes not so easily accessible. It would be a grand scheme. It would also contribute its quota towards taking some of the people out of the queue outside the employment exchange.

Some speakers mentioned the question of increased remuneration for managers in branch offices. I did not think it would be necessary to stress that point to the present Minister because he is a sensible man and must realise that the branch managers on their present rate are unable to carry on. Sometimes the job is not worth the candle to the manager of a branch employment office. The rate is governed by the numbers registered as unemployed and certain offices may work out much more satisfactorily than others. I know that there are certain offices in which the job of branch manager is not worth bothering about at certain times of the year. I think it is only fair that the position should be examined with a view to bringing about the necessary adjustment.

I listened to Deputy Murphy, and while nobody in this House would like to prevent the people who are already in permanent employment getting all the benefits to which they are entitled as Christians and workers, at the same time the Department of Social Welfare should not be lopsided in so far as city employment is concerned. There is a great deal of talk in this country at the moment regarding the lack of amenities and attractions for the people who live in the rural areas. The depopulation of these areas, as a result very often of social as well as economic conditions, is one of the major problems confronting the country at the present time. It is one that has been accelerated, unfortunately, in the past few years.

If the Department of Social Welfare are going to have a bias towards the city worker, I think that is not a move in the right direction. We are not spending all the money we would like to spend on social welfare. There must be certain limitations in a country where the resources are meagre and unemployment is rife, but if we are to lean in a particular direction we should lean towards the worker in the rural areas.

Time and again I hear people say that unemployment assistance was the curse of this country because it created lazy men, corner boys and what not, but at the same time I have seen many families who could not have existed were it not for that particular social benefit. Until we are in a position to say to each person: "There is a job available for you within reasonable distance of your own home," the onus is upon us to provide for those people the necessary pittance. There are people who abuse the scheme but then what scheme is not abused in this country or in any other country for that matter? It is not the great drain on the resources of this country which some people think it is.

Immediately the people get that money it goes in to the grocer, the butcher and the baker before Saturday night and helps to stimulate the circulation and distribution of goods. It is one of the principal things which keep a few shillings circulating in some of the rural towns. The money is not quite so ill-spent as some people would like to indicate it is. There are occasions when people could not exist were it not for the fact that that pittance is available to them. I think those people should not be treated in the way they are very often treated. They are useful members of the community who would, if work were available to them, contribute their quote to production in the country. That is proved by the fact that whenever any bit of employment becomes available you have literally hundreds of them looking for the few jobs that may be vacant.

So far as Donegal and other congested counties are concerned, the Department has got sufficient easing off in these payments by the increased emigration over the past two years. That may not be relevant under this Estimate but suffice it to say that until something is done and done quickly there will not be many signing for unemployment assistance in some of the western counties in the course of the year. The Minister for Social Welfare cannot do much in that direction. Our primary task should be to improve the conditions under which the people live, give them employment and endeavour to create the necessary work. Then social conditions would be improved much more easily and in those circumstances much more money would be placed at the Minister's disposal in order to carry out the work.

I should like the Minister to pay attention to the few things I mentioned, particularly my reference to unemployment assistance and to embroidery workers who apply for a blind pension. I support Deputy Murphy in his reference to old age pension applicants. We all know the case made so frequently in this House where the old man, who has been a hard worker all his life, fails to qualify for an old age pension because he has been a thrifty, hard-working and generally useful citizen but the man who has not been just so thrifty, the improvident type, who did not work so hard and did not accumulate any of the world's comforts or wealth, finds it very simple to qualify for a pension when he reaches the age.

So far as the means test operates in regard to old age pensions, it sets a premium on improvidence. It might not be fair to describe it that way but when any of us sit down on a subcommittee of an old age pension body he realises the difficulty in getting certain people qualified for that weekly payment, people who all their lives have devoted their best years, in toil and sweat, to producing for this country.

I refer to the farmer who manages to build a reasonably good home and brings up a family who may support him and give him reasonable comfort in later years. That is held against him in the means test when he applies for the few shillings in respect of the old age pension. It is not right but I suppose the statutory limit must be drawn somewhere. We may go on raising it time after time but there is a lot to be said in regard to advocating the complete abolition of the means test for, while you would give pensions to a number of people who could reasonably do without them, at the same time you would cut out all the inequity which results from the present system of means test. You would also save the cost. We would be saving the cost of a very big staff of investigation officers. I wonder if the means test were abolished whether the Exchequer would stand to lose anything in the end?

