This Estimate can be said to have an effect on a fairly large number of people because many people find that the income that comes to them through this Estimate is their sole means of livelihood. There are just a few matters with which I should like to deal. One of the things I am interested in is the entitlement of Irishmen serving on British ships to workmen's compensation. The Minister will remember I asked a question about this fairly recently. It has been held by our courts that these men are not entitled to workmen's compensation under the Act. In the case I have in mind, the company made an ex gratia payment of the amount equal to the workmen's compensation, making it clear at the same time that there was no obligation on them, in their opinion, to do so. This is a matter which should not be left to the goodness of heart of employers.
I obtained a copy of a circular issued by the Minister's Department and it is made pretty clear and definite in that circular that such seamen are entitled to workmen's compensation. Would the Minister investigate the position and, in his wisdom, remedy that apparent defect? The court in Cork held that a seaman was not entitled to workmen's compensation. A remedy of the present defect would be in the interests of Irishmen who are compelled to seek a living outside this country and serve a Government, other than the Government of this State. We all know there is not sufficient work here. To all intents and purposes, these people are domiciled here. They pay their insurance and they should be fully covered for the minimum amount of workmen's compensation.
Another matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention is the long delay in dealing with appeals in the case of non-contributory old age pensions. I am quite well aware that there has to be some delay where the applicant puts forward a contrary view, or someone else does it on his behalf; in that case, the Minister's officers must investigate, and possibly investigate very fully, but the delay in many cases is very prolonged. It may be due to the fact that there are not enough deciding officers. Six months is too long a period when one remembers that most of these people are practically dependent upon the pension and, when they are expected to wait for anything from three to six months, they naturally feel aggrieved.
With regard to blind pensions, an applicant simply gets an old age pension form at the post office, which he duly fills in. I do not think there is anything on that form telling him that he must not only complete the form but submit medical evidence of his incapacity. Very often an application for a blind pension comes up in conjunction with a number of old age pension applications and the investigation officer's remark is: "No evidence of incapacity submitted". That is the first information an applicant has of what is required and on many an occasion, I have had to explain that such applicants must get a certificate of incapacity from the doctor appointed by the Minister under the particular section of the Act. Some explanatory note should be appended making applicants aware of what is required of them and how they should proceed when applying for benefit.
In a number of instances recently, I had occasion to write to the Minister's Department in connection with the cutting off of unemployment assistance from people who had been drawing benefit for quite a time. A day comes when they go along to the employment exchange to draw their benefit and are simply told their benefit has been stopped. Apparently no official document is issued to them to indicate why it is stopped. They are simply left in that situation until the question is raised by their trade union, by some local person representing their interests or by a Deputy through a Parliamentary Question or a letter to the Minister. Then it is found that allegations have been made to the employment exchange that these people are engaged in some type of employment.
Very often an anonymous letter to the employment exchange is accepted as justification for suspension of benefit. In one case with which I have dealt in the past four months, such an anonymous letter resulted in a married man being deprived of unemployment assistance on which he and his wife were totally dependent. It was discovered later that the person who wrote the anonymous letter to the employment exchange did not mean the man named in the letter but a man of a similar name who apparently he did believe was drawing unemployment assistance and was working. I do not believe the anonymous writer did it with any intention of saving Government funds but possibly because of some spleen between himself and the other person.
The point I am trying to make to the Minister is that a decision to suspend payment and take from a person what very often is the only thing between him and starvation should not be taken lightly. I have submitted to the Minister two cases, one just outside my constituency and one in my own town. During the past fortnight, two married people found when they went to the employment exchange that their unemployment assistance had been stopped and no reason given for it. That kind of arbitrary decision without any warning or explanation is a most unwholesome thing and I would ask the Minister to investigate the reasons for it.
If Deputy Tully were present this evening. I am quite sure he would raise the point I am about to mention, that is, the old complaint he has in connection with contributory old age pensions. Under the regulations made by the Minister—not under the Act— a person must have a certain minimum number of contributions within the ten years or the 15 years prior to his retiring, whichever is more to his advantage, but if he had a lifetime of stamps before that, he gets no value for them. That is unfair. There are many people who, if the period of time since they entered into insurable employment were taken into consideration, as provided in the Act, would qualify for a pension. It is a great hardship on these people that they cannot so qualify. There are not very many of them and the Minister, in fairness to the limited number who are left and who feel victimised in being deprived of what they believe to be their right and were told was their right, should grant this concession by changing that regulation. It would make them extremely happy without costing the Exchequer any great extra amount of money and even if it were granted, it would certainly be a dwindling amount of money going out because these people, in the normal course of things, will not live very long to enjoy it.
I have dealt with all the points in which I was particularly interested except to say to the Minister—and I am quite sure he is well aware of it— that our social welfare benefits are probably the lowest in Europe. As I said in some other debate, if we had gone into the EEC, we would have been forced to improve our social welfare standards. I know I cannot advocate legislation on an Estimate but I would suggest to the Minister that in view of the fact that our standards are so low compared with the rest of the European countries—and in many cases very much lower because the European countries have apparently decided that apart from wages, improved social welfare benefits are a good way to pay workers—the Minister should give as much leeway and freedom as possible in regard to receiving benefits of the limited types we have. Above all, I would urge the Minister to impress upon his officials who have responsibility for deciding claims for disablement benefit, claims for old age pensions, widows' pensions and the various other benefits that the people who apply for them are in the main practically depending on it and must otherwise resort to an application for home assistance to the relieving officer. It is deplorable that genuine cases can be held up so long because of red tape, which, if properly tackled, could be dealt with expeditiously. I would ask the Minister to impress upon his officials the need for speedy decisions which will do justice to the people and to the Department.
