Vol. 175 No. 4
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £321,600 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, 1960, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare.
Is gnáthach trí Meastacháin an Roinn Leasa Shóisialaigh a ghlacadh le chéile. Ba mhaith liom, mar sin, i gcead duitse, a Cheann Comhairle, agus do'n Dáil, na trí Meastacháin a phlé d'aon iarracht an babhta so freisin. Ba mhaith liom, ina theannta san, i gcead do'n Cheann Comhairle agus do'n Dáil, Tairiscint an Teachta Mac Feorais "Go gcuirtear An tOrdú Um Chúnamh Difhostaíochta (Tréimhse Fhostaíochta), Míle, Naoi gCéad, Caoga a Naoi, ar cheal", a phlé i n-éineacht leis na Meastacháin.
Mar sin de, tabharfaidh an ráiteas a dhéanfaidh mé léargas ar na trí Meastacháin, mar atá, Uimhir 61— Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh; Uimhir 62—Árachas Sóisialach; Uimhir 63—Cúnamh Soisialach, agus ar Thairiscint an Teachta Mac Feorais. Tigh le Teachtaí aon nídh a bhaineann le h-aon cheann de's na Bhótaí nó leis an dTairiscint a phlé le linn na díospóireachta.
'Siad na suimeanna airgid atá dá n-iarraidh i leith na trí Meastacháin mar a foillsíodh iad, ná: Bhóta 61— Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh: £481,600; Bhóta 62—Árachas Sóisialach: £4,372,000; Bhóta 63—Cúnamh Sóisialach: £20,481,000.
'Sé iomlán na dtrí Meastachán £25,334,600. Tabharfaidh na Teachtaí fá ndeara gurab ionann san agus 25 fá'n gcéad de'n tsuim airgid iomláin atá dá soláthar dos na Seirbhísí Phoiblí, gan Seirbhísí Capital d'áireamh, i gcomhartha an-dúil an Rialtais seo i leas na mBocht.
Do b'é £25,473,800 iomlán an tsoláthair a deineadh don bhliain airgeadais 1958-59 agus Bhóta Breise de £177,000 do Árachas Sóisialach d'áireamh, mar aon le £14,000 as an Oll-Bhóta a tógadh anuraidh chun breiseanna páighe d'íoc le Stát-Sheirbhísigh agus dreamanna áirithe eile. Mar sin de, nuair a cuirtear na Meastacháin don dá bliain i gcomparáid le chéile, chítear gur lugha Meastacháin an Roinn Leasa Shóisialaigh don bhliain 1959-60 de £139,200 ná iomlán na suimeanna airgid a deónadh anuraidh.
Ní mór dhom a rá, áfach, nach náirím ins an gcomórtas so costas na mbreisithe i gcúnamh sóisialach a d'fhógair an tAire Airgeadais le gairid ins an ráiteas a thug sé fá'n mBudget. Fé mar a dúirt an tAire Airgeadais, meastar go gcosnóchaidh na breisithe seo £883,000 ins an mbliain airgeadais seo. Léigheadh an Bille lena gcur i bhfeidhm do'n chéad uair cheana féin agus tá sé i lámhaibh na dTeachtaí. Nuair achtuítear é, má achtuítear, cuirfear Meastachán Breise fé bráid na Dála chun an airgid bhreise sin a chur ar fáil. Nuair a cuirfear an tsuim bhreise de £883,000 i leith na bliana airgeadais seo leis na Meastacháin atá i Leabhar na Meastachán do'n bhliain airgeadais 1959-60 do'n Roinn Leasa Chóisialaigh cheana féin, chífear gur mó de £¾ milliúin na trí Meastacháin do'n bhliain airgeadais sin ná iomlán na suimeanna a vótáladh don bhliain airgeadais 1958-59. Tabharfaidh mé cuntas anois ar na trí Meastacháin as a chéile.
The Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare shows a net decrease of £3,200. There is an increase of £26,000 in the provision under Subhead A of the Vote as compared with the previous year. This is due to increases in remuneration following from or arising out of certain agreements reached under conciliation and arbitration machinery for which no provision had been made in the previous year's Vote.
Deputies' attention is particularly drawn to the fact that the increase in the Subhead for 1959-60 would have been much higher but for savings resulting from the suppression of a net total of 37 posts in furtherance of the Department's policy of securing economy in administration costs.
The provision for Telegrams, Telephones, Postal Expenses etc. under Subhead D is £20,000 higher than the corresponding provision in 1958-59. The increase arises wholly on postal expenses in connection with social insurance and is mainly the result of a revised apportionment between the Social Insurance Fund and voted moneys of the Department's expenses on postage. Postal expenses arising from the Social Insurance Scheme are borne by the Social Insurance Fund while the other postal services for the Department of Social Welfare are provided by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs without charge in the normal way. The Social Insurance postal expenses provided for in Subhead D are met from this Vote in the first instance but are recoverable in full from the Social Insurance Fund. Consequently, the net sum being provided in the Estimate for this Vote is not affected by the fact that an extra £20,000 is required for these expenses in 1959-60.
All the expenses incurred by the Department in administering the scheme of social insurance are repayable by the Social Insurance Fund and are brought to credit of this Vote as appropriations in aid. The estimated total receipts from the Fund are £36,000 higher than the corresponding provision for the previous year. The increase is due partly to the extra provision for postal expenses which I have just explained and partly to the social insurance scheme's share of the increases in remuneration already mentioned.
The Estimate of £4,372,000 for Social Insurance for 1959-60 is £56,000 less than the Vote for 1958-59 when the Supplementary Estimate of £177,000 in 1958-59 is taken into account. The increase of £121,000 shown in the Estimate Volume is not now correct; the volume was printed before the Supplementary Estimate was passed.
The decrease of £56,000, as compared with the previous year, occurs on Subhead A of the Vote and is the result of certain adjustments which were made in the amount of the Exchequer contribution to the Social Insurance Fund in 1958-59 and which do not arise in the estimate for 1959-60. I shall refer briefly to those adjustments later on.