We have a happy knack in this country of recruiting a few thousand civil servants and we hardly ever get rid of any of them again. We never hear of a pay-off in that quarter although we hear of pays-off in every other direction. It might be possible if we did cut out the means test in regard to old age pensions so to arrange matters that, as the existing staff reached retiring age and no other men were taken in, the young men would find work replacing those now down in "the glass house" and we would have effected sufficient economy to offset any extra expense which might be incurred as a result of the abolition of the means test. I would be all for that.

It is the practice of many of us when we take part in debates here not only to pick out the good points in the administration of a particular Department during the past year but also to point out some of the things with which we do not agree and those which we feel should be amended with advantage to all concerned. I understand an increase has been given in insured workers' benefits and, beginning with that, I would like to ask the Minister if it was because of the decrease in the real value of the allowances which had been paid in the past, due to the increasing cost of living, that it was decided that these benefits should be increased? If that is so—and, I take it, that is mainly the reason for the increases—why is it that non-contributory allowances or pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, blind and old age pensions have not been brought into line? If increases in benefits are justified in the case of those people who are mostly able to work to earn their own livelihood when they meet with unemployment or sickness, surely like increases would not be out of place for their less fortunate brethren who are either blind, or infirm as a result of age, or who are orphaned or widowed or unemployed?

I would ask the Minister—I am sure he has looked into it already—to bring these people into line. Surely they are in a much worse position than insured workers who, generally speaking, are working most of the year and working every year.

In regard to allowances paid to the less fortunate members of the community, I join with Deputy Brennan and others who have spoken here in asking the Minister very seriously has any directive been given to the social welfare officers throughout the country, or have they been given any line of procedure which it was indicated they should adopt causing them to tighten up their investigations in the assessment of income in connection with those allowances, the non-contributory allowances generally? I feel, as far as my experience goes in County Donegal, that there has been a definite tightening up of the investigations where social welfare officers are concerned in regard to the means of applicants for old age pensions, non-contributory allowances and for non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions, and particularly in regard to applicants for unemployment assistance.

I can cite cases that I have raised with the Department. Some of these have been remedied on appeal to the Department, but I have experience of quite a few cases in connection with unemployment assistance and in connection with pensions also, where, despite the increase in the cost of living over the past year, people whose means have in no way improved over the last two years, are being assessed since then with greater family or household income than they were assessed with two years ago. The result is that the pensions or allowances now paid to them are reduced. If their income has not improved it means they are no better off than they were two years ago, and certainly there is no case whatever for a reduction in the allowances that had been paid under any of these headings. Yet such is the case, and this is happening because of some arrangement made. I am sure it is because of similar experience that other speakers have already raised the question as to whether welfare officers throughout the country have been inspired from some quarter or other to tighten up on this matter. As we can see, there is no question but that there would be some small saving in the national Exchequer in this procedure but it would be a saving taken from the very people who can least afford to have anything taken from them.

As has already been said, workers in rural Ireland are surely in a sorry plight. While it is true that unemployment is now rife in rural Ireland, that emigration is continuing and that the congested districts in particular are being denuded of their entire population—in view of these things and in view of the saving that that emigration has made possible, in so far as unemployment assistance is concerned, surely those who still remain should at least be dealt with as fairly as they were dealt with a year or two ago. There certainly should be no question whatever in days of an ever-rising cost of living of these people having their pensions reduced. But that is happening. I am quite sure that the Minister, while he may not be a party to this type of discrimination in regard to these people who are least well off in the community, cannot at the same time be unaware that these things are going on. I would appeal to him to try to effect in regard to those I have mentioned what he has succeeded in doing for the insured workers. Instead of reducing the allowances, as is happening in many cases at the present time, he should give these people an increase also, because they must need it even more than their insured brethren.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the Minister's notice in relation to some workers who are insured or who are in insurable employment. When these workers become sick and go on sick benefit, this benefit, as I understand it, can be paid only for a period of six months. If the worker has not got 156 contributions paid up under the regulations, apparently, after six months the benefit will cease. In such a case the benefit may be restored should the sick person put on a further 13 stamps. If that is done that person will qualify for benefit for a further six months, and so on. If the person is too ill to work at all, so ill that in fact he is paid six months' benefit under the insurance scheme, and if at the end of six months he is still as ill or possibly worse, how is he supposed to get work for 13 weeks in order to qualify himself again for a further period of six months' benefit? That is asking the impossible and it cannot, therefore, be done.

