Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Mar 1960

Vol. 180 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 63—Social Assistance (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £587,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, 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. —(Minister for Defence.)

Mr. O'Sullivan

When the House adjourned last week, I had almost exhausted what I had to say on this Supplementary Estimate. I had adverted to the fact that it was a formidable Supplementary Estimate but one which it was necessary the House should pass so that these aged people will continue to get their present rate of allowance until the end of the present financial year. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, and, through him, to the Government. They must know, because it has been brought home as forcibly to them by their own supporters as it was to us by ours, that there is great concern in the country in relation to the conditions under which some classes of aged people are living and in particular, aged people in the city of Dublin who have no near relatives and who are living alone. That applies to such people in Cork and Limerick also, but it is more forcibly brought home to us in the city of Dublin.

These people are in a special category and I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give immediate attention to their plight and make some arrangement by which immediate succour will be brought to them, because it is obvious that under present conditions these unfortunate people cannot have anything approaching a reasonable standard of living, on the allowances and with the charges they have to bear. This is entirely apart from any legitimate demands people who are living with their families may have. These people are in a special category and I earnestly appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give immediate attention to their plight.

I may say, in accepting this Supplementary Estimate, that it should be larger because there was considerable delay, unwarranted delay, in paying the increase granted to old age pensioners last year. The time that elapsed between the increase in the cost of living, following the withdrawal in their entirety of the food subsidies, and the payment of the pension increase was inexcusable, seeing that in the case of increases in other pensions payment was made in a matter of weeks. Consequently, no excuse of administrative difficulty in making the increase payable at an earlier date can be put forward. Payments were delayed too long and, if right were right and justice were done, the Parliamentary Secretary would be asking this House to pass a much greater Supplementary Estimate than the one he is now asking it to pass, and we would agree to such an Estimate.

I want to inquire from the Parliamentary Secretary what explanation has he for the fact that there was such a short-fall in the expenditure on old age pensions and children's allowances over the past 12 months? From the Vote on Account and the Estimates before us, it would appear as if the Government are estimating for reduced expenditure on children's allowances in the coming 12 months. What is the reason for that?

I should also like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how it was that such a substantial saving was effected in old age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions in the current year. Is it proof of the suspicion we have had for some time that there is more rigid application of the means test?

I repeat that we accept the Supplementary Estimate and consider that everything the recipients of these social services get from the State in present circumstances is certainly fully deserved.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy O'Sullivan appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to have regard to the special circumstances of the old age pensioner living alone in urban surroundings, who is suffering serious hardship. I mean no disrespect to the Parliamentary Secretary when I say to him that he acts on behalf of the Minister for Social Welfare and that I conceive him to have a duty to satisfy himself continually that there is nobody in this community to which we all belong who is destitute or hungry. This is something that has been lost sight of. I do not think it is enough to say to somebody who is destitute or hungry: "Why do not you kick up a row about it?" and that the fact that nobody is kicking up a row about it is in itself evidence that no such person exists. That is not my experience. My experience is that old persons living alone—an old man or, more often, an old woman—they simply do not know that they have under the statute law of this country a right to require the appropriate authority to provide them with the means of escape from destitution.

It is a shocking thing, and one of those evidences of complacency which is deserving of censure, that we, the representatives of the people, should sit in Dáil Éireann shrugging our shoulders, with the knowledge that there are neighbours in this city and elsewhere who are hungry, who were hungry last night and who will be hungry tomorrow or who are cold, with no means of mitigating the rigours of the weather in their humble abode, wherever it is. I am going to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that his office imposes upon him personally a grave responsibility to institute whatever inquiries may be necessary to provide against the possibility of such a contingency arising.

I am aware of the fact, as all of us with any experience of public life are, that there is often a good deal of loose talk about destitution, hunger, poverty and so forth, but experience has also taught us that where talk continues in a certain vein and consistently from people who are familiar with conditions obtaining, it is usually true to say that there is never any enduring smoke, in any case, without some fire to supply it. I do not want to paint an unduly pessimistic picture of the situation, but, from the information reaching me. I believe that there are in tenement rooms in Dublin a considerable number of people in receipt of the old age pension who are familiar with destitution.

I do not believe there is any Deputy who consciously wishes that situation to continue and I want to say, as Leader of the Opposition, with the fullest sense of responsibility—and there is no desire to make points against the Government—that I believe it to be a first charge on the revenues of this State to ensure that any old person who is not in a position to fend for himself or herself shall be delivered from the possibility of destitution, hunger or cold. I want to add to that that I do not think it is enough for this House to express that pious sentiment and—here is where I have a slight difference with my colleague Deputy O'Sullivan; he appeals to the Parliamentary Secretary—I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he is failing in his duty if, on being informed by responsible Deputies that this situation obtains in certain cases in the city of Dublin, he does not go out and look for them.

I think that is a new approach to this problem but it is one about which I have felt deeply for many years. I do not think a Minister in charge of social services has the right to sit in his office and wait for the destitute aged to come to him. When he hears in this House, as he does hear from members of the Opposition, and when he hears from his own colleagues, as I do not doubt he hears in the confidence of the Party room, that they are anxious about isolated cases of old age pensioners living alone, it is his duty to go out and look for them.

