Committee on Finance. - Vote 52—Social Insurance. – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Thursday, 21 Mar 1963

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,370,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund (No. 14 of 1950 and No. 11 of 1952).

Mar is eol do Theachtaí, is gnáthach Meastacháin mo Roinne-se a phlé le na chéile. Ar an ócáid seo, tá dhá Mheastachán Fhorlíontacha os comhair na Dála, ceann i leith Árachais Shóisialaigh agus ceann i leith Cúnaimh Shóisialaigh, agus mholfainn go dtógfaí an dá Mheastachán le chéile.

Séard is príomh-chúis leis na Meastacháin Fhorlíontacha seo ná na méadaithe a rinneadh i rátaí árachais shóisialaigh le h-éifeacht ó thosach mî Eanáir seo chaite agus i rátaí cúnaimh shóisialaigh le h-éifeacht ó thosach mí Lúnasa, 1962.

I gcás árachais shóisialaigh, táthar ag lorg £1,370,000 sa bhreis. Baineann £800,000 den tsuim sin leis na méadaithe i rátaí árachais a luaidh mé cheana, agus tá £515,000 ag teastáil toisc bun-chostas na scéimeanna árachais shóisialaigh a bheith níos aoirde ná mar a ceapadh ar dtús. In a theannta san, is gá £71,000 a aisíoch don Chiste Árachais Shóisialaigh i leith na bliana 1961-62, de bhrí go raibh glan-chaiteachas an Chiste níos mó de £71,000 ná an méid a íocadh isteach ann ón Stát-Chiste sa bhliain sin. Tá mion-spáráil agus breis chaiteachais faoi mhírchinn eile agus dá bharr sin sé £1,370,000 an méid glan atáthar ag lorg in aghaidh na bliana seo.

I gcás Cúnaimh Shóisialaigh, sé £694,000 an méid glan atá de dhíth. Meastar go gcosnóidh na rátaí nua agus na feabhsanna eile ins na scéimeanna cúnaimh shóisialaigh £865,000 sa bhliain seo. Táthar ag súil áfach le spáráil ar bhun-chostas pinsean seananois agus pinsean na mbaintreach de bhrí gur lugha líon na bpinsinéirí ná mar a ceapadh ar dtús. Mar is eol do Theachtaí, tá laghdú i líon na bpinsinéirí neamh-ranníochacha in aghaidh na bliana toisc go bhfuil níos mó duine i dteideal pinsean ranníocach. Nuair a chuirtear san áireamh breis chaiteachais de £38,000 ar liúntais leanaí agus mion-spáráil ar fho-mhírchinn eile den Vóta, sé £694,000 atá de dhíth in aghaidh na bliana seo.

As Deputies are aware, it is customary to deal with the Estimates for my Department as a group. On this occasion, a Supplementary Estimate arises in respect of both the Social Insurance and the Social Assistance Votes, and I would suggest, if the House has no objection, that we should deal with the two Supplementary Estimates together.

Under the Social Insurance heading, an additional amount of £1,370,000 is being sought in respect of the current financial year. The need for the Supplementary Estimate arises principally from the additional cost in 1962-63 of the increase in the rates of social insurance benefits provided under the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1962, with effect from January, 1963.

The main increases on the original estimates for the various benefits amount to approximately £1,315,000 made up as follows:—

	£
Unemployment benefit	453,000
Disability benefit	350,000
Old age (contributory) pension	266,000
Widow's (contributory) pension and orphan's (contributory) allowance	237,000
Maternity allowance	9,000
Total	£1,315,000

Of the £1,315,000, an estimated sum of £800,000 is attributable to the increases in rates under the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1962.

