Vol. 165 No. 7
I move:—
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,023,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for Old Age Pensions and Pensions to Blind Persons, Children's Allowances, Unemployment Assistance, Widows' and Orphans' Non-contributory Pensions, and for Sundry Miscellaneous Social Welfare Services, including Grants.
The Supplementary Estimate for Social Assistance amounts to £2,023,000. The need for this Estimate arises mainly from two Social Welfare Acts which were passed last year. The Social Welfare Act, 1957, increased the rates of old age and blind pensions, widows' non-contributory pensions and unemployment assistance from mid-May, 1957. The Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Act, 1957, increased the rates of children's allowances from last May, also.
The estimated cost of these increases for a full year is about £2,250,000. For the current financial year, however, the cost is calculated at £1,976,000, for which allowance to the extent of £1,950,000 was made in the Budget Statement last year. The further sum of £47,000, making up the total Supplementary Estimate of £2,023,000, is the net amount required for variations in the original Estimate, apart from the increases I have mentioned.
These variations include an excess of £67,000 on the original provision for unemployment assistance. In the case of unemployment assistance, the excess is due to the number of recipients being somewhat greater than anticipated. The saving on the provision for old age pensions is attributable to an unexpected decrease in the number of pensioners, due, in some measure, to the influenza epidemic.
The variations also include additional sums totalling £39,000 required for grants to local authorities and for blind welfare. The additional provisions for grants to local authorities comprise £6,500 for school meals and £18,000 for the fuel scheme. This latter sum is required mainly because the numbers of recipients of cheap fuel were greater than estimated.
The additional sum required for blind welfare arises from a decision to make a grant of £15,000 to the Board for the Employment of the Blind, which was set up last year to acquire and equip a workshop for the blind and be responsible for its management. As there is an estimated saving of £500 on the original provision of £17,500 for welfare of the blind, the net additional sum now required for this service is £14,500.
This Estimate, needless to remark, is not opposed; but it comes quite well after the allegations by the Minister for Social Welfare, who talks about "super-optimism" in respect of the social insurance Estimates, because the Parliamentary Secretary has listed some savings on the Estimate for 1957-58. Incidentally, I think I heard him say that they were savings in respect of old age pensioners, because of the Asian 'flu—so both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary now want to use the Asian 'flu to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the former Government.
The Minister chided me in respect of the last Vote for my super-optimism regarding employment; but surely I also can talk about the optimism of the Minister, if he imagines for one moment that the 1/- increase to the old age pensioner, to the widow and the orphan or the person "on the dole" is sufficient to defray the increased cost in the price of certain foodstuffs and other things since the last Budget. I think that is the height of optimism, even so far as the Minister is concerned.
I do not know whether the Minister has noticed it or not, but there did not seem to be either over or under estimation about unemployment assistance. To provide for the unemployed who were not eligible for unemployment benefit, 10 per cent. extra was provided for the year 1957/58. I think it is wrong and mischievous for the Minister to say that the previous Government, or that I, as Minister for Social Welfare, did not recognise the trend of unemployment and did not provide adequately for it. As a matter of fact, in regard to social insurance, a sum of £1,500,000 extra was provided for those in receipt of unemployment benefit, disability benefit and contributory widows' and orphans' pensions.
The Minister may play upon words and he may wriggle, as he did very effectively for the past half hour, in trying to excuse his Government for the lack of employment. He talks about over-optimism and over-estimation in respect of the contributions to the Social Insurance Fund. The reason why the Government have to provide this year an extra £500,000 is that there are not enough workers in the country to make up that £500,000, which now must be made up by the Exchequer. There may be less unemployment in the country at the present time, but alongside that, there is less employment, and that is the reason why the Government have to supplement this fund to the tune of £500,000.
Furthermore, I recognise in this country over recent times a sort of anti-social welfare attitude. When the present Social Welfare Act was introduced, away back in 1951 or 1952, and passed eventually in 1952, many of us thought that this would be the basis for the assistance of needy people; but now, with talks of shortages, with talks of economies, with talks of stringency in financial policy, in my opinion, there is a dangerous attitude growing up amongst certain sections of the community and amongst certain members of this House. A great deal of suspicion has been cast upon those people who are in receipt of social assistance especially.
I do not refer to any remarks that may have been attributed to the present Parliamentary Secretary or, as he says himself, misconstrued, when I say there seems to be an attitude growing up in the country that the person in receipt of some form of social assistance is a "chancer," a waster or a blackguard. I do not think that is entirely fair and, above all, entirely correct. Because there is no means test and because it is applied generally, there is no such attitude towards every one of us who is married and who has children in receipt of the children's allowances, and we should be prepared, at least I shall be prepared, to defend these people who are in receipt of widows' non-contributory pensions, unemployment assistance, the dole, or old-age pensions.
