Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 Feb 1959

Vol. 173 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 62—Social Insurance (Resumed).

Mr. O'Sullivan

When I reported progress, I was referring to the fact that it is somewhat surprising that this Department should require a Supplementary Estimate. The Parliamentary Secretary who is responsible for this section of the Department was vociferous throughout the country not so long ago in declaring that, in his opinion, there existed many gross abuses in the administration of social assistance and social insurance and that he was actively engaged in eliminating the abuses under his jurisdiction. If that were a fact, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have had sufficient time to attend to the abuses which they allege exist, and a sum of money would be saved, which would more than meet the charge which the Parliamentary Secretary now states is necessary. It is in those circumstances that we agree with the Estimate, but we emphasise that it is one of the measures which reflect the inadequacy of the Government in carrying out their expressed beliefs, and their expressed promises, that they would resolve these problems, that were so recently expressed by the Minister for Finance when he claimed that, in fact, considerable advances had been made in resolving these difficulties.

If that were true, there would be no need for this Supplementary Estimate. If what a Dublin Deputy told us here yesterday is true or even partially true, that the people in the suburbs of Dublin, the workers in the suburbs such as Crumlin, Finglas and Ballyfermot, are 50 times better off than they were two years ago, surely there would not be a short-fall in the contributions. The sooner the Party in office get together and the sooner the Deputies who realise the situation in the country advise the members of the Government, and advise them in time, the sooner it will be unnecessary for this House to pass such a Supplementary Estimate as this.

It is in that atmosphere that we are examining it and it shows quite clearly that far from resolving the difficulties the Government undertook to resolve with such alacrity on their assumption of office, when they assured the wives that their husbands would be put back to work within such a short period, far from an improvement having been secured, the Government are now in the situation that what they estimated for 12 months ago is insufficient to meet the charge. It is in these circumstances that the House is examining this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Rooney

This Supplementary Estimate is a clear admission of failure on the part of the Government to implement their promises to provide employment. The Social Welfare Estimate was cut by £100,000 last year because it was expected to get that amount by way of extra contribution from people in employment. That happy frame of mind, no doubt, was instilled in the members of the Government when they were encouraged by the results of the Sweetman policy, which came into effect in 1957, and remedied the financial position in this country. The financial position improved to such an extent in 1957 that, early in 1958, the Social Welfare Estimate was cut by that amount in anticipation of extra work being provided, thereby increasing the number of contributors. Not alone did the Government not get that £100,000 from those whom they expected to get employment, but, in fact, they now find they require £102,000 under this sub-head. It is just another example of the Government fiddling the 1958 Budget instead of facing up to the facts.

When we come to examine on what grounds did they expect extra employment to be provided, and examine what has been the Government's performance in the past 12 months, we find that we were told during the debate this morning on the Imposition of Duties Bill, 1958, that there were six new factories provided during that period. Just look at what those factories were.

An Ceann Comhairle

Government policy on industrial development does not arise on this.

Mr. Rooney

The point I was going to make——

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no good in making it. Government policy on industrial development arises relevantly on another Estimate, but it does not arise relevantly on this one.

Mr. Rooney

Very well, Sir. I am going to say this: the Government could not expect any great amount in the form of contributions from a factory set up for the manufacture of flycatchers.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is deliberately ignoring what I have told him.

Mr. T. Lynch

We will be all right with a lollypop factory.

Mr. Rooney

That is the position, but I shall not continue on that point. We have just found out that there were six little factories provided, but every week we read in the Sunday Press of the wonderful plans which the Government have and of the wonderful future facing the people, but nothing seems to happen. Here we have a situation in which contributions in the form of insurance stamps total £102,000 less than was expected—£2,000 more than the cut made in the Estimate last year.

We had a statement from a prominent citizen in Ballyfermot to the effect that there are 700 destitute, hungry families there. No doubt the fall in the contributions can be explained by all those families in Ballyfermot who cannot get a day's work and, therefore, will not contribute to the Social Insurance Fund. Nearly 20,000 people are unemployed in the City of Dublin. It is a record figure and no contributions are coming from them. We had a heading: "Drogheda—1,000 people unemployed." We had a heading from Navan: "Record number of people unemployed—a protest meeting to be held." That is the situation all over the country, and it is no wonder that the contributions have fallen to the extent of £102,000 during the past 12 months. Over 84,000 people are unemployed and here, in Dublin City, there are 7,000 young people ready and willing to work, if they could get work. They cannot get one day's work in the city, and this is the Government which offered full employment, an improvement of their conditions and an end to emigration, to the people. Here we have a situation where they have to admit failure themselves by asking this House to pass an Estimate to put into the Fund money which the Government expected would be subscribed by thousands of people to whom they promised employment.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question: are we to infer from the note on the Supplementary Estimate—which says that this £177,000 represents "additional provision required to meet the amount by which the income of the Social Insurance Fund is less than its expenditure (No. 11 of 1952 (sec. 39))—that there are fewer people in employment?