The separate amounts for the various benefits are as follows:

	£
Disability benefit	247,000
Unemployment benefit	240,000
Old age (contributory) pension	166,000
Widow's (contributory) pension and orphan's (contributory) allowance	144,000
Maternity allowance	3,000
Total	£800,000

The balance of the £1,315,000, namely £515,000, is due to increases in certain of the original benefit estimates attributable mainly to the numbers of recipients of benefits being greater than anticipated. The distribution of the £515,000 is as follows:

	£
Unemployment benefit	213,000
Disability benefit	103,000
Old age (contributory) pension	100,000
Widow's (contributory) pension and orphan's (contributory) allowance	93,000
Maternity allowance	6,000
Total	£515,000

The overall increase of £1,315,000 is reduced by an expected small saving of £15,000 on the original provision for treatment benefit, thus bringing the additional sum required to £1,300,000. To the latter figure must be added a sum of £34,000 for excess expenditure on administration costs, mainly due to adjustment of underclaims against the Social Insurance Fund in the previous year.

There is also due to be paid by the Exchequer into the Social Insurance Fund a sum of approximately £71,000 which is the amount by which the Exchequer contribution from subhead A of the Social Insurance Vote paid to the Fund in 1961-62 fell short of the actual deficit on the working of the Fund in that year. Payments out of subhead A in any financial year are provisional as the actual expenditure and income of the Fund are not known until after the close of the year.

The estimated net additional expenditure on benefits and administration costs in 1962-63 amounting to £1,334,000, already detailed, and the adjustment of the underdraw of £71,000 from the Exchequer in 1961-62 total £1,405,000. This sum is reduced to £1,370,000, the amount of the Supplementary Estimate for Social Insurance, by expected net additional income of £35,000 in the current year.

This additional income represents anticipated additional receipts of £150,000 from employment contributions offset by the non-receipt in the current financial year of £115,000 under reciprocal arrangements. This sum was included in the original estimates but is not now expected to be received until after the close of the financial year.

On the Social Assistance side, an additional sum of £694,000 is required to meet the additional cost in the current financial year of implementing the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous provisions) Act, 1962, which increased the rates of old age and blind pensions, widows' non-contributory pensions and unemployment assistance as from August, 1962, and effected other improvements in these services.

The cost of these increases and improvements in the current year is estimated at £865,000 made up as follows:—

	£
Old age and blind pensions	521,000
Unemployment assistance	224,000
Widows' non-contributory pensions	120,000
Total	£865,000

The foregoing figures fall to be adjusted, however, in the light of other factors. In the case of old age and blind pensions it is estimated that there will be a saving of £169,000 on the original provision of £9,182,000. The saving is due to the numbers of non-contributory pensioners being fewer than had been anticipated. The net requirement for old age and blind pensions is accordingly reduced to £352,000.

In the case of unemployment assistance, the original provision of £1,100,000 needs to be increased by £71,000 as the numbers of recipients are somewhat higher than had been estimated. Accordingly, the additional requirement of £224,000 for this service, already mentioned, falls to be increased to £295,000.

The additional provision of £120,000 for widows' non-contributory pensions is reduced to £66,000 as there is an estimated saving of £54,000 on the original provision of £1,842,000 for the relevant subhead. The saving is due to the fact that the average weekly value of pensions in operation is slightly lower than anticipated.

The net additional requirement for the foregoing services is, therefore, £713,000. To this sum must be added a supplementary provision of £38,000 in respect of children's allowances. The original provision for this service for 1962-63 was £7,109,000 but there is a rising trend in the current year in the cost of children's allowances and it is now estimated that the expenditure for the year will be approximately £7,147,000.

The net total of £751,000 for the four services to which I referred is reduced to £720,000, as savings amounting to £31,000 in all are expected to arise on other subheads of the Vote.