As I understand the position today, in this country, any old age pensioner who finds himself or herself living alone and with no other income than the old age pension has a statutory right to approach the local health authority and to require that authority to provide in home assistance such sum as will bridge the gap between what the old age pension provides and the minimum standard of living we think suitable for an old person to enjoy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any responsibility in this matter or does it rest with the local authority?

Mr. Dillon

That is what I do not know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. All I am saying is that is my understanding of the law. It is clearly the duty of such a Minister to see that the social services are correctly administered. He may reply to me, as I think he probably will, that this is a Supplementary Estimate for old age pensioners and that he is also concerned to provide for blind persons, widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions, unemployment assistance, children's allowances. I am rejoining that that is not enough, that there are some people hungry and cold who are in receipt of these old age pensions and that the gap ought to be closed between what the old age pension provides and what is available.

These old people do not know how to go about getting it and it is our duty to seek them out and to see that they are told and if there is somebody, outside the old age pension authority, failing in his duty, then we ought to see that he does his duty to eliminate hunger and cold. If it transpires that ancillary services are not available to abolish hunger and cold, then, under this service of old age pensions, I suggest to the House that we have a duty to see that hunger and cold are abolished in our neighbour's home.

I do not want Deputies to think that this represents starry-eyed ideals. I do not believe it does represent any such thing. I believe it is the minimum obligation that we have to our own neighbours and it is an obligation which it is well within our capacity to discharge, if somebody will take the initiative about it. I am putting it to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is his duty. I do not want to sound as if I am making a personal reflection on him but I want to suggest quite deliberately that if there is some old woman in a tenement room in Dublin hungry and cold to-night, he must answer for it. That old person does not know that she has these rights. The Parliamentary Secretary does know it and I do not think it is any excessive demand upon him that he should seek these people out.

I am throwing emphasis all the time upon the old age pensioner living alone because I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that where there is a family, they have their obligations, too, and I cannot conceive, in our society, daughters, sons or grandchildren being utterly indifferent to the comfort of the old people who reared them. They may not have, out of their own slender means, the wherewithal to supplement their pension, but they can busy themselves to see that the social services are invoked to relieve distress in a grandparent's or a parent's home. It is primarily their duty to do it. If there is a son, a daughter or a grandchild he or she is primarily responsible for seeking out the home assistance officer or whatever other service may be appropriately available to help out old people whom they themselves are not financially circumstanced to help. However, the old person with no family to fall back on—and there are many such, if my information be correct—has a right to expect the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister to whom he is Parliamentary Secretary to look after him or her.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility in this matter since the service is administered by another Department.

Mr. Dillon

I do not think that is so. I think the social services would cover this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is referring to supplementary payments by the county councils.

Mr. Dillon

I am making this case. This Vote is not designed to provide a living for these people. I accept that in respect of old people who have families to sustain or to help them, but the defenceless old person who finds himself destitute, hungry or cold and has nobody to act for him is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, I amend what my colleague Deputy O'Sullivan says: I do not appeal; I query him: How does it come about that there are old people hungry and cold with no one to speak for them while the Parliamentary Secretary is in his present position? If he does not concern himself with this problem hereafter he, or anybody else in the position, should be ashamed to have to admit in this House that there are individuals hungry and cold in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or any other city because there is nobody to seek them out and see that whatever provision is made under this Vote will be appropriately supplemented. I hope that we shall not have it to say hereafter that in our society anybody was left uncared for when through no fault of their own they needed care and comfort.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have been prompted to speak on this Estimate, having listened to the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy O'Sullivan. There is nobody in this House who would not like to see Ireland an ideal Christian State in which everybody had enough on which to live. We on this side of the House have our feelings towards the down-and-out and the people to whom Deputy Dillon referred. However, since our economic circumstances are such that we cannot improve the situation, we can only do our best, as the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government are doing.

The city of Dublin is one of the most charitable cities in the world. There are many charitable organisations which try to subsidise old age pensioners, the unemployed and other needy people. We have the Catholic Social Service Conference. Nobody in the city needs to be hungry. We have other charitable organisations as well. They are operating successfully in my constituency under the patronage of His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Deputy believe that nobody is hungry?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am merely answering a point the Deputy made. I did not interrupt him. In this charitable city of Dublin, nobody needs to be hungry. We should all like to see needy people having a good deal more than they have but our economic circumstances will not permit it. We should be thankful therefore that we have charitable people in the city of Dublin from all walks of life who are trying to make it easy. Not alone are the old age pensioners looked after but the unemployed and their families, people who are homeless and others, through no fault of their own, the flotsam and jetsam of society. There is no city in the world which has as many good people looking after the down-and-out and the poor as has the city of Dublin. We are very proud of that because they are doing a good job.

Mr. Dillon

You do not describe the old age pensioners as the flotsam and jetsam of society?

Mr. P.J. Burke

The picture Deputy Dillon has painted is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. I am associated with charitable organisations and I strenuously refute what Deputy Dillon says. Deputy Dillon and his Party had six years to do all these things, if they felt like doing them.