As the House is aware, the difference between the expenditure and income of the Social Insurance Fund in each year is made good by the Exchequer, in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. The sum so required to balance the Fund's expenditure and income, after allowing for any necessary adjustments—for example, in respect of prior years—is provided in Subhead A of this Vote.
It so happens that the excess of the expenditure of the Fund over its income in 1959-60, as now estimated, is exactly the same as the excess provided for in 1958-59 (as revised by the Supplementary Estimate for that year). This occurs despite some variations, which I shall mention later, in the figures making up the estimated excesses in the two years.
The estimated expenditure of the Fund for 1959-60 is £10,807,000, an increase of £117,000 on the provision for 1958-59. On the income side it is expected that £6,473,000 will come to hand during 1959-60. The increase which this last figure represents over the estimated income for 1958-59 is also £117,000.
The Fund expenditure of £10,807,000 is made up as follows:—
|
£ |
|
|
Disability Benefit |
3,996,000 |
|
Unemployment Benefit |
3,110,000 |
|
Widows' and Orphans' Contributory Pensions |
1,997,000 |
|
Treatment Benefit |
230,000 |
|
Maternity Benefits |
120,000 |
|
Marriage Grant |
76,000 |
|
Administration Costs and Depreciation |
1,278,000 |
|
£10,807,000 |
The income of the Fund for 1959-60 is estimated at £6,473,000. It consists of £5,900,000 from employment contributions and £573,000 in income from investments of the Fund.
The difference between the estimated expenditure of £10,807,000 and the income of £6,473,000, that is £4,334,000, is the sum to be provided by the Exchequer under Section 39 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, to make good the deficit on the working of the Social Insurance Fund in 1959-60.
As I have already remarked, the estimated excess of expenditure over income of the Fund, in 1959-60, namely, £4,334,000, is the same as that estimated for 1958-59. The amount provided in Subhead A of the Estimate for 1959-60 is, nevertheless, £56,000 less than the provision for 1958-59. The explanation of the decrease is that the Supplementary Estimate for 1958-59 provided for two adjustments— firstly, a sum of £44,000 to adjust an underdraw from the Exchequer in 1957-58, and secondly, a sum of £12,000 in final discharge of State grant payable under the former National Health Insurance Scheme.
There are variations, as compared with provisions for the previous year, in some of the items of expenditure and income of the Fund for 1959-60.
The provision for disability benefit is £37,000 higher than in the previous year. In this connection it is estimated that disability benefit for the extra persons in insurance resulting from the raising last December of the remuneration limit for compulsory insurance from £600 to £800 per annum will cost about £40,000 more in 1959-60 than in 1958-59.
Small increases, totalling £10,000 in all, are provided for in the estimates for Maternity Benefits and Marriage Grant.
There is an increase of £74,000 in the provision for Widows' and Orphans' (Contributory) Pensions. The normal trend in this service is for the numbers of contributory pensions to increase from year to year.
Administration costs incurred by the various Departments in connection with the scheme of social insurance which are borne by the Social Insurance Fund will, it is estimated, be approximately £30,000 higher than the estimate for the previous year. The increase, which occurs principally in the Department of Social Welfare, is mainly due to the Civil Service pay increases and the higher charges against the Fund for postal expenses which I adverted to earlier.
As regards unemployment benefit it is expected that the position in 1959-60 will continue to improve; the sum provided for 1959-60 is £34,000 less than the provision for the previous year.
On the income side of the Social Insurance Fund, the only variation of consequence is in the expected income from employment contributions, which is put at £5,900,000, an increase of £116,000 on the estimate for 1958-59. This increase is largely attributable to the raising of the insurance remuneration limit to £800 per annum at the end of December last.
The net Estimate for Social Assistance—£20,481,000—is £80,000 lower than the Vote for the previous year.
The provision of £7,126,000 for Children's Allowances is £31,000 higher than the estimate for 1958-59. The increase is based on the rising expenditure experience in recent years and is due to an upward trend in the number of children in respect of whom allowances are payable.
On the other hand, there is a reduction of £97,000 in the provision for Widows' and Orphans' Non-Contributory Pensions. This reflects the normal downward trend in expenditure on this service. I should perhaps point out again that the trend of expenditure on the corresponding contributory scheme is upward.
There are small decreases on other subheads amounting to £2,000 in all. The principal one is a reduction of £1,500 in the estimate for Grants under the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, resulting largely from economies in administration by the local authorities providing the meals.
The variations I have mentioned add up to a net decrease of £68,000. The balance of the £80,000 decrease shown by the total net Estimate for Social Assistance is accounted for by expected increases totalling £12,000 in Appropriations in Aid.
The provisions in the remaining five Subheads of the Vote for Social Assistance show no variation. These Subheads are A, C, F, H and I, covering Old Age Pensions, Unemployment Assistance, Gaeltacht School Meals and the Fuel and Footwear Schemes respectively.
The following motion, in the name of Deputy Corish, stood on the Order Paper:—
That the Unemployment Assistance (Employment Period) Order, 1959 (S.I. No. 38 of 1959) be and is hereby annulled.
Perhaps it would be better if Deputy Corish discussed the motion first.
I thought I could move the motion?
The Deputy need not move the motion because there can be only one motion before the House. He can discuss the motion. I am suggesting that the Deputy should speak to his motion so that the matter will be before the House.
Can I speak to the motion without moving it?
Surely. The relevant Estimates and the motion are before the House.
This motion deals with the Employment Period Order which was made this year—I think some time in March. It was an Order designed to exclude recipients of unemployment assistance, who were resident outside the county or other boroughs, urban districts or towns and who were occupants of land the valuation of which exceeds £4, from continuing to draw unemployment assistance within a certain period. When the Employment Period Order was first introduced it was done, as far as I know, on the assumption that during that period, the spring-summer period, there was sufficient employment in the rural areas to absorb all or most of those who receive unemployment assistance. The period usually was from the second Tuesday in March to the second last Tuesday in October.