A further reduction of £26,000 on the additional sum required to be voted arises because it is now estimated that there will be a surplus of that amount in the appropriations-in-aid of the Vote which were originally estimated at £338,000. The surplus appropriations-in-aid are attributable as to £14,000 to expected higher receipts in respect of recoveries of overpayments of old age pension and, as to the balance of £12,000, to repayments to the Vote by the Social Insurance Fund of interim payments of social assistance made from the Vote pending establishment of title by recipients to insurance benefits. When these surplus receipts are taken into account the net additional sum required for 1962-63 for this Vote is reduced to £694,000, which is the amount being sought in the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. O'Sullivan

We on this side of the House have agreed to taking the Estimates as a group and are agreeable to the passage of these Supplementary Estimates. They are required to carry on the work of the Department in providing for those sections of the community who are most in need. For those reasons the House is agreeable to furnishing the Minister with the money needed for the continuance of the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts which the House has passed.

There are some remarks I have to make regarding the administration of the Department. I note that, despite the prognostications of the Minister when dealing with the Estimate, he has had to eat humble pie by increasing the Vote for Unemployment Assistance. He was one of the Ministers who said the indications were that the present year would be such a year of affluence that he would not require from the Exchequer as much money as heretofore to look after people who are normally able to look after themselves. On Page 3 of his speech, he had to speak of a sum of £1,100,000 and it has been increased by £71,000 as the number of recipients has risen this year. One will recall the promise of the leader of this Government that his Government would provide 100,000 new jobs. This is further proof of how false that estimate was and, if the Estimate was not false, how inept the Government have been in bringing to fruition their plan to provide 100,000 new jobs for our people.

It is regrettable that we have to provide this additional money to cover unemployment assistance and that we are not in a position to provide these people with work of a productive character which would be better for themselves and the country. If the efforts of the Government in this direction were in any way successful the Minister would not have to come to the House with this Supplementary Estimate. He would have money left over at the end of the year and he would be able to prove the claims of his Government that conditions were so good in the country that the money originally provided for him was not needed.

There are people who genuinely think that the employment situation and general conditions in the country are exceedingly good. These people will be surprised at the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate. Deputy Meaney, speaking on the Vote on Account, said that the people were never so well off. If they were never so well off, what is the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate for unemployment assistance? We are entitled to ask why there has not been a considerable increase in non-contributory old age pensions. Instead, there is an indication of some reduction in the numbers. There were also indications that there would be an easement of the means test. If there has not been a tighter application of the means test, how does the situation arise where fewer people are now qualifying for the receipt of old age pensions?

It would be well if we had a reexamination of what is involved financially in the administration of the various sections of the Minister's Department with regard to old age pensions. There is a feeling that we have absorbed so many who were in the non-contributory category into the contributory category that there is now less necessity for the means test. It would be well to know what the cost to the country would be if we were to abandon completely the means test in relation to old age pensions. We should be told what it would amount to, first, by way of additional expense to the Exchequer and, secondly, what would be saved by the elimination of that section of the Department which has to administer the means test and what saving would accrue from the release of those civil servants so engaged.

I am not advancing the suggestion that the State should use that money to provide for new means tests or new non-contributory pensions. I am not saying there is not a case to be made for coming to the relief of the poorer sections of the community, but if we have such money to dispense, might it not be more desirable to give immediate relief to those in the lower bracket of old age pensioners?

These are questions agitating the minds of many people at present. If the Minister cannot do so to-day, it would be well if he could, before the main Estimate, provide us with information on the following points. What would be involved in the complete abolition of the means test in relation to the non-contributory old age pension? What saving would accrue to the Exchequer from the elimination of the civil servants employed in the administration of the means test? There is also a strong demand for the lowering of the qualifying age, particularly in the case of females. If we are now in the position the Minister for Justice says—that this Government have performed an economic miracle— surely it should be possible for the Department of Social Welfare to come to the relief of the community at large and to apply more of the means the Government have successfully taken from the people by means of increased taxation and more active pursuance of income tax collection to the benefit of those sections of the people who have to depend on social welfare benefits?

