I should like to raise a point with the Minister which I have several times raised by way of Question during the year. It is something which I do not think requires legislation and, therefore, can be dealt with very easily. It is the question of the average number of stamps required to qualify for a contributory old age pension. When the Act dealing with contributory old age pensions was brought into operation, an average number of stamps, minimum and maximum, was laid down. Nowhere in that Act could I find any reference to the fact that they must be put on within a certain number of years before the person reached the age of 70, and yet the regulation, as administered by the Minister, lays down that they must be put on between the ages of 55 and 70 or 60 and 70 years, whichever is the more advantageous to the insured person.
I know that the Minister, when introducing that regulation, felt that he was doing a good turn for a big number of people who might not possibly have the average number of stamps for the whole period, but nevertheless, by doing so, he prevented people who had stamped cards for 30 or 40 years, and who, because of their thrift, had succeeded in saving enough money by the time they had reached 60 years of age to start a small business or buy a small piece of land, and ceased to be insurably employed, from getting the benefit of the contributory old age pension.
Many of those people were over-ambitious and sank whatever money they had collected in some enterprise, and in a short time, found they were killing themselves and getting very little in return. When they reached 70 years of age, they had no money. They also had no stamps, and they are now dependent on the non-contributory old age pension, when, in fact, their stamps should have qualified them for a contributory pension.
It is rather paradoxical that if a person has only ten years' stamps from the age of 60 to 70 years and if he had one stamp on before he reached the age of 60, he can qualify for a contributory old age pension, but if he started to work at 20 years of age and worked until he was 60 years and had 40 years' stamps but was not in insurable employment between the ages of 60 and 70 years, according to the regulation as administered by the Minister, he is not entitled to a contributory old age pension. I would ask the Minister, as it would not require legislation because it is simply a regulation laid down by him, to reconsider this matter because it is causing very great hardship to a number of decent people.
In regard to the non-contributory pensions, I agree that there has to be some type of means test because otherwise people with very high incomes would unashamedly apply for something for nothing. We all know that, but still I feel, with a number of Deputies who have already spoken that the officials who investigate these cases go far too deeply into this matter.
I know a particular case of an old man who was in the position I have described. He started a little business when he was 55 years of age. He ceased to be insurably employed and by the time he was 70 years, he had nothing. He tried to making a living working here and there. He was a good judge of stock and he was employed at fairs to buy a few head of cattle or sheep for someone, or to sell them. For that he got the odd few pounds. When he had the money, he occasionally took on the 11 months' system a small acreage of land, usually a field of six acres. If he could raise the price to stock it, he usually did so.
When this man applied for a non-contributory pension, his application for a contributory pension having been refused, I was amazed to find that the social welfare officials who interviewed him and examined his case produced evidence at the sub-committee to prove that on those six acres of land, this old man who was almost 75 years of age was making an income of £1,000 a year. If he could do that, he should be lecturing in some university, or he should be here in the Dáil telling the farmers how to make more money. Out of six rented acres, according to the social welfare officer, his income was £1,000 a year. Of course, it was subsequently found that what the social welfare officer had done was to go from saleyard to saleyard and assess the number of cattle and sheep he had bought and the number of cattle and sheep he had sold and arrive at the conclusion that his income should be £1,000 per year.
That is the type of thing the Department of Social Welfare should seek to cut out. That official thought he was doing what he was supposed to be doing. I believe he was one of these people who was conscientious about his job, but it was quite evident to everybody, even to himself, when the matter was brought to law, that he had made a bad mistake. I suggest the Minister might discreetly pass the information along to his investigating officers that their job is not to go outside the usual investigating channels for the purpose of doing everything to deprive some poor person who has got nothing to eat from getting whatever few shillings he will get by way of non-contributory old age pension.