One would imagine from the remarks of some people and the attitude of certain sections of our community that this was pure charity and that these people by some fraudulent device were given something that was not their due. I raised a question with the Parliamentary Secretary here in order to publicise the matter. I said I did agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, that possibly there were some people—I know there are some people —who received unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit and who were not legally entitled to it, but I did not think we should use these examples to condemn the unfortunate fellow who is on the dole and has a few shillings per week and who will now get the sum of 1/- per week to make up the increase resulting from the withdrawal of the food subsidies in the last Budget.
I cannot imagine what 1/- per week will do for these people and I would urge the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to see that this will be further increased in the next Budget or in some other way. There seems also to be an attitude adopted especially in this House and by various Ministers of State and Ministers for Social Welfare that where the State can provide the local authority will provide. The local authorities have become very niggardly in the last few years. The many people who are in receipt of State assistance by way of old age pensions, widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions or unemployment assistance are regarded by the local authorities as not being deserving of either home assistance or disabled person's maintenance allowance.
The tendency of the local authorities —and we can see it even at their estimates meetings—is to cut down on all these things. They still must maintain the same level of grants for certain agricultural undertakings. The premium must be given for the mare, the foal, the boar and the bull, but they are cutting down every day on such things as home assistance, disabled person's maintenance allowance and the other types of assistance. There is a legal obligation on these local authorities to assist people who need this little help but, over and above all that, there is a moral obligation on the local authorities or should I say on the ratepayers of the various countries to provide for people who cannot provide for themselves, but in my opinion the local authorities are falling down badly on that job.
The actions of local authorities may not be discussed on this Vote.
It was a passing reference. In conclusion, I want to insist again, despite the remarks of the Minister for Social Welfare, that last year as far as social insurance and social assistance were concerned I, in the last Government recognised the trend, accepted responsibility for the position at that time and provided under social insurance an extra £1,500,000 for the unemployed, and an extra £131,000 for those in receipt of unemployment assistance.
Again we propose to add substantially to the list of supplementaries introduced by the Government. We shall now exceed by some £4,250,000 what the Minister for Finance said in his Budget statement would be a careful estimate. This, of course, is a necessary Supplementary Estimate and one that the Government must get to meet the many and severe charges that rest to-day on the shoulders of old age pensioners, the recipients of children's allowances, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions, and so on. Why have they to face this additional expenditure? Partly because of the effect of last year's Budget, partly because of the withdrawal of food subsidies? This is a contribution to compensate for the impact of the withdrawal of the food subsidies. What was presented to the House and the country last year as a saving in that respect is dwindling rapidly as we have to provide for the sections of our people who cannot stand up to what they are asked to endure in consequence of the impact of the withdrawal of those subsidies. Where will it stop? It has fired off a round of wage increases that has not yet and will not, for some time, be felt by those old age pensioners, by everybody who lives in this country.
That is not all it has done. We have the charges already on the Exchequer for C.I.E. We shall have continuing charges arising out of the increase in the cost of living deliberately brought about by governmental action at Budget time last year. Perhaps in reply the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary would indicate the part of this supplementary which can be attributed to the direct consequences flowing from the initiation of that budgetary policy. We do not contend that the miserable 1/- a week given at that time in compensation—and let me quote from the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance——
What about the time you reduced it by 1/-?
Deputy Galvin, I understand, proposes—I have news for the House—to make his maiden speech after a long silent sojourn here. No doubt he will, in the course of this debate, speak about the unemployed, who crowd around his door in Cork City, and explain why so far, on the first anniversary of the election of his Government, they have been unable to devise that grand plan to give the 100,000 jobs that Deputy Lemass used to talk about but about which he talks no more. No doubt he will explain to the unemployed of Cork, and to the wives who were to get their husbands to work, how miserably his Government are failing in that respect. It will be an interesting contribution when it comes and one that will be appreciated by the unfortunate people of Cork City who were duped this day 12 months into voting for him and his colleagues. No doubt he will explain how they failed to bring down the cost of living——
I have not a photograph of King George hanging in my hall.
He will explain all about the promises that were made to the electorate of Cork.
I have not a photograph of King George hanging in my hall as the Deputy has.
Deputy Galvin may not interrupt in this manner.
King George fed the people, not like Fianna Fáil who are starving them.
King George does not come into this Estimate.
He has King George's photograph in his hall.
I would rather have it than Bob Briscoe's.