There is one case I know of at the moment which was with the Department on appeal but was thrown out. It is the case of a man who is still getting no benefit after the expiration of the six months. He cannot possibly put on another 13 stamps because he is unfit to do anything for himself at the moment and he has no means whatever. Nobody knows what is to happen to him in the future, and the fact that this situation exists certainly is not helping him to get well. I do not know what benefit or what kind of assistance he can get now, unless we are to put him on home assistance, which is the last possible source of aid, and it is so small that it is really only a stop-gap until something better comes along. I feel the need is there for this Department, which is spending millions of pounds and has become a very comprehensive service, to close some of these gaps and to close them pretty quickly.

Another matter I should like to raise with the Minister and his Department is the question of blind pension qualifications. In regard to an application for a blind pension, is the same degree or standard applied in all cases, irrespective of the occupation of the applicants prior to their blindness? The reason I ask that is rather obvious. A man doing rough manual work who incurs a certain degree of blindness might be able to carry on his job without any great trouble; but, on the other hand, there might be a man with the same degree of blindness whose occupation was that of a cobbler or shoemaker. In regard to female applicants, there might be the type of applicant mentioned by Deputy Brennan—embroidery workers or girls working with very fine needles and requiring extra good eyesight. Will the same degree or standard be applied in each and every case? If it is, then it is quite plain that it will be unfair. I am not sure, but I feel that such is the case at the moment, and I ask the Minister to look into it.

One other matter I should like to bring to the Minister's attention is a question I raised with him previously and which, I understand, he has had under consideration. It is the situation in which fishermen at the moment, although paying approximately 2/- per week for their insurance stamps, are not entitled to any insurance benefit when unemployed. In addition, they are not accepted by the Department for the purpose of paying the higher rate stamp of 4/- per week, or, as it will be in the future, 4/8 per week, which would entitle them without question to unemployment benefit. The situation seems to be that they pay for the 2/- stamp and get no value whatever for it. Many of those with whom I have spoken—and, I am sure, many elsewhere—feel that they would get a better bargain if they were accepted for the 4/- or 4/8 stamp, with all the benefits that accompany it, rather than paying 2/- a week for a stamp which is practically useless to them. That is the attitude I found on the west coast in my own constituency. The Minister indicated in the House that there may be more to it and that everybody may not be of like mind on it.

As far as the fishing community in my own constituency are concerned, I have discussed the matter with them in groups—and not political groups, I may add. I have discussed it with them as fishermen, as they waited at their boats or on their piers before putting out to sea. They would gladly accept the higher stamp, with the benefits that go with it, rather than pay 2/- for the half-rate stamp and get no benefit from it. I am telling the Minister, for what it is worth, that that is the attitude generally of the fishermen along the west coast of my constituency, and if he can bring about a change in this regard, I feel the fishermen in that part of the country at any rate will be thankful to him and to his Department.

Another matter I am interested in also concerns these same people who pay for the 2/- stamp. What do they get for that 2/-?

Everything except unemployment benefit.

I take it that there is a number of qualifications in regard to the stamps that must be put on, the qualifying periods and so forth. Why I ask this—I might as well as say it now before we get into any arguments about it—is that some of these same fishermen I have already mentioned found that, not only could they get no benefit, but in some cases they were refused any free medical assistance. In fact, I know one of them has gone to a solicitor, or proposes to do so, and is taking an action against the Department to test whether or not in their circumstances, they should be entitled to service. I do not know the ins-and-outs of that case, except that it is in the hands of a solicitor for the reasons I mention. How many stamps were on or what period they covered, I do not know.

These are part-time fishermen, who fish only part of the year, because of the type of weather, the type of coast or the smallness of their boats. They are paying out 2/- every week, but, because of the regulations, they might as well be paying nothing. Apparently, that is their big grievance—that they pay 2/- and, as far as they can see, get nothing for it. In the case of those people—there may be other cases—it is quite easy to see why they would prefer to pay 4/- and get the benefits that go with it, instead of paying 2/- and getting nothing whatever, as is the case at the moment.