I may not be correct in the actual days of the week but perhaps if I give examples it will demonstrate the change in the last two years. In 1956 during the period 14th March to the 23rd October persons resident outside county boroughs or urban districts or towns, and who are occupiers of land the valuation of which exceeded £4, were debarred from receiving unemployment assistance. In 1957 the Employment Period Order was made embracing the period from the second Tuesday in March to the second last Tuesday in October, from the 13th of March to the 22nd October.
That has been the pattern for many years but for some extraordinary reason when the present Minister for Social Welfare assumed office he decided to extend the period by approximately two weeks. That meant that for a further two weeks, the people I have described in the rural areas were debarred from receiving unemployment assistance. Last year the Minister signed an Employment Period Order to cover the period 12th March, to the 4th November. There were questions about it in the Dáil last year but I do not think anybody was satisfied, neither the questioner nor the Minister for Social Welfare. I suppose that can be explained by the fact that the Minister was Deputy MacEntee and the questioner was Deputy Norton.
Fair enough.
I must confess it was allowed to slip by last year. We get so many Orders and Acts of Parliament in different stages that I must confess I overlooked scrutinising the Employment Period Order. If I had done so, I would have discovered that the period had been extended last year by two weeks. This year I did take particular notice and discovered that the Minister had done the same thing and had extended the period for two weeks beyond what it had been for years past, except in 1958. The Order this year covers the period from 11th March to the 3rd November.
I would be satisfied if the Minister gave a reasonable explanation. I shall try to make a reasonable case as to why the Order should be annulled. Although I may be wrong, I think the original idea was that men in rural areas should not draw unemployment assistance, on the assumption that there was sufficient employment in the rural areas during that period of spring, summer and beginning of autumn. These are people entirely confined to rural areas who have certain valuations. I see no reason why at this time, or indeed last year, the Employment Period Order should be extended in view of the fact that there is less and less employment on the land.
Last year we were told many times in the debate on the Budget that according to the Government's own figures employment in agriculture fell by 4,000 in 1958 and that employment in construction work fell by 6,000, a total of 10,000 fewer people employed in agriculture and construction work. We can say that the 4,000 people unemployed in agriculture were in rural areas. I do not want to mislead the House or try to pretend that the 6,000 at work in construction were people formerly employed in rural areas. Construction work embraces housebuilding, road work, drainage and work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Of these 6,000, a substantial number were rural workers.
Rural work generally has greatly declined in the past few years, as indeed it has in the past 10 or 15 years. We have a situation where there is less work in agriculture, on roads, in cottage building and repairs and I think we are all forced to admit there is less harvest work at present. The introduction of the combined harvester and other modern, up-to-date and efficient agricultural machinery has removed the necessity for engaging the usual number of harvest workers. More is the pity that something cannot be done about this. I know it cannot be discussed in this debate but it is something that has been responsible for too much unemployment in rural Ireland.
If more work were available there would be greater justification for the extension of the Employment Period Order but to extend it from the second last Tuesday in October, approximately, to November is, in my opinion, a shabby trick to play on those people dependent on unemployment assistance. October-November is a very lean period; it is the beginning of winter and these people with the small allowances which they get as unemployment assistance must use the money to buy clothes or other necessities. It is galling to them to think that this year, as last year, they must go a further two weeks before they can get unemployment assistance, if they are qualified to get it. It means that in the gloom of October and early November they become desperate and I think I do not exaggerate if I say that, in an effort to provide for themselves and their families, they will be very much tempted to emigrate to Britain in order to get a job at the beginning of the winter to tide them over the period. As far as I know these people have no means whatsoever to fall back on.
The local authorities take their line from the Minister. If the Minister is justified in debarring these people from unemployment assistance during that particular period, the local authorities will feel justified in refusing them home assistance or any of the maintenance allowances for which local authorities are responsible. The only way then in which these people can get home assistance, or some other allowance, is by producing a medical certificate and doctors are reluctant to give certificates merely for the purpose of enabling people to get allowances. Even when allowances are given, they are very meagre. The usual rate is 10/- to £1. I do not think anybody would contend that that is adequate, even for the purchase of food, for any of these people who are debarred from drawing unemployment assistance.
I do not know if this saving is worth while. In the introductory statement the Parliamentary Secretary talked about economies effected in the administration of his Department by the reduction of some 37 or 57 posts. That is laudable so long as the Department works efficiently. In his effort to save money—it is equally laudable that we should try to do that—I do not think this saving is justified when one remembers the sufferings and deprivations these people may undergo during the period.
I would appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to consider annulling this Order. He may have a perfectly good reason for it, but the reason has never been given. I do not believe this saving is worth while. The two weeks during which money will be saved to the Department are difficult weeks for these people. It is certainly a period during which they should be in receipt of unemployment assistance provided they are otherwise qualified.
I have little to say on the Estimate in general. Anything I would like to say would not be allowed because any objections I have would be a criticism of existing legislation or a plea for further legislation to increase the various allowance mentioned. I did raise a question with the Minister recently in relation to the commission on workmen's compensation. With all due respect, one does not get satisfaction by tabling questions or by asking supplementary questions at the relevant time, but I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Minister now to state why he thought it necessary to co-opt on the commission two extra representatives.
Two from insurance and one economist—three altogether.
Two are directly representative of insurance interests. When I established this commission I followed, for good or ill, the example of my predecessor, Dr. Ryan. It was he who originally suggested a commission to review the code of workmen's compensation and to report thereon. Having had the Workmen's Compensation Act passed by this House, I promised the House I would follow on the lines of my predecessor. I honestly thought, when I was inviting people to sit on this commission, that I had included on it people representative of all the interests involved—business people, workers' representatives, the legal profession, both barristers and solicitors, and insurance representatives. I believed they would give a fair report, one which the Government would consider and subsequently act upon if they so decided.