Mr. Blowick

We did more than you, anyway.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I want to be fair in exchanging views. It is not right to paint us as heartless people who are not concerned with poor people. We are deeply concerned and if it were possible to give them four times as much as they have, we would do so. However, when we cannot do that, there are other organisations relieving distress and we can be thankful we have not the people to whom Deputy Dillon referred who will sit in their room cold and hungry without anything to eat. Nobody needs to go without a meal in this city, due to the wonderful charitable organisations we have here.

Mr. Blowick

When Deputy Burke was speaking, I could not help reflecting, if the social services are adequate what is the necessity for the charitable organisations?

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy is talking through his hat.

Acting Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

Members on both sides of the House do not need to be reminded that on a Supplementary Vote, only the headings specified in the Vote are open for debate.

Mr. Blowick

On the question of old age pensioners, there are certain people who are destitute. Every Deputy, I am sure, knows of a couple of old age pensioners, in the towns particularly, who have no income except the old age pension. Perhaps their family are scattered abroad and are not in a position to help them out. They have to exist solely and entirely on the old age pension and no matter what the Parliamentary Secretary may say to the contrary these people find themselves close to destitution. They may not be exactly starving but they are not provided with bare necessities of life, such as heating, lighting and food, to a sufficient extent.

I suggest that it is time that that type of old age pensioner should get an increase in his old age pension which would leave him reasonably safe. I am not talking about old age pensioners living in the country, some of whom may have small holdings, but the few people amongst them who are very close to destitution. The old age pension at the present time, with the high cost of living, is not sufficient by any means to allow such people to finish their days in the peace and comfort that a civilised society should allow them, just the same as other helpless people should be protected by society. Without dwelling further on the matter, I suggest there is that section of the old age pensioners who deserve the close attention of the Government and of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Another point is that I suppose in every parish we have the anonymous letter-writing busybody, whether it be man or woman, who believes he or she has a divine right to interfere in a neighbour's business and who has nothing more useful to do than to take pen and paper and write to the Minister to say that so-and-so should not be getting the old age pension, or drawing stamp money, as unemployment benefit is called. I want to make one pointed suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary. I suggest that no anonymous letter should be treated seriously, that they should all be consigned to the fire or the wastepaper basket straight away.

Several times it has come to my notice that an investigation officer has called to some old age pensioner or to somebody drawing unemployment assistance and after investigation has found that they were fully entitled to get the money. It is not good enough for the Department to cause so much upset, heartbreak and anguish to people in receipt of something to which they are perfectly entitled under the laws of this country, with, perhaps, their pension book taken up until the investigation is completed. No doubt in the case of letters which are signed the officials have a duty to investigate the matter but, on the other hand, if the complaints made in the letter are found to be groundless I suggest that the person who wrote the letter should be made to pay the expenses of the investigation. That would stop practices of that type.

I remember in the Land Commission there was a special anonymous mail and I am sure that the same exists in the Parliamentary Secretary's office. It is a despicable practice; fortunately there are only one or two such people in every parish who believe they have a divine right to examine all their neighbour's business, sometimes from a sense of spite, a warped sense of justice or a warped conscience. They believe they are called upon to set these things right. The Parliamentary Secretary should consider those two suggestions I have thrown out, (1) that anonymous letters should be consigned to the wastepaper basket, and (2) that where letters are signed and subsequent investigation shows that the complaints have no substance, the letterwriter should be made pay the expenses of the investigation.

When the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking he did not tell us how the saving of £82,000 was arrived at. I for one would like to know how these savings were effected. I presume they were effected in other branches of his Department but I wonder if the campaign that the Parliamentary Secretary has been carrying on for a good while past, particularly with regard to unemployment benefit and refusing to accept——

Acting Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

That would not arise here.

Mr. Blowick

I am asking where the savings in this sheet came from. When we are told there are savings I submit we are entitled to know where they came from. What is exercising my mind is the rather shabby campaign which has been undertaken since the Parliamentary Secretary took office and the victimisation of certain people who are entitled to unemployment benefit and to what is referred to as stamp money.

Acting Chairman

These matters do not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Blowick

I submit that these are the only subheads under which the Parliamentary Secretary could have made the savings.

Mr. Sherwin

On a point of order, it states that there are savings of £82,000. We are asked to discuss what is on this paper and that is on it.

Acting Chairman

I am not holding up the discussion on that point.

Mr. Blowick

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how the savings were effected? The savings were effected and now he is asking for permission to re-expend these savings on old age pensions and so on, which is very laudable, but I want to know where they came from. I am suggesting that the only economies which could have been made in the Parliamentary Secretary's branch of the Department were through this campaign carried on against those entitled to unemployment benefit. He could not have saved £82,000 on staff, travelling expenses or the other heads. I suggest that he should tell us exactly where they came from. I am not making a case for those who have been drawing money wrongfully but when we meet the type of person who is qualified for benefits under the Parliamentary Secretary's Department and find that every trick in the bag——

Acting Chairman

I fear we are expanding the scope of this debate beyond the limits set for discussing it.

Mr. Blowick

Might I make this suggestion: perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would intervene to say how the savings were effected?

Acting Chairman

He can do that in his reply, at his own discretion.