The Estimate for this Department as a whole shows an increase. Some of that increase will be justified by increased payments of benefits, but, unfortunately, like all the other Departments at present, any good that may be coming in that way is offset by the fact that we have increases in the Estimate of this Department which are brought about by increases in wages to staff and by other running costs. Undoubtedly, these people are entitled to their increased wages and allowances, but it shows the continuing trend that is evident in all such Departments at the moment—the trend that costs are continuing to rise —and in regard to this Department, the Government are giving no better headline than they are giving in regard to any other Department. They are not giving any lead to the public generally whom they are now asking to save more, while they themselves, as a Government, out of the public purse, continue to spend more of the people's money.

I do not know whether there is any immediate answer to that problem which I raise on this Estimate, just as I raised it on other Estimates on which I have spoken and on others on which I shall speak, as an indication of the trend of things. While they look for savings, the very same Government are themselves, whether willingly or unwillingly, adding to this overspending that they deprecate. That is very obvious here and it is a thing that we must deplore, no matter what we may say about any other part of the Minister's speech. Anything else the Estimate may show by way of improvement in our workers' conditions we can regard as something that is worth while and something that is an advance. However, this increasing cost of the running expenses of the Department is a bad thing. Need I add my voice to those of others who have spoken in the same voice in asking the Minister, if at all possible, to examine the workings of his Department, its personnel inside the Department in Dublin and outside, with a view to trying to retrench in some manner the cost of administration?

If that were done, the increases that we might justly give to non-contributory old age pensioners, to widows and orphans and by way of children's allowances, could be more easily achieved. At the moment, however, we do not see retrenchment, only further increases. In a service as big as this, there are so many officers and so many branches that there is a considerable waste. There is, however, a terrible lot of duplication of work and the doing of unnecessary work. This criticism is not given in any spirit of reflection on anybody doing a good job in the Department; it is given as my opinion of a service which, of necessity, is very complicated. It appears to me that there is still a considerable lot of unnecessary waste that must be stopped. In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to look into that aspect just as closely as into the other points which I made.

Before the Minister rises to reply, I should like to say that the question referred to by Deputy Blaney in regard to part-time fishermen affects us very much in South Kerry. That matter has been referred to the Department on several occasions and I should be very glad if the Minister would now clarify the matter as to whether these people could be enabled to have the option of availing of the higer rate of insurance, and as to whether there are some legal difficulties involved. At any rate, I hope the Minister will deal with the question as early as possible.

Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl don Teachta Ó Cinnéide go bhfuil an oiread suime agam in usáid na Gaeilge sa Roinn agus atá aige féin. I am afraid I am not as fluent, to my shame, as Deputy Kennedy, but I should like to say that I have still the same interest in the promotion of the language in my Department as he has. The Deputy should be aware of my views in that respect.

The different questions that have been raised on this Vote could, I suppose, be called matters of detail. The whole Department is one of details. It is very hard for one to get into a long discussion about administration generally over the past 12 months. Deputy Kennedy asked about the increase in staff, but he conceded that the increase was very small indeed. I might say that the increase in staff does not necessarily mean the additional expenditure that the figures would, at first glance, suggest. He did mention that there was an extra assistant principal. I should like to explain that that extra assistant principal is in place of the assistant principal who has been seconded to the International Civil Aviation Association in Canada. While it means an additional assistant principal, it does not mean additional expenditure.

He mentioned also that there is an extra employee in another section. That employee happens to be a temporary card puncher in the Accounts Branch. I think Deputy Kennedy knows that the staff of the Department was, during his time, pruned down to the bare minimum. It is one of the Departments that suffered tremendous reductions in staff, mainly due to the fact that the Department, which had been scattered so very widely throughout the city, was then concentrated in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada.

I do not think anybody can complain very much about the cost of administration of the Department of Social Welfare. I think it would be well for the House and the country generally to realise that in this Department the cost of administering a sum of £21,000,000 is only 7½ per cent. If all our Departments could operate on a 7 per cent. cost of administration there would be great saving effected. I am not saying that is possible, but people are under the impression that if we had fewer civil servants in the Department of Social Welfare, old age pensions could be increased substantially and other social benefits could also be increased. That is not the case, because the administration cost in this Department is very small.

Deputy Kennedy also raised the question of new employment exchanges and asked for some information in respect of them. This was referred to during the debate on the Estimate last year when I mentioned the fact that new employment exchanges—the provision of which would give a necessary boost to the building industry—were needed throughout the country. I said at the time that the new employment exchange at Westport was practically completed and that it would be ready for occupation in the near future. I mentioned that a new exchange was being built in Ballina and that it would be opened before the end of the year. In regard to Tralee, I said that a site had been obtained. Since then the new exchanges in Westport and Ballina have been completed and occupied. The sites for the new exchanges in Tralee and Cavan have been acquired and the plans have reached an advanced stage.