I am sure the Minister will not take offence if I repeat what I said on another occasion, even though he did get pretty narky. It seems to me the jury is being packed. I have no inside information on the activities of this commission. I did not interfere with it during the years in which I was in Arus Mhic Dhiarmada. I do not suggest that the Minister has acted deliberately, but people are suspicious that there should be two persons appointed directly representative of insurance interests and active in insurance business. When this commission reports, it is quite possible there will be two reports—one in favour of continuing the present system and the other in favour of a State system.
Having regard to the personnel of the commission now and the weight of interest there is from the point of view of insurance companies, it looks as if we shall get a report in favour of continuing the present faulty system. I do not know whether or not that will be the case. The important point is that this is establishing a precedent, one of which the House should take note. I do not know of any commission that has ever been enlarged. It is true that people have resigned, fallen ill or died and have had to be replaced, but I do not know of any commission which has been enlarged, and enlarged in such a manner as to make people suspicious.
The Commission is taking a very long time to report. If it goes on much longer it will beat the Commission on Emigration. I used to be abused and criticised by my colleagues in the last Government because of the length of time that commission took. Possibly the present Minister has been subjected to the same type of abuse and criticism by his colleagues in relation to this commission. I think everybody will agree that the commission has been sitting for rather a long time now. Maybe there is some good reason for that, but in the meantime it is costing money. In the Book of Estimates a sum of £500 or £600 is mentioned for travelling and other expenses. I do not criticise the members. I know they are doing good work at great sacrifice to themselves, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us what the Commission has cost to date, and if it is likely to make a report soon.
I should like to preface my remarks on my next point by saying that, in my experience, the appeals officers who come down from head office to the various provincial centres are men who have done their work extremely well. I think some of our district justices and circuit court judges would learn a lot if they took an example from them, because, in my experience of them, as an applicant or a witness, they are most sympathetic and helpful to all the different types of people who go to them and in particular to some people who, shall we say, are not too bright. Some of the appellants who come before these appeals officers are aggressive and critical of the Department of Social Welfare and all Government officials, but I found them most understanding, most sympathetic and helpful.
On the whole question of appeals, I have some observations to make. I believe that far too many cases for decision are sent up from local offices to headquarters. I could cite dozens, scores and hundreds of examples of these small, petty cases, and of people being held up for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit for weeks, waiting for an appeals officer to come down and say whether or not U.A. or U.B. should be restored to them. There are officials in the local offices who have the title of deciding officer. I wonder what does the deciding officer decide? So far as I know, the deciding officer sends tricky or difficult cases up to head office to be determined or to be referred to an appeals officer. The most trivial cases are sent up. Some of them will be heard in Wexford town this week and I honestly believe the appeals officer will dispose of them in a proper way in a very short time, but, in the meantime, these people who will go before him in Wexford on next Thursday, Friday or Saturday have been held up for five, six, seven or eight weeks. It is true that if their appeals are allowed, they will get the back money, but if you examine the cases that are sent to head office for decision, you will find many are very trivial.
I shall give one example. I do not know whether this case could be regarded as sub judice, in view of the fact that it is before an appeals officer, but I shall not mention any names. There is a young man in Wexford who was sacked recently by the boss's son, after they had had some words. The boss's son does not own the business. The young lad who was sacked went down to the employment exchange to apply for his U.A. or U.B. Naturally, one of the officials in the exchange rang up the business and asked the owner had he sacked this man. “Oh, no,” he said, “I did not sack him.” Therefore, the official in the exchange took it for granted that the young lad had left as no reference was made to the fact that it was the boss's son who had sacked him. That case went to Dublin but the young chap has been waiting now for five or six weeks: I do not know if I have made myself very clear, but that is the type of thing which could be investigated in ten minutes on the telephone. I would not have been approached; I would not have had to get in touch with the Department of Social Welfare; the Department would not have had to write to the appeals officer; and the appeals officer would not have to waste another ten minutes in Wexford.
That is why I think too many of the cases are being sent to Dublin. I do not remember what specific instructions or powers are given to these officers, but I suggest if they have these powers, they should use them adequately and not cause these appeals which are cluttering up the machinery in Arus Mhic Dhiarmada.
It was the Parliamentary Secretary who answered a question I put down in the House with regard to the experiment in abolishing the posts of local agents. I have to confess that I was very indignant with the Parliamentary Secretary when he told me he proposed to abolish them, and that he thought it the best thing to do. I thought at that time there would be chaos, but I am glad to say there was not chaos. Perhaps it will still come, because the experiment is only two or three months old, but I must confess there has not been the difficulty I thought there might have been in Wexford, due to the non-filling of the vacated post of local agent. I should like to have the Parliamentary Secretary's views on that. I am the local representative of the Labour Party and perhaps people have approached the Fianna Fáil local councillors or T.D.s with regard to difficulties in respect of sickness benefit. I do not find many difficulties arising out of the fact that there is no local agent in the town.
There are difficulties with regard to some appeals and their payments, but they are inevitable in a Department which deals with so many tens of thousands of individual cases from week to week. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be in a position to say now whether or not this experiment has worked out as well as he thought it would. I know it is not a widespread experiment. It is being tried in only three, four, five or six areas, but perhaps he could tell us whether or not the system of dealing with head office has been successful in those areas.
There is another local matter which I wish to raise. It is in regard to the lack of accommodation for the social welfare officers in New Ross, and not so much for the officers as for the people who must approach them with regard to their applications for widows' pensions, old age pensions and so on. I should like to know why the office on the quay in New Ross was surrendered before alternative accommodation was secured. The accommodation was not very satisfactory and the officers of the Department were making some efforts to get new accommodation, and suddenly they were told to vacate the place, I believe. Now they are conducting their business in their own homes. That is very unsatisfactory. Possibly they are receiving an allowance for the use of one of the rooms, but it is still very unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory for the family, apart from the social welfare officer himself. It is unsatisfactory for his wife and his family, but it is much more unsatisfactory for the pensioners and the applicants for widows' and orphans' pensions, to have to go to the private residences of these people for the purpose of filling in application forms or being interrogated by the social welfare officer. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could say later on what, if anything, can be done to get alternative accommodation in the town of New Ross.