I do not know what Deputy Galvin is talking about; neither does the Chair.
Deputy O'Sullivan on the Estimate.
The Minister for Finance speaking last year in introducing the Budget said:
"The Government recognise that there are certain sections of the community whom it would be unfair to expect to bear the full impact of the ending of the food subsidies, namely, those who are in receipt of unemployment assistance, blind pensioners, old age pensioners, widows and others in the social assistance categories. Accordingly, the Government have decided that there should be a general increase of 1/- a week in social assistance payments, extending to adult dependents and one dependent child."
That was one of the provisions that had to be made to cushion the weaker sections of the community against the impact of that increase in the cost of living. The people in the community were led to believe that it was never said by the members of this Government that they would not withdraw the food subsidies. The Taoiseach committed himself in Mayo in that respect, but the people did not realise it fully. There were some economists who could afford to hold the view and felt that it would be a good move to reduce expenditure in the country by the withdrawal of the food subsidies. To-day can we say that that money has been saved? Is it not true that there is reflected in the rates of every local authority in Ireland a charge in relation to the additional cost of maintaining our public institutions?
That does not arise on this Estimate.
This is part of the complete picture which I am trying to paint. What I am depicting is a series of charges which are being made on the national and local exchequers to meet the effects of the policy initiated by this Government when it introduced its first Budget last year. This is a direct consequence of that financial policy and in it, remember, we do not go a fraction of the way to meeting what are the just needs of the old people, the people who are unemployed, the widows and orphans and the blind.
It would be a sheer impossibility for any Government to discover all individuals in the community who have been hit by that type of policy. We would like to know where it is to stop and whether the Government have yet reached the point in expenditure where they would not have to find one additional penny in taxation by leaving subsidies untouched. If they have not reached that point, they should certainly be drawing very close to it. We have to find in this Estimate, for the assistance of those who are employed, £150,000—for the men who have been put out of work, who were gainfully engaged on operations under the Local Authorities Works Act. £250,000 at £5 per week to meet the charges that a household has to bear to-day, gone by the board and substituted for by £3 ls. per week which entails an expenditure of £150,000. And there are people to-day, some of our high-brow economists, who will say that that was a saving of £250,000 to the Exchequer. May God preserve this country from many more of these savings if we are to be presented periodically with the type of absolutely necessary Supplementary Estimate as this is, in order to cushion the impacts of this Government's policy on the section of the community least able to stand up to it.
I am influenced in speaking to this Estimate by the hope that what I say may reach the ear of the Minister before he frames the Budget. The figure of £10,500,000 mentioned in the leaflet for social assistance will surely give us serious thought in regard to the position that has arisen —that year by year a greater number of old people are becoming dependent on an ever-decreasing number of people who are able to earn. The time has now come when some differentiation should be made in the old age pension given to those in rural areas and to pensioners living in cities like Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway.
Old age pensioners in the country who have largely got their pensions by surrendering their farms are certainly in a more advantageous position than the old age pensioners living in rooms in Dublin. Certainly, they enjoy the advantage of cheaper food, while the old age pensioner living in the city has to pay the higher costs. I wonder would the Minister give the House some estimate of what an increase in the old age pension to 30/- in the urban areas would involve. The underlying principle of the Children's Allowances Act was, I understand, to promote the rearing of larger families and for the welfare of growing children. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in Dublin this principle has been very seriously infringed. So far as the Health Act is concerned, children's allowances are being taken into consideration in the assessment of maternity grants and the general medical service card. I wonder will the Minister do what I ask, that is, to preclude, by Order, the taking into account of children's allowances in those assessments?
As regards the Estimate for widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions, I think it is time now that we ceased to penalise the widow who is willing to go to work and who, during her periods of unemployment, is penalised to the extent that her unemployment benefit is taken in as means. I would ask the Minister to consider with doing away with that provision in the Social Welfare Act. The Minister will probably ask where is the additional money to come from.
What the Chair will say is that the Deputy is advocating legislation which is not in order on an Estimate.
To go back to the question of old age pensioners, might I ask the Minister to do something to relieve the position of the old age pensioner who, if he is employed at the age of 70, loses his benefits under the Social Welfare Act?
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, or to prevent him from making a fair case, but the only thing which may be discussed is something which the Minister may do by an administrative act. It is only administration that is under discussion, and not legislation.
May I conclude then by replying to Deputy Corish that I think it a rather unfair thing to suggest that we on this side of the House are antagonistic to any extension of social welfare. It can be remembered that it was the Fianna Fáil Government that introduced the Social Welfare Act, the Children's Allowances Act and the Widows and Orphans Pensions Act.