As I said last year, the position in Dublin is engaging my attention. Deputy Gogan mentioned the matter this time and said that the people in the outlying districts found it difficult to attend at the exchanges. People are under the impression that it is necessary for recipients of unemployment assistance or for people who are on the register in such places as Cabra and Ballyfermot to sign at the employment exchange every single day. Such is not the case. Normally, if they reside within two miles of the exchange they must sign every day; if they reside between two and four miles they attend only every second day, and if they live between four and six miles from the employment exchange it means they must sign only once every week. By and large, it is expensive for people, particularly in Dublin, to have to spend money on bus fares to come to the exchanges but I am endeavouring to have branch employment exchanges, if possible, situated in the suburbs at four, five or possibly six points.

Deputy Kennedy also talked about the abuse of the insurance fund. I think all of us in the House are in agreement with the views expressed by Deputy Kennedy. Anybody who, by false pretences, obtains unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, or any of the other social welfare benefits, should not be tolerated in any way but instead should be subjected to the severest penalty for what really is a robbery of the fund which is largely the property of the employer and the employee. As far as I am concerned as Minister for Social Welfare, I will not tolerate any clemency towards those people who obtain such benefits by fraudulent means.

In that connection I might say, even though the question has not been raised here to-day, that it seems to me that to some extent what is commonly known as the "wet time" fund has been abused, and the abuse is not confined to workers. I am afraid there has been some abuse, to say the least of it, by the employers. If that kind of abuse were allowed to continue the fund would be in a very bad way indeed. As a matter of fact, I am not satisfied that the fund can exist on the present contributions and it may be necessary in the immediate future to have the contribution increased. I mention this because I am convinced that there has been abuse and it would be well to remind the workers and the employers that it is their fund and that any abuse of it, either by employer or employee, will react on the workers and, of course, the employers.

I am very much in agreement with Deputy Gogan on the question of the home assistance officers. Many of us and many of the local authorities are inclined to regard the qualifications for home assistance officers as the ability to count and to receive and to distribute money. I do not think that that is sufficient and I certainly will consider the suggestion that has been made by Deputy Gogan, and mentioned by other Deputies here to-day, in regard to the recruitment by local authorities of home assistance officers.

A great deal should be demanded by the local authority in respect of the post of home assistance officer when they are inviting applications for such a vacancy. The home assistance officer should be more than merely a person who distributes money. He must have the right type of approach and a tremendous amount of sympathy in his approach to people whom we might regard as being the least well off in the whole country. Many of us do know home assistance officers who have not the proper approach. They seem to antagonise the people whose circumstances they are investigating and to whom they are distributing money or whose position they are examining for the purpose of deciding whether or not they should get a medical service card.

I suppose the original job of home assistance officer was merely to distribute home assistance. The local authority, through its members, decided whether or not a person would receive what was then known as "outdoor relief" and it was the function of the home assistance officer to deliver that money to a particular poor person and, of course, to report on that person's means. Now the job of home assistance officer is much more specialised and covers a much wider field. Thousands more of our people are dependent on the attitude and the general approach of the home assistance officer. He is the person who determines whether or not a person should get assistance. He, in his report, advises the local authority whether or not a person should get the disabled person's (maintenance) allowance, whether or not a person should get a medical service card or a maternity cash grant, and whether or not a person should get the infectious diseases (maintenence) allowance.

Many of us have had complants, as Deputies, from time to time about home assistance officers who, to say the least of it, did not have a sympathetic approach to these unfortunate people. Therefore, a certain standard should be demanded from applicants for the position of home assistance officer. I would go even further and say that, perhaps, we should establish a scheme whereby these home assistance officers would be taken on a special course every so often to school them, so to speak, in the administration of the various Acts which they now have to administer in part, in any case, and to give them an idea as to what their approach should be to the poorer sections of the community who are dependent on the local authority and the State for certain assistance.