Mr. Blowick

In the meantime it will leave every Deputy wondering where the savings came from.

Acting Chairman

They may wonder but not wander.

Mr. Blowick

I respectfully submit I was not wandering.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

My contribution to the debate on this Supplementary Estimate will be entirely confined to what I see here with reference to additional sums required for old age pensions, widows' and orphans' noncontributory pensions and the welfare of the blind. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, or indeed any member of his Party, if they are serious in their expression of opinion that the old age pensioner is not to-day, as has already been stated, on the very verge of starvation. Most of us in this House, no matter how young we are, will, if God spares us, one day be old. To live to be old is probably a great blessing. We are told that as we grow older, we grow in experience. Many people work hard and contribute their share as citizens and live to reach the age of 70 years and then have to endure an existence on 27/6 per week.

Many people, to-day, no matter to what they had been accustomed until they reached that age, unless they have other means, or unless members of their families are good and kind and generous to them, must exist on 27/6 per week. I say that sum is far from sufficient to keep any individual in existence to-day. It is only right that, whilst we should place on record, on an occasion such as this, our appreciation of the work done by charitable organisations in assisting people who are in receipt of old age pensions, it must be borne in mind that there are many thousands of people who are too proud to seek assistance from any charitable organisation. There are many old age pensioners who are far too proud to make an application to the local authorities for an allowance to supplement their old age pensions, and they are the very type of people who should not be pushed into the most embarrassing position of either having to seek charity from these organisations, or to seek influence, let it be political or otherwise, in order to get an allowance, to supplement their pensions, from the local authorities.

It is not too much to expect from any Government, or any Parliament, that the old, the aged, and the blind, should be in receipt of an allowance sufficient to enable them to live in accordance with Christian decency. Not only should that allowance be sufficient to enable them to live in accordance with Christian decency, but it should be sufficient to allow them to live independently. I am sorry to say we are reaching the stage in this country—and it is with regret that I and Deputies on all sides of the House must admit it— where sons and daughters are very slowly forgetting their responsibilities to their parents.

Even if they are, and we may very easily put the blame on them and say that they have a moral duty to contribute generously to the upkeep of their parents during their last days on earth, but if they do not display the sympathy towards their parents which they should display, it is very little consolation to the old age pensioners who must continue to suffer.

That is why I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says it is the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister to whom he is responsible, to have this problem thoroughly investigated, and to ensure that if an old age pensioner is too proud either to beg, or to seek assistance from any charitable organisation, his old age pension will be sufficient to enable him to live in accordance with Christian decency, and that he will have an allowance which will enable him to purchase the necessaries of life and keep a roof over his head.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether in recent months, and particularly since the main Estimate was introduced, any instruction has been issued by him, or by the Minister, to make it more difficult for people to qualify for old age pensions. In my own constituency, I find from the number of appeals made to the appeals officer in respect of qualification for an old age pension, that of every six cases at least four are rejected. During the term of the inter-Party Government, it must be admitted all round that first things came first. That Government pinned down the cost of living, particularly in regard to the prices of foodstuffs, and at the same time, they also gave first preference to the old, and the aged, on every occasion on which it was possible to do so. I think some great measure of economy is being exercised in the Department of Social Welfare, because we appear to see a lesser number of people qualifying for the old age pension.

I want particularly to refer to the cases where people are asked both by the Church and the State, when they reach the age of 70 years, to give up the reins of office in their holdings, and make way for the young people who are coming on. I have known many cases where small land owners, and the owners of not very profitable property, in order that a son or a daughter may get married—or there might be some family settlements to be effected—surrendered their rights to make way for some young person, but immediately they applied for the old age pension they were met with a reply to the effect that they made over their holdings, or property, merely for the purpose of qualifying for the old age pension, and that in such circumstances the old age pension would not be granted.

The Department of Social Welfare should be very liberal, particularly in cases of this kind, and I feel that encouragement should be given to older people to sit down, and relax, and make way for the younger members of the family, particularly in cases where there is property to be passed over to another member of the family. In my opinion, the old age pension should be of the same standard as that obtaining in Northern Ireland, and not anything less.

Acting Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

That would be a matter for legislation.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If the old age pension is to be the subject of cutting down, or if any economies are being exercised in regard to it by the Department, I think that is a very mean form of economy. The Parliamentary Secretary should convey to the investigation officers of his Department that in all cases the benefit of the doubt should be given to the old age pensioner.

It is quite true to say that the old age pensioner who lives alone and has nobody to contribute to his upkeep is more severely handicapped at the moment. It follows that when he has no other means of support, he cannot possibly be in any other state except a state of destitution, want, and hunger. As has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, and it is well known to members of the Government Party, there are many such people in the city of Dublin, in Limerick, Cork, Drogheda, Dundalk, Sligo, Galway and other thickly populated areas in provincial towns and cities. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary if he can hold out any hope for the old age pensioner who is obliged to live alone with no other source of income. What is the future, and what are the prospects, for such individuals?

I should like to go on, if I may, to make reference to the widows. The widows' pensions are entirely out-of-date.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

It would require legislation to improve them and that may not be debated on this question.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I will not ask for a change in the law in that regard. However, the law being as it is, I am of opinion that it is more difficult to obtain the widow's pension now than formerly.