The Parliamentary Secretary also referred to the fact that postage, telephones and telegrams had increased by £20,000 but that that was not an actual increase—it was a transfer from one account to another, or something like that. It seems to me that, with the abolition of the posts of local agents, postal expenses will go up substantially; whether or not the discontinuance of the local agents will offset postage, telephones and telegrams I do not know. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could not comment on that yet. That is all I have to say with regard to the Department of Social Welfare.
I know the Department fairly well; I know how efficient it is, and I am afraid I could not criticise, in any strong way, the administration of the Department. Of course, from time to time there have been various complaints, as there always will be, about delays in payments but, as far as I know, 99 per cent. of delay in payment is because an applicant has not sent in a particular form and has not given certain information, or something like that. There are also complaints about reductions in payments which is usually explained away by the fact that a person had not sufficient stamps but, generally speaking, I think that the majority of the complaints with regard to the administration of the Department of the Social Welfare are unfounded. There may be misunderstandings and mistakes made but sometimes these mistakes are unavoidable.
In conclusion, I would ask the Minister in particular, and the House, to consider this Employment Period Order with regard to the payment of unemployment assistance to people in rural areas. I gave my reasons at the beginning of my speech and, unless the Minister has some strong, sound reason to extend the period, I think he should now be prepared to annul the Order and revert to the date in October, which is usually the second last Tuesday in that month.
The Estimate that the Parliamentary Secretary presented to the House this evening is a formidable one. He stressed that it amounted to a substantial part of the total amount provided for public services, indeed, to as much as 25 per cent. When one recalls that some two years ago the people were led to believe by the most assertive and flamboyant posters that all they had to do was elect the Party now in office, and that wives were told that if they voted for the Party now forming the Government they would get their husbands back to work, it is a sad commentary that Government authorised documents now show there are 32,000 fewer in employment than when the Government took office two years ago. It is regrettable that it is necessary to find such a substantial sum of money to meet the impact of unemployment on our people, as presented in this Estimate.
It is difficult to compare the figures now presented with the figures presented in former years, and to take into consideration the possible trends of expenditure in the years to come. It has been rendered extremely difficult by the fact that the House will shortly be discussing Government legislation to provide increased benefits to certain classes under this Department heading. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Government's intention in that respect and he said that it is an indication of the importance which the Government attaches to the welfare of the less fortunate members of the community.
A long time has elapsed since the present Government took deliberate action that brought down on the unfortunate members of the community the circumstances which warrant the increases which they propose to pay at a future date. We assert that these increases should have been paid long ago because, since the food subsidies were abolished, by deliberate act of the Government, various organised classes of the community have legitimately secured increases to protect them from the impact of the increase in the cost of living, but surely the poorer sections of our people were deserving of first consideration from the Government? They are the classes that come under the various headings of this Estimate.
During that period old age pensioners, widows and the unemployed received but a negligible increase, completely out of relation with the impact which the increased cost of living had on the circumstances in which they had to exist. It is indicated that a sum of £883,000 will be necessary to meet this for part of the financial year. When this is added to what has already been put forward, and when a full year's expenses is taken into account, we may well ask what the Government had hoped for when they abolished the food subsidies?
What have food subsidies got to do with this?
The food subsidies have very much to do with it.
The only question is administration.
The Estimate relates to the year under review.
And in relation to part of the year under review there is a proposed expenditure of £883,000 and this, in turn, has been occasioned by the Government's deliberate policy in taking away food subsidies.
The Deputy is now discussing prospective legislation.
Yes.
That has nothing to do with administration.
But we have the retrospective results already of the Civil Service awards in the expenditure in this Estimate, and we claim that these people should have been catered for long before now. It indicates that a grievous mistake was made in creating the situation that warrants this increase in expenditure. I know it is not in order to refer to it.
That point does not arise.
But we are in a position to compare the proposed expenditure with expenditure in the years gone by because the whole thing has been thrown into upheaval by the fact that the Government have been responsible for the fact that these people are dependent on the State. They have been in these serious circumstances for the past year and a half.
When the Parliamentary Secretary was appointed to the office which he now holds he referred to abuses that existed in the administration of his Department, and it was accepted that he had discovered that there were very considerable abuses throughout the country. It was taken from that that he would succeed, by the elimination of these abuses, in making a reduction in the expenditure that would be necessary. It is true that much could be done by bringing it home to very many people throughout the country that it would be in the interests of the genuinely unemployed if everybody realised that the abuses are inimical to the interests of those genuinely unemployed. We know, particularly in rural parts, the attempts that are made to cloak the fact that men in receipt of assistance are regarded as a kind of cheap labour, and the fact that that is condoned by certain employers is reprehensible. We should have more co-operation in that respect, and an effort should be made by those people to give real wages and, if they have work, to engage men available to do that particular work, pay them a decent wage and not encourage them in the abuses to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred some time ago as having been in existence.
Much of the unemployment in rural parts, particularly seasonal unemployment, as Deputy Corish stated, has been occasioned by the trend towards mechanisation. This is progress. Much of the work that has been done by machines could never be done by labouring men. Nevertheless, as others with an interest in the future of the country have said, very many people who have expended large sums of money on mechanisation seem to have forgotten the part which labour could play in the performance of the work which they sought to do by mechanical means. They have found that in many instances the capital outlay was such that they would have been better advised if they had given more employment in the first instance.
There is a growing realisation that mechanisation was overdone and I can see a diminution in the displacement in agricultural employment and, possibly, with the growing importance of animal husbandry, with proper encouragement and also with less incitement to workers in rural areas to go into the industrial parts, there will be an increase in employment on the land. If these people can be made to realise that though they may not have the bright lights, they have a way of life in which they have often been assisted by neighbours and employers over many difficulties domestic and otherwise, there will be an improvement in the position.