Deputy Gogan also asked me about the Richmond Institute for the Blind. Deputy Gogan is not a member of the Dublin Corporation but I think the members of the Dublin Corporation and those who are generally interested in the Richmond Institute for the blind know my particular interest in it. Over the last 12 months I have tried to bring some degree of conclusion to this unfortunate business for the benefit of those people who are dependent on the Richmond Institute for the Blind for their employment and for their income. As far as I can gather at the present time, the Richmond Institute authorities have made application to the courts for permission to sell the institute and there is a possibility, but not any definite commitment on their part, that the Dublin Corporation will buy the premises and carry on in a similar way to that in which the Richmond Institute have been carrying on. As a matter of fact about two months ago I convened a meeting of those people who are interested, including the Dublin Corporation and the National League of the Blind, with a view to getting some conclusion to this whole business. I can assure Deputy Gogan that I will maintain my interest in it and try to see that the interests of the blind workers are safeguarded.

Deputy Cunningham said that there was a change of policy in the granting of increases in respect of social welfare benefits. His point was that in all cases in the past at a particular time all social welfare benefits were increased simultaneously. On reflection I think he would now say that such has not been the case. He possibly had in mind that in 1952 all these benefits, old age pensions, unemployment benefit, disability benefit and blind pensions were all increased at the same time or at least in the same year. However, down through the years it has not been the policy of Ministers for Social Welfare, of Ministers for Local Government and Public Health and, where they were concerned, Ministers for Industry and Commerce, to have a simultaneous increase in all these benefits. I do not think such is the case. Old age pensions, to give an example, were increased, I think, in about June of 1951, but there were no increases in respect of other social welfare benefits. I do not think it would be possible, in any case, to increase all these benefits at the same time. I do not think any Government or, should I say, any State, could, in the one year, increase old age pensions, unemployment benefit, disability benefit, blind pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, children's allowances, etc., even by the very smallest amounts. It would cost millions in a year, and I do not think any Government would be prepared to face up to the task of doing it all at the one time.

My policy has been over the past two years to increase these in stages. Last year, the old age pensioners got an increase, not a colossal increase. I promised last year that during the coming year I would see what could be done for those in receipt of unemployment benefit, disability benefit, and widows' and orphans' contributory pensions. As a matter of fact, I was pressed, though I did not need to be pressed, from various sides of the House to bring in a measure as soon as possible to do that. It has been done. I am not saying that the old age pensioners or those in receipt of unemployment assistance have been forgotten. The old age pensions and unemployment assistance are not payable at a rate of which the country could be proud, and it will be my task to try to see that they will be increased as soon as the Government can do it.

As I said in the last two debates on the Estimate, this Government was formed on a 12-point programme. One of the points on which it was committed was an improvement in social welfare generally, and I think that over the past two years our record in that respect, to say the least of it, has not been bad.

Frankly, I must say I am amused when I hear representatives of the Opposition saying, as I think Deputy Ryan said recently on the Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill, 1956, that the benefits were not sufficient, when I remember (and I do not know whether to take them at their word or not) that Deputy Ryan in the debate on my Department's Estimate in June of 1954 said that if he were in my position he would not—and he did not qualify it in any way at all—increase those benefits which are being increased now under the Social Welfare Act. I appreciate that members of the Fianna Fáil Party may not have the same view, but, if that is Deputy Ryan's view, I assume that he still talks for the Opposition in respect of social welfare.

There have been allegations by three of the Donegal Deputies—I do not know why it is the Donegal Deputies and whether it is confined to that district—of a deliberate reduction in the amounts paid to recipients of unemployment assistance.

Cut off altogether.

Reduction, and cutting off altogether. I do not know that there is any foundation for that.

I can assure the Minister it is true.

I can say for myself that no directions have been given to social welfare officers to investigate unduly any of these recipients. As Deputies are probably aware, those social welfare officers have a particular programme throughout the year. They must investigate a certain number during the year, and have been doing that for years and years past. I am not aware that they have stepped up on their—let us call them—reinvestigations, and I have checked with the Department, and there have been no instructions given to them by any official in my Department. As a matter of fact, there were suggestions by Deputies from the western seaboard, not Donegal, during the year that there were more reinvestigations in the present 12 months, say, than in the past 12 months, or in the 12 months before that. I remember answering a question by, I think, Deputy Calleary of Mayo, on that, and two or three other Deputies whose names I cannot remember now, and the reply was the contrary of the inference in the question asked. There were less reinvestigations and fewer reductions than there were in the previous 12 months.

I have had two experiences of changes of Government since I came into this House, and the different allegations or suggestions one gets from different Deputies are amusing. Every one of my colleagues from the Labour Party who comes to me about unemployment assistance recipients and the application of the "means test" suggests to me that it is only the Labour Party supporters who are being reinvestigated. Deputy Cunningham, I suppose, will suggest that it is only Fianna Fáil supporters in Donegal who are being reduced.