I would welcome some statement from the Minister indicating what his mind and the mind of the Government is regarding these matters— whether they think it would be in the interest of the beneficiaries to give immediate relief to the unfortunate old people who find it so difficult to live on what they are getting at the moment? There is definite proof of the increase in the cost of living. It is incontestable. It is revealed by Government figures, but we did not have to wait for Government statements to know how much the cost of living has increased for these people. The fact that we have this inflated Estimate shows that there cannot have been an advance for those who are in receipt of the benefits. Any advance these people get is immediately dissipated by what they have to pay for the simple necessaries of life, without going into the field of luxuries. In order to ensure that the Department will be in a position to maintain the present level of support for those people, the Estimate should be passed by the House.

I want to close on the note on which I began. The very fact that the Minister has been obliged to seek this money for assistance to the unemployed is absolutely contrary to the Minister's forecast when introducing his main Estimate and in complete defiance of statements made by members of the Government regarding the conditions of the people. If that position of wealth obtained, why the necessity to come to the aid of the unemployed to this increased extent? If the Government had done anything towards implementing the promises they gave to the electorate, or the assurance that they could provide 100,000 jobs, it would not have been necessary for the Minister to come back to the House to seek additional money to aid those for whom they have not found employment.

Mr. Tully

We agree that the Supplementary Estimate should be passed with the least possible delay. We were very glad the recent increases in social welfare benefits were applied. We consider that the increase in stamps which the workers had to pay were well worth the increases granted to social welfare recipients. Very definitely, the contributory old age pension and the operation of it has been welcomed.

However, as the previous speaker said, a desire has been expressed that the old age pension, particularly the contributory pension, should be applicable earlier than 70 years. The cost to the Exchequer would not be very much and it would relieve the employment position. There is no reason why the Minister should not consider reducing the qualifying age to 65. That would encourage many people at present loath to retire, because they do not want to line up at a labour exchange and sign on for unemployment benefit, to do so. We hope there will be an improvement in that respect. It would give the old people a definite sense of security. It is a pity that some people, including the Department of Finance, have taken it on themselves to try to reduce the efficacy of the pension by mucking around— that is the only word for it—with pensions of State and semi-State bodies and trying to reduce the amount because of the contributory old age pension. It is a most mean and despicable thing and it should not be allowed. I am not blaming the present Minister. He is not responsible for it.

There is also the question of qualification. I would ask the Minister, as I did in numerous Dáil questions, to reconsider the very limited number of people who have been disqualified for the pension, despite the fact they had upwards of 40 years stamps to their credit because they had not stamps on within the past 10 or 15 years. I cannot impress too strongly on the Minister that he should make every effort to meet those people. They were excluded by regulation, but I would ask him to relax that regulation and let those people in. They will be getting fewer and this will not happen in the case of the people coming along. In common justice, those people are entitled to be given the pension, when people who have only slightly over ten years stamps can qualify. It is an injustice to which the Minister should not be a party.

In regard to unemployment benefit, perhaps the Minister could so something about the long delay which occurs when application is made, if there is any doubt about the applicant's right. I was talking to a man last night who has been waiting three months for the Department to decide whether he is entitled to unemployment benefit because he has five or six acres of land. He is not entitled to unemployment assistance. It is shocking that this unfortunate man must wait until somebody eventually gets around to having some kind of investigation. Surely it could be decided within a week or a fortnight?

I have the greatest respect for the Minister's officials. The officials of the Department of Social Welfare are the most obliging and courteous civil servants it has been my pleasure to deal with. If there is some regulation which ties them up and prevents them from doing the decent thing and dealing with the matter quickly, surely the Minister should iron that out?

As far as the non-contributory old age pension is concerned, we cannot stress too much the necessity of reducing the qualifying age, particularly in the case of women. Secondly, we should do something more than we are doing to try to give those who are entitled to the full pension a little more to live on. It is just too bad that people, who, but for the Minister's regulation, would have qualified for a contributory old age pension, have nothing to live on except 32/6 a week. If the Minister wants any proof of this, and proof that they are in a bad way, all he has to do is check with the local authorities and find the number who are receiving home assistance.