You were forced to introduce them.
By whom?
By circumstances.
The previous speaker has formulated a theory which I have heard put forward for the first time in this House—that pensioners in rural areas are not entitled to as high a rate of pension as those who live in cities and towns. The reason he put forward was that, in most cases, the people in the rural areas had signed over their holdings to their sons in order to qualify for a pension. I wonder does Deputy Gogan really know what is happening in the country. Anybody familiar with conditions in the country at the present time is absolutely shocked at the flight from the land. It is not so much the case of a father and mother, after rearing their family, signing over their place to get old-age pensions. The trouble is to get one son to stay at home to inherit the old family place. I, for one, could not possibly countenance a theory like that, which proposes a differentiation between old age pensioners in the country, on the one hand, and in the towns and cities, on the other. I do not know if Deputy Gogan is speaking on behalf of his Party, or on behalf of the Government, but I am sure a proposal like that would meet with a very stormy reception in this House.
There is a growing demand for an increase in old age pensions, in the country as well as in the towns and cities. There are several sound reasons for that. In the Six Counties, the old age pension is practically double what it is here and, instead of reducing old age pensions in the country, there is a demand for increasing them. That demand would meet with the support of every Deputy who is in touch with his constituency and knows the true conditions at the present time. One thing which has always occurred to me —and what I am going to say arises under unemployment assistance—is that every Government, not alone in this country but elsewhere, seems to be able to get money for every possible scheme imaginable. Why then is it not possible to get money to put people into employment here? We are not an over-developed country; we are sadly under-developed. Development means employment and employment would mean less of a bill under the heading in the White Paper which the Minister has placed before us to-night.
The Government has certainly fallen down on its job. This is the first time I have spoken on the question of unemployment since this Government took office almost a year ago to-day. It will be a year in another 11 or 14 days. I want to ask were Fianna Fáil genuine in what they were saying in the spate of propaganda used in the Irish Press and Sunday Press against our Government during the 12 months before we went out of office? I wanted to give Deputy Lemass a chance to implement his promise to give jobs to 100,000 boys and girls and so keep them at home. Now I see after a year that it is time to speak and condemn the rotten tactics that were used by Fianna Fáil to get into power.
It is a desperate thing when a Government Party, who were in office for quite a long time, can fool the people simply because they have two powerful organs of propaganda which they try to shove into homes all over the country. They said in those organs: "We will get cracking," and "We have a plan to give 100,000 jobs to boys and girls to keep them at home." It is time somebody raised his voice now after 12 months. I want to confess that I deliberately kept silent. I know no Government can work miracles overnight. They want time to do what they said they would do, but I see now through the whole sham by which the people were tricked in the last election.
It is very bad leadership and creates a dangerous precedent when any Party goes out and makes promises which they know in their hearts they cannot fulfil. I am not saying this for politics. I would make every allowance if it was a new Party which came in with big support. I could understand their enthusiasm running ahead of them, and their making promises they would not be quite sure of; but Fianna Fáil, who had 16 unbroken years in office, and a further two or three years later, in the last general election deliberately fooled the people. There is a very dangerous explosive feeling amonst many of the people throughout the country over the shameful way they have been tricked. If we were a more dangerous type of people—fortunately we are a peace-loving people— I could see us taking very stern methods to show those who had tricked us that they could not do it again. I could easily see people in other countries not taking that lying down as our people do.
The unemployment position is rapidly getting out of hand. In forestry, bunches of men are being thrown out of work. There is no employment in the Land Commission. The Local Authorities (Works) Act, under the county councils, is a complete dead letter and the building trade is practically closed. It is impossible to get grants. After years of urging farmers to produce, that production was the only salvation of this country, we find that the farmers have done what they were ask to do. We find, according to the people over there, that overproduction of wheat, butter and bacon is evil. According to them, it is evil that we have sufficient wheat, a surplus of butter and enough bacon. Another thing puzzling the people very much is that, with overproduction, though prices are naturally coming down, at the same time the cost of living on townspeople is soaring still higher. That is contributing to unemployment.
There is another aspect of social assistance to which I want to direct the Minister's attention. It is that every trick is being used at the present time to discourage the honest recipients of unemployment assistance, and to trick them out of what the law says they are entitled to. I will not take it as a reply when the Minister mentions that some people are drawing unemployment assistance or benefit wrongly. Perhaps that is so, but I am talking about genuine cases who have no other means of livelihood and have barely enough to keep body and soul together. When they go to the local labour exchanges, they are laughed at and jeered at and told they are tricking.