This House is now asked for an additional sum of £80,000 for widows' pensions. We are entitled to some information as to why it is now more difficult for a widow to qualify for a pension than formerly. There seems to be a more rigid investigation into her means. There seems to be a longer delay. There seems to be an inclination to put the granting of the claim on the long finger.

Widows are people who are deprived of the bread-winner, through an Act of God. In a Department such as the Department of Social Welfare, I feel that all other work should be put aside to come to their aid. I have never been able to understand why a decision could not be given on a widow's claim in from 12 to 15 days.

Blind pensioners are mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate and an additional £4,300 is required. Most of us who have anything to contribute to a debate on Social Welfare will, on the main Estimate, have observations of even a stronger character to make in relation to blind pensions than to old age pension or the widow's pension. To be deprived of one's eyesight is the greatest possible affliction that can befall any person. No matter how disabled a person may be through the loss of limbs or deafness or any other disability, it all fades into insignificance in comparison with the great affliction of blindness.

If there is any section to be catered for under the Department of Social Welfare I respectfully submit that blind persons are not properly being catered for in this Estimate and that the Department have not done justice to them today. The amount provided in respect of blind pensions is insufficient. I feel there are blind persons who because of certain circumstances and for personal reasons may not like to seek supplementary allowances from local authorities or charitable organisations. The blind pension ought to be sufficient to maintain——

Acting Chairman

I feel that that could be dealt with on the main Estimate.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Very well. I make a serious appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary that he who is responsible for services such as old age pensions, widows' pensions and blind pensions will bear in mind that in all probability he is dealing with the sections of the community worthy of the greatest possible benefits that can be bestowed upon them by any State. In his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to convey to this House and to the country what future prosperity, if any, he can hold out for the sections of the community for whom this Supplementary Estimate caters and mainly covers.

Mr. Sherwin

I should like to refer to what is specified in the Supplementary Estimate—Savings under Other Subheads. The Parliamentary Secretary should have explained, when opening the debate, the implications of that Subhead. In our own way, we are entitled to cross-examine him and find out about it because the savings represent a sum of £82,000.

I understand that these savings are the moneys of which thousands of persons were deprived during the past year through being cut off assistance allegedly because they were not seeking employment. I have a feeling the Minister is particularly prejudiced against Dublin. He expressed views early last year to the effect that a lot of them were chancing their arm. I feel that what he meant was that a lot of Dubliners were chancing their arm. To judge by the manner in which he proceeded with his inquisition during the year, I am satisfied he is somewhat prejudiced because of the large number of Dubliners who were deprived of assistance allegedly because they were not seeking what does not exist.

Everybody knows that there is less employment than formerly, especially for men, and that all this talk about "productivity" means that more things should be produced at less cost. That is being achieved by the introduction of machinery, which means less employment. So far as I am aware, there are no positions for male persons in this town. To deny people assistance——

Acting-Chairman

That does not come under the heading of the Supplementary Estimate. I do not want to hold up the Deputy in making a passing reference to it but savings may not be debated on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Sherwin

I will end by protesting against the rather mean practice of cutting people off from assistance on the grounds that they are not genuinely seeking what does not exist. I will let it go at that.

With regard to the 2/6 granted to old age pensioners, blind pensioners, widows and orphans and married people on assistance, the Minister states that it is beyond his capacity to grant anything more than that sum of 2/6. Yet, the Taoiseach said he was prepared to give £10 million towards social assistance in Northern Ireland in the event of any understanding coming about between the North and South. He said he was prepared to grant benefits which Britain is now granting there by finding £10 million but here we are told that 2/6 is the limit that can be found for our own people on assistance.

There is much talk about those on assistance, the old age pensioner, and so on, but I must urge that there is a lot to be said for the unemployed man with a family.

Acting Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

That does not arise on this vote.

Mr. Sherwin

They got only 2/6.

Acting Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

Everybody is aware of that but legislation may not be advocated on this Vote, as the Deputy knows. The Deputy can deal with administration but not with legislation.

Mr. Sherwin

Very well, but I shall deal with all this when the main Estimate comes up. I sum up my few remarks in a nutshell by again protesting against the mean practice of the Minister and his Department of depriving people of assistance for allegedly not seeking what does not exist, that is, employment in this city to-day.

Mr. T. Lynch

I want to make only a few remarks because most of the things I intended to say have been said by the principal speakers in the past half hour. I want to repeat one of them. The Parliamentary Secretary should take cognisance of a question put to him by Deputy O.J. Flanagan. Did he send out a circular or instruction to officers down the country that there should be a tightening up, that they should get tough? If he did, it is as well to tell the house; if he did not, it is as well to deny it because it is being freely said down the country that he has done so.

I myself doubt that a man like the Parliamentary Secretary should, on attaining such an office as he has, turn himself into a Bumble or a Scrooge for his Department. I was sorry that there was a titter from the Fianna Fáil benches when Deputy Dillon was speaking about destitute old people who were alone and hungry. Then Deputy Burke stood up to refute that and said there was no necessity for anybody to be hungry in Dublin. People who went before us in the running of this country said there was no necessity for anybody to be starving in Ireland during the Famine. They had plenty of soup and yellow-meal but they died in their millions. There are still enough people in this country, thank God, who have pride and who would die from hunger before they would become suppliants of any charitable organisation, with all due respect to the charitable organisations.