Mr. Kennedy

No. I shall wait until the Deputy has finished.

Mr. Dillon

It strikes me it does mean that because there are fewer people stamping cards, fewer people are contributing to the fund than was anticipated. Is that not so? I want to direct the attention of the House to the conclusions that flow from that, if that be a fact. We are told there are fewer persons registered as unemployed in the weekly returns, but, if at the same time there are fewer people stamping cards, what has happened to the people? They vanished somewhere. Are we to infer from this that the people who failed to get work have simply left the country? There are fewer unemployed registered; there are fewer people stamping cards. Where have they gone?

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he is closing his eyes to the manifest evidence that is before him. What is happening is that these people are clearing out of the country, and that explains the figure which the British Minister of Labour gave to the House of Commons, that there are 50,000 entrants into the Social Insurance Fund in Great Britain of persons born in Ireland, and entering social insurance for the first time in the year 1958. It is their presence in England which explains the absence of their contributions which makes this Vote of £177,000 necessary. If that is true, it is a sad commentry on a Government which secured election by plastering this country with posters saying: "Women, vote Fianna Fáil and get jobs for your husbands."

Mr. Kennedy

I had better reply to Deputy Corish first, because he contributed to the debate after I introduced the Supplementary Estimate. We are twitted with underestimation, but, in the financial period 1957-58, we had to bring in a Supplementary Estimate of £872,000 on social insurance and, in dealing with a fund in which the expenditure is £10,500,000 and the receipts are in the proximity of £7,000,000, the sum involved here is about 1 per cent. of the whole. That sum is broken up into an estimated balance of £44,000 of Exchequer grant due to the fund at the commencement of the current year in respect of deficits up to date, and a number of small variations which I explained at the end of my statement, which come under sickness benefit. For instance, with regard to the flu epidemic, my information from the Department is that in the past couple of weeks new claims have increased by about 1,000 a week.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to the delay in payment of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefits. We are merely dealing with benefits here, and our anxiety is to facilitate the payment of benefits as quickly as possible. Very often, the claimants do not facilitate us as they should, but if we can direct the Department to help out the claims, we do it.

Deputy Dillon raised the question of the number of insurance stamps sold and its relation to emigration.

Mr. Dillon

To unemployment.

Mr. Kennedy

That is a very debatable point. I suggest that automation and machinery have something to do with the lower sale of insurance stamps. In the case of roads, for instance, local authorities are buying graders and all sorts of machinery for the roads. The amount of continuous employment for the individual in that sphere is less. The amount of stamps sold over the 12-month period is less than it would be three or four years ago because of that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

And the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. Kennedy

That is a red herring I do not intend to follow.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is "some" herring.

Mr. Kennedy

I dealt with the making of roads, but there is automation in other spheres of work also decreasing the number of working weeks in which certain people are employed. If we examine the whole problem in that way, the case Deputy Dillon is trying to make, I think, falls to the ground. There has been a decrease in registered unemployed since 1957. In the month of February, 1957, the figure was 93,000; in 1958, it was 84,000 and in the present year, 81,000.

There is another factor which relates to what I have said and Deputy Dillon is well aware of it. About Christmas, I was in part of my constituency and I was told that the number of agricultural workers in continuous employment was much less than it was a few years ago, because of tractors and other machinery known to Deputies. Continuous work for 52 weeks was not available while the workers got maximum employment, say, from April until the end of October when work ceased for them. That is another factor in the sale of insurance stamps.

I admitted in my statement that there was a decrease in the first half of the year in the sale of these stamps, but the sale is now on the up-grade according to figures up to the end of the year, which have not yet been verified and which we have secured only tentatively for the month of January this year.

Deputy Corish or some other Deputy referred to the increased income to the fund because of the raising of the salary limit from £600 to £800. That did not become operative until the 29th December, 1958. We shall not know the effect of it for a while and we can only give an estimate. An outside estimate is £20,000. As Deputies know, employers do not pay weekly but periodically. That is a very small sum in relation to this and we could not take it very much into account when preparing this Estimate.

Deputy O'Sullivan tried to draw me about abuses of the Act. I think it was Deputy O'Donnell who alleged that I said that there was 50 per cent. abuse. I did not make that allegation, but when I came into office, I found a vigilant Department had been alerted by my predecessor about abuses. I followed in his footsteps and I think nobody will stand over any individual buying 13 stamps and drawing £80 from the Exchequer without working or anything else. That is the abuse my predecessor attempted to stamp out and we are following his footsteps and we make no apology for doing so.

Vote put and agreed to.