Everybody in this House knows that the one thing an independent spirited old person does not want to do is to look for home assistance, if he or she can possibly avoid it. Surely we should not be the people to force them into the position at the end of their days that they have to apply for home help? I ask the Minister to look into this and, even if he cannot see his way to increasing the amount of non-contributory old age pension substantially for those who are on the reduced pension, to increase at least the pensions of those who do get the full pension now. The Minister should do that. He has all the necessary evidence to justify his doing it. If he does it he will be doing a very good job and he will get the thanks not alone of the old people concerned but of everybody in this House.

I do not want to make any political points as to whether or not the numbers in receipt of unemployment have grown. To most of us, the amount that has to be paid out is disappointing. We believe the amount should be very much less. But it has to be paid out and, since it has to be paid out, the Labour Party will not place any obstacles in the Minister's way.

Mr. Dillon

I want to raise again a point I raised with the Minister by way of question and answer recently in connection with subhead D of this Vote, widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. There are a limited number of cases in the Department which appear to be virtually insoluble. They represent the case of women whose husbands disappeared many years ago and have never been heard of since, but whose deaths cannot be proved. I do not suppose there are more than a couple of hundred cases outstanding, but the dilemma exists that there is apparently no means of these women ever getting the widows' pensions to which their years and circumstances would entitle them, were they in a position to give the Department adequate proof of the deaths of their husbands.

I would suggest to the Minister that where he is satisfied that a woman has not heard from her husband for a period of 20 years, that in itself would be accepted as evidence of widowhood for the purpose of widows' and orphans' pensions, unless and until the fact was established that her husband, in fact, survived. I cannot imagine that anybody in any part of this House, or indeed in any section of the Department of Finance, would raise any very serious objection to a rough and ready solution of this kind. If two or three women had received widows' pensions, and their husbands subsequently turned up, that would not be likely to wreck the State. In a very limited number of cases, real hardship is being done, which I do not believe anybody wants to see continue and which could be very easily resolved by a rough and ready procedure such as I have outlined.

The common law in matters of much greater substance actually provides a procedure for the presumption of death in certain cases so that the distribution of personal assets or real property can be proceeded with. For a person who would be eligible for the non-contributory widows' pension, the procedure to establish presumption of death would, of course, be quite out of the question as it is a relatively expensive operation involving certain statutory advertisements in newspapers and other precautions that are deemed to be necessary for the safety of real property and substantial personal assets. I suggest to the Minister that such precautions are wholly unnecessary in the case of a widow's non-contributory pension application and that a rough and ready rule of the kind I suggest would be suitable and should, without delay, be made.

The second point I want to raise is in regard to subhead A. It has been suggested and, I think, truly suggested, that elderly people who have been independent all their lives are extremely reluctant, when they qualify for the non-contributory old age pension, to look for home assistance. It is true that the means test at present prescribed permits of such elderly people having a certain amount of savings to which regard is not had for the purpose of reducing the non-contributory old age pension; but, over and above that, I think the time has come when we should, with propriety, mitigate the regulations in regard to old people doing light work. There are a great many old people in the country, old people of 70 years of age, who are very well able to undertake small assignments, such as light gardening, caretaking, and other light work of that kind. All of us are familiar with old friends who have been in our service for protracted periods; when they reach 70 years of age, they do not go out on the streets. They remain in their positions with lesser responsibilities; they are allowed to carry on. I think that is a very good thing.

My experience of people in all walks of life, both in the professions and in ordinary employment, is only too frequently the sad fact that, when a man arrives at pension age, he retires on superannuation and the next thing is one is following his funeral. That does not apply only to those eligible for the non-contributory old age pension. Often in regard to the most distinguished public servants, who retire after long service, the next thing one hears about them is that they are dead. The same is true of the businessman who lays down his burden of responsibility and withdraws from his business altogether; only too frequently he breaks up and dies within a relatively short time. It is a good thing, if people are physically fit, that they should carry on with some occupation.