I am proud to say that, in the city from which I come, before the State or anybody else thought of looking after old people there were nearly 20 charitable organisations set up by fine, decent people and endowed by them. Many of them are still running. Nobody said that they were set up by the Ascendancy. They were set up by the Catholic James Fanning and the Fanning Institute is still running in Waterford. They were set up by the Catholic Edward Walsh and the Holy Ghost Hospital is still running. The Walshes and the Matthew Sheas are people who did not come from Czechoslovakia or from the Ascendancy, as can be guessed from their names. There are also very fine institutions like the Burchill Institute but even in respect of all these, there are people who would die before they would go to them.

It is for these people that Deputy Dillon was speaking. It would not be fashionable now to see a man writing a classic in English on this. I could quote from a classic the part that would be relevant in this debate. Two gentlemen called on a person who they thought was a likely subscriber for the purpose of asking him to subscribe to the poor at Christmas. The likely subscriber asked: "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" One of the gentlemen said there were. The likely client went on to talk about other places to which poor people could go. These two gentlemen said: "Well, many would rather die than go there." The answer they got from Scrooge was that if they liked to die, they had better die there and diminish the surplus population.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would not like himself to be lined up with Mr. Scrooge, but if he is not in a position to deny that he has given instructions to the officers down the country that they are to tighten up on the widows and orphans, the poor and old age pensioners, then he can be lined up with Scrooge.

Deputy Blowick mentioned the matter of anonymous letters to the Department. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if such letters were received, I would deplore any of his officers taking any notice of them or that in this year of grace, we should have the equivalent of a letter de cachet brought in and used as a weapon and as a stab in the back against old or destitute people.

Other Deputies mentioned savings. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that in his address here. He said that savings will arise on other subheads of the Vote, mainly on subhead B—Children's Allowances and subhead C—Unemployment Assistance. That is a shameful state of affairs at a time when people are being driven to emigration. Probably a great many of them are being driven to emigrate because the assistance was denied them.

Last year, I had to withstand the jeers of Deputy Corry in connection with what I said in this House with regard to children. I said that in the town of Tallow in my constituency— in this fine town of Tallow—last May, there were no children for the first Holy Communion class. Deputy Corry was able to make great fun out of that. The point about it is that the Parliamentary Secretary was able to save a substantial sum of money on Children's Allowances.

There must be other places in County Waterford where the number of children dropped. We read in the papers every day that it is not merely a case of the breadwinner of the family emigrating but that whole families are packing up and getting out. If this is the line of country the Government intend to follow, it is a bad line. If the Parliamentary Secretary says that the raising of the old age pensions will cost so much money and that it is impossible to find such money or that it would be impossible to relieve old people or the widows and orphans, I would remind him that that was said by his former Leader in 1947 when he stated that it would be impossible, in any circumstances, to give any advance in old age pensions.

Early in 1947, legislation was brought before this House to increase substantially the old age pension and not only that but to raise the means test from £39 to £104. 10s. That made it possible for a great many more people to qualify for the pension. These are things of which I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should take notice, particularly the question that I and others such as Deputies Sherwin and Flanagan have asked— did he give instructions to his officers to tighten up and be "tough" with their investigations?

I hope that in his reply he will be able to justify himself as far as these anonymous letters are concerned and that he will even give an instruction to his officers not to be so "tough" and to members of his own Party to stop writing letters, especially after elections as they did in Wexford, to his Department to ensure that a man who had gone into the polling station on behalf of Fine Gael would have his unemployment assistance stopped just because he did go in. No anonymous letter was sent about that; the letter was sent by Gorey Fianna Fáil Cumann. I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say in his reply that a more generous view will be taken in the future and that, as far as the stabs-in-the-back and anonymous letters are concerned, his Department will take less notice of them in the future.

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

As a result of the Budget of 1959 the existing provision for Social Welfare was increased by £883,000 in respect of eight months of the present financial year, an increase equivalent to £1,313,000 in respect of a full year. An additional shilling a week on old age and blind pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment assistance, disability benefit and unemployment benefit, including an additional shilling for adults and child dependants, where payable, would cost £1,078,000.

One would think from the debate that we were bringing in a motion to decrease the amount given to old age pensioners, to widows and orphans, etc. Listening to Deputy Lynch one would think there was a tragic decrease in children's allowances. The over-estimation was .05 per cent and, in a Vote of nearly £22,000,000 in the present financial year, that is not a great mistake. If you take the whole of the Book of Estimates and see what was spent on social services in the Department of Social Welfare it represents a big percentage of the total expenditure of the State and, for a State of our size, our population and our wealth it is a very big sum. I cannot give exact figures but I think the population is about 2,850,000 and when you tax the people to the tune of between £22,000,000 and £23,000,000 to provide social services, apart from the cost of administration, it is a fairly good tax. That does not take into account what local authorities spend, or the supplemental grants to old age pensioners or to blind people and other things that do not come to mind at the moment— the subsidy to the fuel scheme, the free school meals in cities and Gaeltacht areas, etc. To twit us, as Deputy Lynch has been doing, and put us in the category of Scrooge just paints his picture too luridly and kills any case he was trying to make.