I wish to refer again to the fact that the considerable amount of money which the House has been asked to vote is necessary. It is vital that we protect those people among us who are unable, whether due to unemployment or advancing years, to care for themselves. It is incumbent on us to see that the State comes to their assistance. But we do regret there is no hope of any substantial reduction in the number of unemployed. It is a complete negation of the hopes that were held out by the Government before they assumed office, that they could within a short period, given the authority to do it, achieve a situation, where there would be a great reduction in the number of unemployed and consequently less need for giving such substantial sums of money to unfortunate men and women who cannot obtain employment. The Government's situation in this respect has been relieved by the increase in emigration, and the fact that we have not more registered as unemployed is attributable——
We have fewer registered.
Yes, fewer registered, but there are also 32,000 fewer unemployed. The Minister is standing on the fact that they are not registered, but his own Government's publications show that there are 32,000 fewer in employment, since this Government attained office. If they are not registered as unemployed and if they are not registered as employed, we can assume they are not in the country. If they are there, why is there no record to show it? These figures—they are Government figures —surely cannot be disputed. It is a very poor excuse for the Minister to fall back on that there are fewer registered as unemployed, but it is clear that if they are not registered as unemployed and if they are not in employment, they have left the country.
The picture as painted in the introductory speech of the Parliamentary Secretary is very far from the high hopes that were held out when the Party in office were seeking election. They have produced very poor results considering they were given a mandate to perform the various tasks they so confidently said they could perform perform within a short time.
Deputy O'Sullivan has fallen into a very common error. He assumes that incomes from employment have remained static over the past few years, when, as everybody knows, the contrary is the case. A great number of people are very much better off than they were two years ago. Their weekly earnings have been rising. Their rates of remuneration have been increasing and therefore a great many people have passed out of insurable occupations.
At the end of last year, I brought in two measures, one relating to insurance and the other relating to health. In both cases, I was compelled, because of the change in rates of remuneration and in earnings, to increase the limits of insurability from £600 to £800 a year, that is, to increase the limit on insurable income by at least one-third. As a result of that, a number of people will this year come again within the insurable category and their stamps will be taken as an index of the amount of employment which is available. However, there was no significant change between December of 1958 and January of 1959. There was no sudden influx of people into employment. There was, however, a very great increase in the number of people who were in insurable occupations and when the next examination of this question is undertaken, it will be found that the number of people in insurable occupations has very considerably increased.
The Deputy who has just spoken was a Parliamentary Secretary in the last Administration. He ought to have informed himself about the realities of the situation before he spoke. I want to repeat for the benefit of Deputy O'Sullivan that there are not fewer people in employment than there were in the year 1956. On the contrary, there are a great many more, but a greater proportion of the people who are in employment have now the benefits of being in insurable employment.
The real index of unemployment is the number of people who are signing on at labour exchanges and indicating that they are looking for employment. The latest figure of which I have a recollection is that the number looking for employment in May of 1959 is considerably below what it was when this Government took office in February of 1957. We have reduced unemployment in this country by a very substantial amount. There is no use in the Deputy or anybody else trying to ring the changes on the fact that because of the rising rates of remuneration in this country, because of the increased earnings of the workers of this country a great number of people passed out of the compulsory insurance category.
Deputies have been talking about the promises we made to reduce expenditure. We have succeeded in reducing expenditure quite substantially on the two Votes which relate to social insurance and to social assistance. So far as the Estimates introduced before the Budget of this year are concerned, the Deputy, if he takes the trouble to examine the volume of Estimates will find that, in relation to social insurance, there is an actual decrease of £56,000 on the figure for 1958-59 and, in respect of the figure for social assistance, there is a decrease of £80,000. These are indications of the very substantial improvement which has taken place in our economic conditions.
We would not reduce—at least I would not and I take it that the Government would not either—these Estimates, if we had not good grounds for knowing that the situation had so changed that we could reduce the amount being asked for. I have never been one who has been anything other than conservative and, if one likes to put it that way, rather pessimistic in my evaluation of the future.
The Minister was a Socialist for a few hours.
The Minister is this, which the leader of the Labour Party can never say. I stood on a platform not once but many times with James Connolly.
He was a long suffering man.
But James Connolly was, like myself—
Do not be profane.
He was a solid realist.
He got into bad company.
He did not believe in shutting his eyes to the facts. He looked at them as I do. Therefore, when you see that in this year we shall require £56,000 less under the Vote for social insurance and £80,000 less under the Vote for social assistance you may be quite certain we are going to realise those reductions. You may be quite certain we shall not do as somebody did in 1956-57—drastically underestimate what the requirements were likely to be and leave it to their successors to bring in a Supplementary Estimate to make good the obligations which the Coalition failed to fulfil. However, that has nothing to do with the administration for this year.
I really rose, apart from the need to point out the fallacy which underlay Deputy O'Sullivan's speech, to deal with the point which had been made by my predecessor in the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Corish, in relation to the commission on workmen's compensation. I am sure Deputy Corish, when he again resumes office as I suppose in the ordinary course of human nature he will some time, will agree that as Minister he will be quite entitled to select his own advisers; that he is not bound by what his predecessor does in respect of the persons whom he selects to advise him.
It happens that Deputy Corish not merely drafted the terms of reference of this commission on workmen's compensation but also selected the personnel. I am not saying that Deputy Corish in a matter of this sort did not act objectively, doing the best as he saw it. I am not suggesting that for one minute. When, however, I came to examine this question of workmen's compensation and to study the terms of reference which Deputy Corish, as Minister for Social Welfare, had given to the commission and looked at the composition of the commission I came to the conclusion that so far as I am concerned—and, for the time being, I am the final judge in this matter—this commission was, shall I say, overloaded or, to put it in reverse, that this commission was underweighted in respect of the representation which had been given to a very great industry in this country, the insurance industry, which as we all know is one of the great sources of capital investment in this country. I found that while the employers had been given three representatives, the trade unions had been given three representatives, and that other interests had been given full representation on this commission, the insurance industry had only one representative on the commission.