I met a friend recently who told me he had retired and had undertaken some kind of voluntary work. I complimented him on his public spirit. "To tell you the truth," he said, "I wanted some reason to get up in the morning. I could not live without it." Expressed in that homely way, one can understand at once what was in his mind—the normal, admirable detestation of idleness for a person well able to undertake some work, albeit he is not able to do as much as when he was in his full strength. Now that applies just as much to elderly people who are drawing old age pensions as it does to retired civil servants, bankers, businessmen, or anybody else. But in the case of the old age pensioners the regrettable fact is that, if an elderly person does earn £3 or £4 a week in some part-time job, that is taken into consideration and set off against his right to claim the old age pension.

I admit freely that a great many of these people qualify for the contributory old age pension. In their case, they are entitled to draw the pension and to earn. That applies with particular relevance to the ordinary trade union employee, the industrial worker, and so forth. But it does not apply so much in the country. There are a great many elderly people who are entitled to non-contributory old age pensions who can do a hand's turn from time to time but are debarred by the consideration that, if they do, they disqualify themselves for the old age pension. You get the peculiar situation that, if they work for a few weeks, the total of their earnings is averaged over the year and to that is added their little bit of savings calculated on a special basis of so much per cent. for the first few hundred, and so on, and that may deprive them of the pension.

I think that is a matter worthy of examination and consideration, more particularly now when we have a system of contributory old age pensions, the recipients of which may work and still continue to draw their pensions without regard being had to what they earn. We should do something for that section of the community who do not come within that provision and who would like to be free to do a hand's turn and still draw the full contributory benefit to which they would otherwise be entitled. Perhaps that is a slightly more complex question than the relatively simple and limited problems to which I have referred under subhead D. I do press on the Minister most strongly the view that the liability likely to accrue to the Exchequer under the reform I suggest in respect of subhead D is infinitesimal. Yet it means a very material loss and sense of deprivation to the few women who are labouring under this disability. I am satisfied it is within the Minister's power by regulation to put right what is wrong and I urge him most strenuously to do so.

Mr. Kyne

I should like the Minister to examine the question of the delay involved where people employed in Britain return to Ireland ill. I think the delay in securing benefit is unduly long. In at least two or three cases in the past few months, I found the delay extended to six or seven weeks. I can appreciate that some of this is due to having to get the record of employment in Britain, but it still seems unduly long, especially when a person is ill at home and very often without any means of sustenance other than disablement benefit. I ask the Minister to see if his Department can speed up payment of benefit.

I have no objection to the Minister seeking the money required for the benefit of these needy people. It is good to see the money being spent and those representing the people who contribute by way of social welfare stamps feel that any money spent in that way or in improving benefits is well spent. All we regret is that the benefit is so low and any effort the Minister will make now or in the future to improve benefits will be assured of the support of my Party.

Mr. Timmons

I want to refer to the plight of the old age pensioner in Dublin but I take it the same would apply to old age pensioners in other urban centres. I raised this matter elsewhere and advocated a differential rate of pension as between urban and rural pensioners. That was not received very favourably. Yet I think an important Department such as Social Welfare which deals so extensively with the problem of old age and old age pensioners should examine that aspect of the matter.

In Dublin, there are numerous old age pensioners, sometimes husband and wife, living on their own, with no relatives to assist them. It is an unfortunate reflection on our society that old people are not wanted today in many parts of the country, and particularly in the cities. We also have numerous old people living in rooms and their housing presents a problem for the corporation. We also have them accommodated in schemes where flats are specially provided for them. They are in a really serious plight. Some have supplementary incomes from public assistance but then there is the undesirable feature of administration under which one official comes along and examines them and asks questions about the old age pension. When they seek additional income from another source, you have a whole chain of inquiries about them by the public assistance officer.