Another favourite method has come to my notice, not once but many times, that is, those who have stamped their cards are refused simply because they happen to be employed by a distant relative, a neighbour or someone like that. What authority has any labour exchange manager to deem a person a rogue for claiming this money, alleging that he is claiming wrongfully? Where do managers get that authority? Is it from the Minister? What directions are issued to them?
I will not take it from the Minister that there are people drawing these moneys wrongfully. That is not an answer. If people are doing that, the Minister has the means of dealing with that problem. I am talking about the genuine cases. I can quote cases where those entitled to unemployment benefit have been refused benefit at the whim of a labour exchange manager who decides some people are rogues, while others are not.
The unemployment problem has reached huge proportions. I do not expect the Government to work a miracle overnight, but they should find some means of employment for our people. There is plenty of room for development; there is plenty of work that could be done. I do not know what figure the Minister would be asking from this House to-night if we did not have the huge volume of emigration, particularly in the past two and three months. Hitherto, the pattern was for people to migrate, or emigrate, around March and April and return home in November and December. Now the reverse is happening. Our people left in their thousands in the months of November, December and January.
Another serious aspect is that the parents are leaving also. Hitherto, it was the pattern that they remained at home with some members of the family. Now whole families are tearing themselves up by the roots and moving en bloc to England. Anybody who travels in the rural areas will see houses which were built only a few years ago with the doors locked and the windows shuttered. Whole families have emigrated. Yet, during election time the people were told by Deputy Lemass that he had 100,000 jobs in his pocket to keep our boys and girls at home. Should there be another election in the morning, I suppose the Irish Press would headline another 100,000 jobs to fool the people again. That is a dangerous policy, because even a quiet people, such as ours, will tolerate fooling for a certain length of time but, once their tempers are roused, the situation will become serious and serious damage may be done to the nation before the situation can be redeemed.
This Supplementary Estimate is some measure of the destitution which has been created amongst the poorer classes during the last 12 months, and particularly since the introduction of the Budget. But it is not the real measure. It is not the true measure.
Mention was made that this £2,000,000 is more or less explained by the 1/- per week increase to the old age pensioners, the widows, the blind pensioners and others of the assistance classes in order to compensate them for the increase in prices, particularly the increase in the price of bread and butter. At the time that 1/- was given the loaf cost approximately 1/1. To-day the loaf costs practically 1/4. Likewise butter was increased then to 4/2. It is now 4/4. Yet, the assistance classes are expected to pay the increase of almost 6d. in the price of the loaf and 7d. in the price of the pound of butter with this 1/- per week. This is some measure of the destitution which has been created amongst the assistance classes at the moment.
I should like an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the conduct of assistance officers throughout the country. Has he given them specific instructions to go around to recipients of widows' pensions, old age pensions and so forth and cross-question them, for the purpose of finding out whether it may be possible to cut their pensions? I am aware of a widow in Balbriggan——
Is it the same widow?
—who had her pension cut by 15/- per week because it was discovered that one of her sons had taken up employment. He is an apprentice at approximately £2 per week. His mother was cut almost £40 per year because this boy had been apprenticed to a trade. There are other examples of a means test being applied at the moment by harriers sent around by Fianna Fáil as home assistance officers and social welfare officers.
What term did the Deputy use?
I just said that these pensioners were being harassed.
The Deputy used some other term.
Yes, Sir.
A term which should not be applied to civil servants who are doing their duty.
I meant these people were being harassed by the assistance officers——
That is not the term the Deputy used.
—being sent out no doubt by the Parliamentary Secretary. Deputy Gogan claimed here that old age pensions, widows' pensions, children's allowances and so forth were invented by Fianna Fáil. The fact is Fianna Fáil were forced to bring in these social welfare benefits because of the measure of destitution they had created amongst many sections in the community by reason of the policies they implemented down through the years. As Deputy Blowick said, the difficulties of the present time are directly the result of 20 years of Fianna Fáil administration—16 of those years being uninterrupted.
To-day we have a situation wherein our people are emigrating as rapidly as possible; but social welfare recipients cannot, for the most part, emigrate. They cannot go in search of employment because they are not physically fit to take on wage-earning jobs. They must exist at home on the meagre allowances made available to them through the medium of social welfare benefits. The Government has treated these people very meanly in giving them a meagre 1/- per week to compensate them for the heavy increase in the price of essential foodstuffs, particularly bread and butter, as a result of the last Budget.
There is also in this Supplementary Estimate a sum payable under the 1930 Act, as amended, in respect of the cost of school meals. This increase in cost is also directly the result of the increase in the price of bread and butter in relation to those schoolgoing children who qualify for school meals.