The insurance industry is at least the third point of the triangle. It ought to be an equilateral triangle in which every side is equal—if you like, putting the other interests inside that as well. I said to myself: "After all, even in insurance, there may be competing points of view: there may be different approaches to this question of workmen's compensation and at least I ought to ensure that every point of view within the insurance industry will be represented on the commission, since they do not all run the same way and they do not all hunt the same way." I decided to strengthen, as I thought, the commission by appointing two nominees of mine as against the 12 or 14 nominees whom Deputy Corish as Minister for Social Welfare had put on the commission.
It would have been quite open to me, and it would have been quite within my rights—I am not saying that I would be justified; that is quite a different matter— to say: "I will dissolve the commission. I will appoint my own commission. I am entitled to select my own advisers, every one of them, 12 or 15, just as my predecessor did." I did not do it.
It was never done.
There is no legal reason why it cannot be done. Every Minister is entitled to select his own advisers. The whole basis——
But surely the Minister could not regard members of a commission as advisers?
Wait one moment. Deputy O'Sullivan says it could not be done and I gather that Deputy Corish takes that view also.
I said that nobody ever did it.
A Government are not bound to accept the views of any commission—not bound in any way. They approach the findings and the recommendations of any commission in a completely independent way and can look at them completely objectively. But I did not want everything the commission had done to go for nothing. All I wanted was to ensure that in so far as this very complex problem of workmen's compensation is concerned, the matter would be exhaustively investigated. Therefore, I appointed two members to that commission who, because they are very familiar with all the aspects of the problem, will, when it comes to writing the report of that commission, be able to bring their special knowledge to bear. Or, to put it this way, they will be able to give the fruits of their special knowledge to the commission as a whole, so that the merits can be threshed out, with, as I say, the benefit and advantage of having that special knowledge at the disposal of the commission.
I did something more and Deputy Corish has not referred to it and has not criticised it. I also appointed— let me make it quite clear—a second economist to the commission. I thought that was very important because I do not think that it is wise to have one single person holding a key position on any committee of investigation.
I think there is a great deal to be gained by having an independent approach to any question and I selected and appointed to that commission one of the ablest, youngest and most progressive economists in the country to-day. He is a young man whose political affiliations have nothing to do with me, but whose work I have studied very carefully and whom I have found to take, irrespective of any predilections he might have, a very independent and objective view.
I placed him on the commission also. I make no apologies for any one of these three appointments because I am hoping, if I live long enough, and should stay in office, to be the Minister who will have to consider the recommendations of this commission, that I shall be in a position to consider them with greater faith in the objectivity of the recommendations, by reason of what I have done to ensure that every interest will be adequately represented on the commission. That, if you like, is my justification for having done what I did in relation to the commission. Having said that, I do not wish to impugn the good faith of my predecessor. He was quite entitled to select the persons whom he wished to advise him in relation to this very complex problem, as I said, and I think that he will concede that what he was entitled to do I am equally entitled to do.
I do not think there is anything more that I can usefully add to what I have already said. I feel that the fact that we have secured significant reductions —I do not want to put it further than is reasonable—in the amounts which we are asking from the Dáil for these two services is an indication that the country is improving and that the situation, both from the point of view of employment and what is better, from the point of view of the economy as a whole, is improving.
This Estimate might be classifified as the bread and butter, Estimate of the unemployed man and his family. In the main, it is his only means of support, the thing that is between him and starvation, with the exception of what little he may secure in the way of private charity. So great an impact has this Estimate and this Department on the lives of so many people that I feel the Department of Social Welfare is worthy of a separate Minister. I say that with no intention of casting any aspersion on the methods of this Department or the manner in which it is handled by the Parliamentary Secretary, but rather as an indication of what I believe the position should be.
If the head of this important Department held a Cabinet rank, I believe it would encourage him, if it were necessary, to greater initiative and indeed lead to a smoother working of his Department because he would then be in a position to decide for himself on certain matters which now naturally he has to refer to his Minister.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to the courtesy and efficiency of the present Parliamentary Secretary who, at all times, to me at any rate, has given efficient service, prompt replies and has treated every request made by me with the greatest consideration. Therefore, anything I have said in connection with the Department and his status is purely from the point of view of the position of the head of that Department who should, in my opinion, be of Cabinet rank. This Department deals with a wide variety of benefits including maternity benefits, children's allowances, cheap fuel, cheap footwear, unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit, old age and blind pensions and home assistance. That is a vast scope and it should bear out my statement that such a vast Department needs and merits a separate Minister.
I have no knowledge of this in my own right, but it has been said that in connection with wet-time insurance stamps, the administration of which I understand is carried out under the Department of Social Welfare, considerable fraud is being practised by contractors. Workers are reported as being unemployed, due either to rain or frost, when in actual fact these workers have been kept in continuous employment. That statement has been made to me by one who has been employed for a long period as an ordinary builder's labourer. During the course of conversation the subject of wet time insurance came up. He directed my attention to the fact that he knew of his own knowledge of a case where his own name and the names of at least half a dozen other workmen were put down as persons paid benefit because they had lost time, due to rain or frost, when in fact they had been actually employed indoors carrying out the business of that contractor. Whether that practice extends beyond that particular contractor or not, I do not know.
I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it might be worth while having an investigation to ascertain if all the attempts at fraud are engaged in solely by the person who draws the benefit. This time last year the Parliamentary Secretary made a good deal of play about fraudulent claims made by insured workers. While it is true that fraudulent claims have been made by insured workers on the basis that they were unemployed and available for work while at the same time they secured alternative employment, all the malpractices are not on the one side. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he desires to stamp out such practices, it might be a good idea to consider a heavier penalty on the employer who gives employment to a worker who does not produce his insurance cards. If every employer were made to feel that perhaps a prison sentence might follow the employment of a man who does not produce his insurance cards, it would be impossible for a worker, whether driven by the temptation for unlawful gain or by economic pressure, to take up employment with, say, a farmer while actually drawing unemployment benefit or assistance. He would be unable to secure that employment fraudulently because of the fact that immediately he withdrew his card from the labour exchange, he would be cut off from benefit.