I should like the Minister and the Department to examine this aspect of the problem with the view to securing some co-ordination between public assistance and social welfare inquiries and also examine the possibility of giving the urban dweller who, I think, is more hardly hit, more consideration. Living problems are more serious in urban centres, as fuel alone costs much more than in rural areas where the people concerned may live near a turf bog. I think urban pensioners deserve more consideration and I ask the Minister, who has shown a very human approach to this problem, to examine those aspects of it.

Mr. Coogan

It is about time the Minister had another look at the old age pension position and examined the possibility of abolishing the means test. It may be argued that it would cost so many extra pounds but we should also look at what the administration is already costing. You may say it means only a handful of officials but by the time a question goes to the Department and an answer comes back, it involves quite a number. A further argument may be made that moneyed classes should not qualify. My answer is that the moneyed classes would have to pay it back in income tax and it might be their actual undoing if they accept it. Again, on the administration question, the Department should examine its conscience because we have about 2,000 extra civil servants and I think this Department has quite a few of those. There were complaints because we had so many when we were in power but we now have 2,000 extra and we are reaching the stage where the cost of administration will outstep the actual benefits paid. The Department should examine that aspect of the matter.

Another question that arises in my area is one that I think has been put to the Minister—if not, it will be— that is, the possibility of the Department combining with other groups to provide a better type of building in Galway. This may be a question of administration but I am putting it at this stage to the Minister to examine it because it may be that later on if these groups get together—the present building in Galway is not to be admired and there is no place for the workers or those who visit the place——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter does not arise on any of the subheads. The Deputy will get a relevant opportunity to discuss it on the main Estimate.

Mr. Coogan

The time may come when the Minister may miss the boat. If these groups get going, the Minister may lose something which may make for economy for both the taxpayers and the ratepayers.

Finally, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the need for expediting decisions in his Department. I have had many complaints about such delays in regard to benefits or pensions and the Minister should do something in regard to expediting decisions on these matters. Some of them go on for months, which is very wrong.

Mr. Boland

I should like to thank Deputies for the manner in which they have dealt with this request for this supplementary sum, which, as I said, is mainly due to the increase in rates of benefit as a result of the Social Welfare Bill of last year. It is true that part of the increase being asked for in respect of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit is due to the fact that there has been a greater number of claims than was expected. I cannot accept, however, the implications which Deputy O'Sullivan put on it. It means that we were slightly more optimistic than the position justified. There has only been a marginal increase in the numbers and that arose mainly during the past winter. It is well known that the increase in the number of claims is largely due to weather conditions, both here and in England. The very severe winter caused a lot of unemployment, particularly in the building trade, and in forestry at home, and a number of workers found themselves out of employment in England and came back here. As I say, the increase has been only marginal and the trend is becoming more favourable now.

A number of Deputies raised the question of the means test for non-contributory old age pensions. The question of what it would cost to abolish it was also raised and an estimate has been made of what that would cost. It would be approximately £4 million, having allowed for an approximate saving of £25,000 in administration costs. I may say that if I had £4 million available to me for the purpose of old age pensioners, I would not be inclined to use it in that way. It would be much more equitable to use it to raise the rates so that those with no means would get their due share of whatever was available.

In that regard, I might remind Deputies that there is a disregard in the means test of approximately £1 a week or £52 a year in regard to the old age pension. A person may have that amount and still qualify for the maximum non-contributory old age pension. That is a sufficient differential and any moneys that become available to me would be more equitably used in raising rates so that everybody would get a fair share of whatever money it was possible to distribute in that way.

Deputy Tully suggested that the old age pension should be made available at an earlier age than 70, with particular reference to the contributory old age pension. I think a comparison was made with the position in Great Britain, but of course their scheme and our scheme are not strictly comparable because there is a retirement condition——