We have no apologies to offer about social welfare. We initiated social welfare in many spheres even before it was thought of in most European countries. When the ex-President was Minister for Local Government he initiated the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Scheme. It was unheard of in Britain then and did not come into operation there for years afterwards.

Deputy Dillon made a plea for the old age pensioners with no means. It was not the first time he made that plea. He is on record as advocating the appointment of an almoner in certain cities to investigate these cases. That is the responsibility of the local authority and the matter needs sympathetic consideration. Deputy Flanagan referred to some of these people. They are too proud to ask for any supplement to their old age pension and we cannot blame them for that. They are human beings like ourselves; they were reared, perhaps, in very good circumstances and the battle of life got them down when they reached 70 years of age. They have that little independence and dislike of the slur of the workhouse and to—I do not know what it was formerly called but what is now called—home assistance. Their natural feelings prevent their seeking it. When I read in the papers about an old person living by himself, falling into the fire and being burned to death, I often think what a tragedy it is. Every Deputy knows that if these old people were approached to go into a home of any kind, they would resist doing so, and very often when their own people come to their relief, they will not have them. It is a big problem.

I want to put this question to Deputies: If any Government brought in a Bill to deal exclusively with the people mentioned by Deputy O.J. Flanagan and Deputy Dillon—the old age pensioners without any means, who account for between 23,000 and 26,000 of the total number of 161,000 old age pensioners —would the House agree? Would there not be an uproar because the other old-age pensioners were not getting the same increase?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not suggesting that such old-age pensioners should go into the county home?

Mr. Kennedy

I did not suggest any such thing. I suggested there was a problem in regard to old-age pensioners living alone. I have nothing to say against the county home. In the county homes, they have nurses and doctors and the best of food and care. The county homes in Loughrea and Carrick-on-Shannon, for instance, are comparable with the best in Europe. I did not advocate that these people should go into the county homes or any other homes. I said that old people of 70 and 80 living by themselves would be better off in the matter of their own safety and nourishment, if they could be induced to go into a home.

The Nazareth Home in Cork has been rightly held up as a model home for old people. There they study their food requirements and everything else. In these homes, only a small proportion of the old-age pension is retained for maintenance; the rest is given to the pensioners as pocket money. Where they are able to go out to the local town, they are free to go. Under the new physiotherapy treatment coming more into use, they are often rehabilitated. Those who were bedridden previously are now able to move around. But notwithstanding all these benefits, they preserve their independence and live alone.

Dealing with this matter in the Seanad, I said, in reply to a Senator who was talking about the kind of food necessary, that even if you put the finest food you could think of on their shelves, these people's food would be bread and tea because that is all they are capable of preparing. By and large, I want to endorse Deputy P.J. Burke's statement that the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the Legion of Mary in the country areas are doing a lot of good work. However this class of people are very hard to handle. It is a problem on which we always keep a sympathetic eye.

Deputy Sherwin told me that I am against Dublin. I want to take him up on that. I would refer him to Deputy Dillon's contribution to the debate. Under our Constitution, in common with the countries on this side of the Iron Curtain, family responsibility is accepted. The members of the family are not treated as digits or individuals. It is the recognised thing in a Christian Society that the members of a family have a bounden and moral duty to see after the welfare of the old members of the family, irrespective of any old-age pension. There is a school of thought in the city here which says that is wrong, that each individual member must stand on his own and be treated individually. I believe that is the worst thing that could happen in any State. We do not encourage it; we frown on it; and we shall make war on it, wherever it exists. It would be bad for society and for the nation that we should go on in that way.

We hear a lot about investigating officers. I am accused of giving a direction to them to tighten up, to be tough and everything else. No such direction has ever been given, but there is this fact, that when an investigating officer, a social welfare officer or a pensions officer investigates a claim for an old-age pension and the claimant is the holder of a qualification certificate for unemployment assistance, the valuation of which was based on 1940 valuations, by our direction he must take into account the present day valuations and apply them. He cannot apply a 5/- valuation to an able-bodied son and a £5 valuation to the father, now helpless and looking for an old age pension. There must be fair administration and the valuation of goods and chattels for the old-age pension must apply all round to the holders of qualifying certificates in respect of unemployment assistance. That is the only direction in the Department, and that direction remains.

Deputy O'Sullivan made a mistake when referring to my introductory statement. We were dealing at that time only with the institutions catering for the blind. We have had to increase the capitation grants to these institutions. Good work is being done in these institutions and they are included in the increases under this Vote. Deputy O.J. Flanagan can rest assured that the welfare of the blind is always a prime consideration in our Department. We have co-ordinated the workshops and set them up in Upper Baggot Street. The Richmond Institute is closed and all the workshops are now under one management.

We have trained a number of girls who are blind, and some boys, to be good telephonists. We have placed them in some of the Departments and certain business houses have helped us out by employing them also. By and large, they have proved themselves better telephonists than those who have full sight and I would appeal to anybody who can persuade any business house, or individual that would employ them, to employ them, not for charitable reasons but for their efficiency and they can be assured of a very good result. These girls are more than attentive and what they lack in vision they more than make up in brain power and capacity, and we are very proud of them, wherever they work.

It is within the capacity and the power of local authorities, where the old age pension is not enough to sustain life and give frugal comfort to a pensioner, to supplement that pension. Indeed, there is a duty to do that. It is done very well in Dublin, and I think, in Cork, and we have always encouraged local authorities to help the old age pensioner who has no means. Deputy Dillon, at one time, advocated the appointment of an almoner for the city, to find these cases and bring them to official notice. I have indicated that certain charitable organisations do this work, but then there are the isolated cases in rural Ireland, and I admit it is very hard to reach them. However, it is the duty of public representatives and parish committees to do what they can in such cases and I think there has been an all-round improvement in that matter. We would like the help of public representatives in pointing out to these old age pensioners the benefits they can get.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan said that it is more difficult to obtain a widow's pension now than formerly but I want to point out that there has been no change whatsoever in the means test and, if the Deputy will indicate to me any case of unreasonable treatment in the awarding of a widow's pension, I shall have it investigated and, if any injustice has been done, I shall see that it is rectified.

On the question of the assignment of farms, there is provision under the social welfare code that where a father or mother assigns, or both assign, a farm of £30 valuation or under to a son or daughter, the full old age pension can be obtained, provided there is no joint ownership, and they can stipulate in the assignment maintenance and a room for themselves. Where the valuation is over £30 and an assessment is made and a marriage is completed in time, the old age pension becomes automatically payable, but then there are cases of assignments for the purpose of marriage and very often the marriage does not take place. That is where the Department is strict, and rightly so, because the thing is not straight and above-board. But, where the valuation is £30, or under, there is a complete granting of the old age pension and, as rural Deputies are aware, 64 per cent. of the farms of Ireland are £30 valuation, or under, so that there is no difficulty in getting the pension.

I have already given the figure of old age pensions, 161,000, and 94 per cent. of them are straight cases that have no trouble with investigation officers, but there is the other 6 per cent. and that is where the trouble lies. Any sensible Deputy, listening to me, in Opposition or in my own Party——

Mr. O'Sullivan

Then there are a few sensible ones over there?

Mr. Kennedy

——knows that what comes to the Department is the borderline case. A person involved in such a case then approaches a Deputy and asks him for his aid in having the pension granted. Of course, that is what Deputies are there for, to make a case and to make the poor mouth for the person who, under a strict legal interpretation, is not entitled to a pension. By and large, Deputies get away with about 80 per cent. of the claims they make.

Mr. Blowick

More power to them.

Mr. Kennedy

Indeed, they do, and nobody is more adept at it than Deputy Blowick.

Mr. Blowick

That speaks badly for the Department.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into one matter for me? He mentioned the transfer of farms of £30 valuation and under to a son or daughter on the occasion of marriage. Would he now look into the case of a childless couple who adopt a nephew or a niece, and that nephew or niece works on and on with them in the hope of some day becoming the owner of the farm. The same incentive does not apply in their case. Possibly the law would have to be amended to cover that situation.

Mr. Kennedy

I promise the Deputy that I shall look into that and make recommendations to my Minister.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Kennedy

Right enough, there is a lot to be said for that. There was a point made by Deputy O'Sullivan about the decrease in the number of old age pensioners. I take it that that follows the decrease in the population.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Oh, no. People are living longer.

Mr. Kennedy

My assumption is that over the years, with a certain amount of emigration of persons in the twenties and thirties, they just are not in the State when the time comes that they reach the age of 70 and that accounts for the decrease in the actual number of people over 70 years of age.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Surely there is a compensatory increase as a result of the fact that people are living longer?

Mr. Kennedy

People are living longer but there would have to be no emigration from the State for that fact to be reflected in the group of people over 70 years of age.

I hope I have dealt with the various points raised by Deputies. This vote is for well over £1 million of an increase. No direction has been given to social welfare officers to tighten up. The only direction they have got is, when they investigate a claim for an old age pension, if there is a qualification certificate in the same house, they must investigate it also.

Mr. Blowick

Is the Parliamentary Secretary forgetting to explain where the £82,000 saving came from?

Mr. Kennedy

I explained that there was a saving in children's allowances which represented over-estimation of .05 per cent.

Mr. Blowick

Does that account for the whole £82,000 saving?

Mr. Kennedy

No, it does not. There is a saving on unemployment assistance also.

Mr. Blowick

So I thought. That is all I want to know.

Mr. Carroll

Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, before he concludes, does he intend at any stage to increase the ceiling figure governing these pensions by virtue of the devaluation of money? I refer to the amount of money a claimant may have.

Mr. Kennedy

Over the years, the ceiling has been raised a number of times. I cannot make a factual statement now but the ceiling has been increased so that a person now can have approximately £1,200 in investments and get the minimum pension of 12/6. The same principle would apply to goods, chattels and property. That was the last increase, under the 1952 Act. As to the future, I cannot answer, beyond giving that information. I have no authority to answer.

Vote put and agreed to.