It might be desirable to put the pressure on the people who take advantage of the fact of the smallness of the benefits and the greatness of the need of the ordinary family, which forces unemployed people to take up cheap labour with certain employers willing to exploit the position. Some steps should be taken to ensure that the burden of the penalty falls more heavily on the employer than the worker. The same principle is applied in criminal law; the man who receives stolen property is punished much more severely than the person who steals, because if there were no receivers there would be fewer thieves. If there were no employers to accept cheap labour, there would be very little reason for the Parliamentary Secretary to complain about fraudulent claims.
I have found in dealing with some social welfare cases a reluctance on the part of the Department to cooperate in the recovery of benefit lost by an insured worker due to the failure of his employer to affix the contribution stamps due and which omission is discovered by the worker only when he falls ill or is out of employment. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, there is a loss of benefit for a period of four weeks in the case of sickness. It is indicated in a circular to the insured worker that he has the right of recovery at law. What worker has the finance necessary to engage a solicitor to take the case to court?
During the time I worked as an agent with the National Health Insurance Society, the unified body, it was the duty of the social welfare inspector to look after this matter, and certainly the unified body helped the insured worker to recover such benefit. That seems to have been dropped under the new system. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us in his reply why is it that his Department refuse to co-operate with the insured worker and even refuse to prosecute employers who have failed to carry out the law? Why do they refuse to recover for the insured worker, whose interests they are supposed to represent, the benefit to which he is legally entitled and of which he has been deprived? In many cases local authorities have had to finance workers deprived of benefits because of the failure of employers to affix stamps. If that payment were recovered and if the Department took steps to make help, even legal help, available to insured workers, the local authorities would gain as a result.
In regard to the reply of the Minister for Social Welfare to Deputy O'Sullivan, I was very amused to hear him produce proof—at least to his own satisfaction—that the improvement in wages so affected insurable employment and we were all so well off now that there were 30,000 people fewer on record at present as being insurable. The Minister for Social Welfare must think we are very green to believe such a statement. Does he not know —perhaps he does not?—that if you are engaged in manual work, as most of our people are, irrespective of what you are paid, you are still insurably employed and still liable for contribution? It is only in the clerical grades when you reach a certain amount—it has now been increased from £600 to £800—that the upper ceiling debars you from being in the insurable employment classification. There is no justification in the Minister's claim that the reduction of those in insurable employment is offset by better living conditions for all, bringing them out of the insurable employment classification.
Of course, the fact is that the reduction in the number of unemployed on the live register is effected, not by an increase in insurable employment, but by emigration. Anyone who knows the position in Ireland at the present day and who views the matter divorced from politics, realises that that is the position. People who had to seek unemployment assistance found that they could not subsist on it and had to emigrate. That is the cause of the reduction in the number on the live register and if the present situation continues, we may expect an annual reduction in the figure. The proof of that is in the opposite figure, the fact that there are fewer insurably employed. The reduction in the figure of unemployed on the live register and the reduction in insurable employment is proof of emigration. While there is no reliable figure for emigration, it is pretty generally accepted some 40,000 people leave the country every year.
The number of persons applying for stamps for the first time in England would indicate that also.
I do not think there can be a great deal of argument in regard to the figure. It is, broadly, the Labour Party's belief that all types of social welfare must be financed by some method other than a provision by the employer, a provision by the worker and a State contribution. We made no secret of the fact that we had in mind, if ever we had complete power to do it, amalgamation of the various types of insurance and that the resulting benefit to the State should be made to finance social welfare provisions.
With that in view and believing it was necessary that the State should have the information, we advocated examination of the position in regard to workmen's compensation, the financing of it, the profits derived from it and the likely effect on the State, should the State decide to take over administration of workmen's compensation. Deputy Corish, as Minister for Social Welfare in 1955, set up a commission to make a factual report on what was happening. It is a long time ago—three years last December—and, unfortunately, we have had no report to date. The Labour Party are deeply interested in that report. We believe, from certain research carried out by trade union research officers, that even on the figures available to them as disclosed by insurance companies, a considerable profit has been made annually in this class of insurance. We believe that if that profit had been diverted to payment of social welfare benefits, the benefits to insured workers could have been considerably increased without extra strain being imposed on the Exchequer.
It is for that reason that we view with alarm the new addition to the commission, having particular regard to the side on which the Minister saw fit to make the appointments. It is quite true that the Minister is within his rights but we feel that he allowed a long period—some 18 months—to elapse before making that addition to the insurance interests on the commission and it is not without significance that now, in what we hope are the closing months of the life of the commission, when the findings are about to be reported, the commission has been loaded by these additional representatives who are unlikely to express views against the interests they now so loyally serve.
I desire to be associated with the motion standing in the name of Deputy Corish, primarily because of the fact that the matter with which it deals has such an impact on the lives of workers in rural areas. A period of two weeks may seem to be a small thing but it may be a very important item in the lives of people in rural districts who are living on what they can manage to scrape up. Even if it were of no significance, the thought behind the regulation would appear to be, by every method and means, to continue to show by the statistics that the figure is lower than it was at any time during the period of inter-Party Government.
I conclude by thanking sincerely and honestly the officials of the Department of Social Welfare. In my position as Labour Deputy in my constituency, I have considerable contact with the Department, particularly the section which deals with sickness and disablement benefit for insured workers. At all times, without fear or favour, I received courtesy, consideration and prompt replies and I desire to express my gratitude for the courtesy I have received from the Department.
I wish to avail of this opportunity to join with other Deputies and to say that I, also, am very pleased with the general working of the Department of Social Welfare during the past 12 months. Like all other Deputies, from time to time, I have occasion to make complaint to the Department in connection with certain services which it administers. However, I am pleased to say that during the year under review the volume of complaints has diminished considerably, which goes to show that the general working of the Department is more smooth than it was. In the past a general complaint was in regard to the very long delay that took place in settlement of claims for benefit, particularly unemployment benefit.