While that was not the vein in which the Deputy argued, I know the way we get those allegations on changes of Government, that the Government is now getting its own back on people who did not support it in different localities. I merely want to assure Deputy Cunningham, Deputy Blaney and Deputy J. Brennan that, as far as I and the Department are concerned, no instruction in any way has been given to investigation officers to reinvestigate more cases than they normally would in any year, and they have got no instructions to try to effect any economies at the expense of those people who are in receipt of unemployment assistance. If Deputies will consult the Book of Estimates, they will see that we are providing this year an increase of £50,000 for unemployment assistance. Surely that, therefore, does not suggest that we are trying to economise in respect of that class.

I might say that I will not tolerate any campaign to effect an economy at the expense of those people. Many Deputies will agree, though I do not expect everybody in the House to do so, that these people who are generally regarded as the "dole men" are subjected to a lot of criticism and sneers by people who should know better. The allegation against most of those people in receipt of unemployment assistance seems to be that they would not work, even if they were offered work. I may say that, as far as I know, there are in that group in receipt of unemployment assistance an unfortunate number who are unemployable. They imagine themselves that they are capable of the heaviest type of labouring work, but the plain fact is that employers just will not engage them. They are not people who are ill or deformed in any way, but they are just not able to work any more—not by reason of any physical incapacity. By and large, might I say, in respect of the majority of the people who draw unemployment assistance—I must confess that I do not know all parts of the country, but I know my own constituency and the counties of Leinster and some of Munster—there are very few in the country at the present time in receipt of unemployment assistance who would not accept employment if it were offered to them?

Again, let me say that I will not allow any campaign that would be directed against those recipients of unemployment assistance if they are entitled to it. There is no half way. The social welfare officers, in their application of the means test, are not unduly harsh, in my opinion, against those people.

Deputy Cunningham also mentioned, and so I think did Deputy Blaney and other Deputies, the position of branch managers. The branch managers receive the various Civil Service awards. It is true that there may be some of them who do not regard themselves as being well paid, but by and large I would say that they are not in as bad a position as some Deputies——

I thought you were going to say "as a Deputy".

——would have us believe they are. As a matter of fact, they have got the recent Civil Service increase. As the various awards come out, they get the benefit of them.

That does not cover the increased cost of keeping premises, of course.

It would cover premises because the premises are taken into calculation when computing salary. The increase given is a percentage increase and it would, therefore, cover the premises.

So long as we have a "means test" in relation to old age and widows' and orphans' pensions, so long will we be subjected to the type of discussion we had here to-day and to the criticism of Deputy Murphy and the various other Deputies. Whilst none of us is perfect, the social welfare officers make the best job they can of it. Theirs is the interpretation of the different sections in the Social Welfare Acts dealing with the "means test," The Minister or any other official in the Department, except the appeals officer, has no function in the giving of such decisions. The social welfare officer makes his investigation and tries to determine what the means are. He has to conduct different types of investigation. He has to assess different items at a certain value. If an individual is dissatisfied with the means assessed, there is an appeal to an appeals officer. That is provided for in the 1952 Act. I cannot interfere, and neither can any other official of the Department, with any decision arrived at by the appeals officer.

Someone said there is a strong case for the abolition of the "means test" and that we could save on administration, by its abolition, an amount which would provide a substantial increase for old age pensioners and others. If the "means test" for old age pensioners and blind pensioners were abolished, the saving on administration would amount to a mere £30,000. Most people seem to imagine that if we do away with the "means test," we will in consequence also do away with social welfare officers. It must be remembered that investigation of means for the purpose of old age and blind pensions constitutes a relatively small proportion of the work of the social welfare officer. I am all for the abolition of the "means test," but, inasmuch as it would cost £2,500,000 to abolish it, I would not be prepared to abolish it in present circumstances, because, if I could get my hands on that £2,500,000, I would much prefer to give it to the old age pensioners, who, at the present time, have a mere 24/- per week.