The question of the long delay in appeals has been mentioned. I do not know what causes it. I am sure the officials are as anxious as we are to see the appeals dealt with quickly, but it is a fact that very long delays occur particularly in old age pension appeals. I was notified of a case less than a week ago in connection with a contributory old age pension where a person has been awaiting a decision for almost 12 months. Surely it should have been possible to give a decision in a shorter time than that?
The same thing applies to unemployment benefit appeals. I have an instance of a man who was disallowed unemployment benefit because the work he was doing was cutting hedges and some Department welfare officer got the impression that the amount of hedge which had been cut did not represent the number of weeks which was supposed to have been spent on it and he said a number of stamps, two, to be exact, were fraudulently put on the card. As a result, the man was disqualified. He appealed, but since May, he has been attempting to get a decision and, since May, has an income of nothing. I met him yesterday in Navan and he told me he had been hungry; he had reached the stage where nobody would give him credit; he could not borrow money, and so he has nothing. It is not good enough to be told the case is coming up for appeal shortly. After all, we are dealing with human beings, not with animals, and that is not the right way to deal with these matters. The Department should endeavour to have these matters dealt with more quickly. There may be some reason why these matters are held up but it would need to be a very good reason to justify such delay in the case of an unfortunate man depending on such assistance.
The same thing occurs in regard to unemployment assistance. Somebody applies for a qualification certificate. The investigation into the qualification certificate may take a considerable number of weeks—usually, not months in this case—but when the qualification certificate is eventually issued it applies not from the date of the application but from the date on which the decision was made, which means in some cases a married man with a family is left without any income over a period. That is not right; possibly there is some regulation which covers that. If there is, it should be changed as quickly as possible.
There is also the vexed question of the three days' waiting period. I know that when moving from one benefit to another, say, from benefit to assistance, that no longer exists, but it is a hardship on the man who is unemployed and who has to wait for three days. That matter may require legislation and I shall not press the point.
Another type of case is that of the person who is ill and the investigation officer comes as a result of a complaint, possibly from a neighbour, that the person has been working; it may in fact be one of those poisonous cases we find from time to time. The next thing we find is that that person is deprived of benefit. It is a grave hardship, for instance, where a single woman in poor circumstances is deprived of such benefit because a neighbour has complained that she has been working. It is not true, of course, but for a period of perhaps four or five weeks that person's benefit is suspended. When it is discovered that a mistake has been made all the money is refunded, but I do not think that is good enough. That is not the way to handle this matter. When some people are ill, they need assistance much more than those who are in their full health.
In regard to old people living on their own, it would possibly require legislation to enable their old age pensions to be increased, but surely something should be done about persons living on their own and receiving an old age non-contributory pension of 32/6 a week; if they go to the county home, being no longer able to live on 32/6 a week, the local authority will have to pay at least £3 10s. per week for their keep there. One cannot say: "That is all right; that comes from the local authority, not the State." It has to be paid out of the national income and that is a matter which eventually will have to be considered.
Officials of the Department of Social Welfare are the most courteous people I have met in my time in public life. It does not matter what I have raised with them or how much trouble I have put them to—and I have put them to considerable trouble over the years—from top to bottom, they have given me nothing but courtesy. If they can help, they do so and if they cannot help, they say so, without going backwards and forwards. I say this particularly because there is an impression around the country that the Department officials in Dublin are there for the purpose of preventing people from getting what they are entitled to. My experience has been the direct opposite. My experience is that they do everything possible to help those who are depending on them.
There is an awkward point in this connection, that when local agents are removed, for one reason or another, the people who are drawing disability benefit have then to deal directly with head office. That, as Deputy Corish said, is a bit of a snag because the people who up to now have got assistance from these agents in filling up their certificates now find they have to do it themselves. Apart from that, the system seems to be running smoothly. I have never had to approach the Minister except across the floor of the House, so I do not know whether he would receive me courteously or not—I am sure he would—but his officials are most courteous people and I am very grateful for the way in which they have dealt with the numerous problems I have brought to them from time to time.