Deputy J. Brennan asked me to try to have a certain amount of red tape cut out in the filling in of official forms. He said unnecessary information was sought in these forms and sometimes the applicants found great difficulty in filling them in. Some time ago, I replied to a question by Deputy Casey as to the duties and general approach of officers of the Department towards the public. I said, in reply, that it was the duty of officers to be as helpful as they could be to the public applying for or in receipt of social welfare benefits. The officials, irrespective of whether they are local agents, managers or branch managers, clerks or staff officers in the exchanges, are perfectly willing to assist any person who has occasion to fill in a form and who finds difficulty in doing so. In reply to a question last week, I said that if a form were sent to the Department, which happened to be an application form for some type of benefit, and it did not have sufficient information, if that information was not vitally necessary and was not information which had a bearing on the final decision, the officials always paid and got the information afterwards. I gave the House an assurance in that regard. I think that is the proper approach. Do not, however, let anybody get the impression that any of the information sought in these forms is unnecessary. Every single form, every single line and paragraph in it, is necessary.

Deputy J. Brennan does not appreciate the work done by my predecessor and by Deputy Ó Cinnéide when he was Parliamentary Secretary. Deputy Brennan asked us to issue a special booklet to give the insured public and other people the fullest information possible in relation to the Social Welfare Acts and the qualifications necessary in order to receive the different benefits. That had been done by my predecessor and his Parliamentary Secretary before I ever entered the Department. I understand the booklet is up to date, except in relation to one or two small items. These booklets can be supplied to any Deputy who has not got one. They are readily available to any member of the public who wants information. Managers and branch managers are armed with these booklets and can and will give the fullest information to those who want it.

I appreciate how very difficult it is not only for the ordinary public, but even at times for me, and for members of this House, to advise in relation to benefits under the Social Welfare Act. Sometimes I am afraid to answer queries from my own constituents, or others, until I have consulted the Act or this little booklet. We were so accustomed to the former Unemployment and National Health Insurance Acts that it is difficult for us to attune ourselves now to the provisions of the Social Welfare Act of 1952. I suppose in time we will be able to recite the provisions of the Act pretty well when we have grown used to it.

Deputy Brennan and, I think, Deputy Blaney asked about the qualification for blind pensions. The unfortunate position in which I find myself is, not alone in respect of blind pensions but in respect of disability benefit, that I am not a doctor; neither are the officials of my Department doctors. If a doctor or an ophthalmic surgeon tells a person that he is not blind then he is not blind and there is nothing I can do about it, whereas if he certifies that the person is blind then he is blind. If the doctor says the person's leg is broken then his leg is broken. I am not a judge of whether or not it is broken.

I think Deputy Brennan was particularly interested in persons who had been embroidery workers and who were now applicants for blind pensions. Deputy Brennan suggested that if a person could not carry on the usual occupation of embroidery she should be entitled to a blind pension. That is the practice, so far as I am aware. The definition of blindness is that the person should be (a) so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential or (b) so blind as to be unable to continue her ordinary occupation. If the appeals officer was satisfied that embroidery was her normal occupation and that her sight was so bad that she could not continue that work he would concede that the condition was satisfied. That, briefly, is the principle on which the appeals officer works and, as far as I am aware, it has been fairly satisfactory. In any case, I do not think anybody would suggest that, on the question of blindness, the appeals officer would himself decide or that I should intervene. The appeals officer can only depend on the report of the ophthalmic surgeon or the doctor on the condition of the applicant for the blind pension.

I think Deputy Blaney is under a misapprehension about the qualification for disability benefit. He quoted a case here of a person whose disability benefit was terminated after receiving it for six months. One of the qualifications for receipt of disability benefit is that the applicant shall have 26 stamps. For those 26 stamps he or she can obtain 12 months' disability benefit. Unlimited benefit is paid in respect of those sick people who have 156 stamps. That means that any person who has three years' stamps can receive disability benefit for an unlimited period. That is a statutory provision of the 1952 measure and cannot be changed by regulation. Whilst I know there may be hardships here and there, by and large, the amount of benefit paid in respect of contributions could not be regarded as ungenerous.

Deputy Blaney, Deputy Flynn, and, throughout the year, Deputy Corry and I think Deputy MacBride mentioned the position of share fishermen with regard to insurance. I was pleased to listen to the comments of Deputy Blaney to-day when he suggested that the share fishermen would be satisfied to pay the full rate of the stamp for all the benefits. That proposal, as I said a week or two ago, is engaging my attention. However, I am glad to hear from Deputy Blaney that the fishermen do not want something for nothing or something at a very cheap rate. I undertook, and I hope I will be able to make good the undertaking, to have a decision arrived at in a very short time.

Those, I think, were most of the general points raised in this discussion. May I thank the Deputies for their criticism, harsh though some of it may have been, and for their general contribution to the debate on this Estimate?

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn