Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Feb 1964

Vol. 207 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Payments to Disabled Persons: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that disabled persons now in receipt of 25/- weekly, paid by the State and the health authority, should receive the same benefits as blind persons or non-contributory old age pensioners."—(Deputy Sherwin.)

Mr. Dolan

When I reported progress, I adverted to the fact that there were many people, young and old, who suffered from some physical disability and in a number of instances this disablement lasted from the cradle to the grave. As a civilised community, we have always more or less agreed that those in a sound financial position should try to assist those who are not so circumstanced, in particular the infirm and the sick and especially the disabled. In 1954, when the Health Act was introduced, it was the first time that many of these people received any financial assistance whatever. Indeed, except in rare instances when some of them had received home assistance they would not have received anything up to that time and their families or relatives were saddled with the burden of looking after them as well as trying to fend for themselves.

That, too, would have been about the first time that local county councils got any idea of the great number of these people in each county. It is reasonable then to expect that at a time when many increases are being granted these people should not be forgotten. I feel that many of the local authorities are not living up to their full obligations in this matter because I understand that the payment of this disability allowance is a 50 per cent effort between the Government and the local authority and I am aware also that many local authorities are not paying the full amount that they are allowed to pay. I believe the vast majority of the local authorities would welcome something similar to what is advocated in this motion.

Mr. Timmons

I should like to support this motion and the sentiments expressed in it. The introduction of disabled persons' allowances was very well received in necessitous homes as they helped to cushion in some measure the extreme hardships which existed in those homes, not alone in Dublin city but throughout the country, where unfortunate members of families suffered from a disablement or an incapacity of a permanent or semi-permanent nature. I feel that with the improved economic conditions, the Government will find some means of increasing the allowances to these people. Other services directly administered by the Government have been increased appropriately, such as the social welfare benefits, and I do not see why this class should be left out.

One matter to which I should like to refer is the question of eligibility. It is the responsibility of the local authority to determine an applicant's eligibility and if they examine his circumstances and he is disallowed there is no means whereby he can appeal. I would suggest to the Minister, if he has a function in this matter, that he should arrange for an appeals officer or some independent person to review cases in which applications are disallowed.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

I am afraid that is outside the terms of this motion which relates solely to increases to disability allowances.

Mr. Timmons

I feel that, having regard to the improvement in the economic position and to the affluent society in which we are living, some increase should be granted to these disabled persons as suggested in the motion.

Acting Chairman

If there are no further speakers I will call on the Minister.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Is the Minister not going to say anything?

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I am concerned about it but I want to hear what the Deputy has to say about it. I am here to listen to the House, not to dictate to it.

Mr. T. Lynch

We would like to listen to the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

That is a pity. I should like to listen to the Deputy.

Mr. T. Lynch

As the man said, I would not break your word anyway. I find myself in favour of this motion. These people, as the motion says, are in receipt of 25/- a week. They are some of the people who have been passed by in this affluent society which was mentioned by a previous Deputy. They have been hit very hard by the steep rise in the cost of living which was caused by the Minister, his colleagues, the Taoiseach and their turnover tax. That is the real nigger in the woodpile. I am sure the Minister is holding something back from us, that he wants to be able to come in like Santa Claus, or the man who put in his thumb and pulled out a plum, and that he will say that he is going to give these unfortunate people a substantial rise. I am sure he is not going to do it because I am asking him but he surely must listen to the appeals of his colleagues in the back benches of Fianna Fáil and to his staunch supporter Deputy Frank Sherwin. I will leave the Minister to it and we will expect him to say a word.

Mr. P.J. Burke

This is the type of motion which is always welcomed by this side of the House because it has always been our policy down through the years to ameliorate the lot of the poorer and weaker sections of our community. In that regard we have always had the courage to make provision for the money necessary to improve the circumstances of such people by giving improved social welfare benefits. Now, when it comes to getting the money, Opposition Deputies are not always eager to vote for the money. They play a different tune then and we are treated to hypocrisy of the deepest dye. We are concerned for the wellbeing of all our people, always leaning towards the weaker sections.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The trouble is the Party opposite leans too heavily on them.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I welcome this motion. It is, of course, one that can be implemented only at Budget time. If we are still the Government—and I have no doubt the people will keep us here—I hope the Opposition will act honestly then and vote for the money necessary to improve the lot of those for whom they plead now.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is the turnover tax which put up the cost of living on these unfortunate people. The motion would not be tabled, were it not for the turnover tax.

Mr. Sherwin

The motion has been on the agenda for 12 months.

Mr. T. Lynch

But it is really only appropriate tonight.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy Sherwin is a humane man. He is interested in the wellbeing of the people. He is prepared to vote for increased taxation in order to give these people increased social welfare benefits. We are anxious to increase social services and we are prepared to raise the taxation necessary to do so. The Opposition want better social services but they are not prepared to vote for the taxation necessary to give those improved services. I welcome any advance in social services and, so far as the national resources permit it, we, in Fianna Fáil, will continue to improve social services. I trust our friends on the other side of the House will support us in that and vote for the increased taxation necessary to implement that desirable policy.

Mr. Leneghan

I congratulate Deputy Sherwin on tabling this motion. It is timely; in fact, it is overdue. When men and women reach an age at which work is no longer regarded as desirable for them, even though they may be in perfect health, a pension is provided. If a person becomes blind, a pension is provided. If a man loses both his legs and becomes totally incapacitated, no provision is made by the State. If he is an insured worker, and meets with an accident, he may possibly recover compensation. Those with whom this motion deals are the most neglected section of our community. We all know that 25/- has very little value today. Secondly, a disabled person needs someone to take care of him and, therefore, two people are affected. The least we should do is to ensure that these people will not live in poverty and penury. I do not believe it would cause any great dislocation of national finances if we provided properly for these people.

We are not a nation of invalids. We are an active, virile race. I am sure the Minister knows from his records that the numbers in receipt of disability benefit are not by any means out of proportion to our population as a whole. I see no reason why these people should not be cared for by the State in the same way as the aged and the blind, or those who obtain disability benefit through insurance. It is all very well to throw this over on to local authorities, but opinions are widely divergent in such bodies. In many cases people with identical means and circumstances get completely different allowances.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

We cannot discuss that. This motion deals solely with an increase in the amount. The method of selection, and so on, does not arise.

Mr. Leneghan

It deals with those who are paid 25/- by the local authority. I fail to see why the local authority should be in a position to decide that one person should get one rate and another another rate. This should be the same as the non-contributory old age pension. It would be no great strain on the finances of the State if the Minister took steps to implement this motion. That may take a little time, but the present situation is a travesty of justice, and that in an allegedly Christian and Catholic country, which is supposed to be a shining light to the rest of the world. These unfortunate people have to come like paupers craving a pittance from the local assistance officers. I appeal to the Minister to implement the motion. I believe he will have the backing of the House if he does so.

Mr. Kyne

I support this motion as I support any motion which aims at improving the lot of the poor. I agree with Deputy Leneghan. Not only do these people need sufficient on which to live but there is also the need for others to devote the whole or part of their time to looking after these physically as well. They have as good a case to draw on State funds for their financial support as people who have reached 70 and are not contributing to any pension fund or people who have had the misfortune to suffer blindness.

All of us would agree that the most in need should have first call on whatever funds are available. I cannot agree with Deputy Burke, however, that this matter can be dealt with only at Budget time. We had the example of the announcement to-day of the 12 per cent increase for civil servants. I quite agree with that—they are entitled to it—but it is no answer to say there is no money there and, unless the Opposition are prepared to vote for the necessary taxation, no money can be provided for these needy sections. If it were ever necessary to impose a special tax for these people, we in the Labour Party would be proud to support it. When in the past taxation was introduced to aid specific classes, we were always prepared to make the money available. I agree with the motion and I feel an increase for this section is long overdue.

Mr. Carty

I understand these allowances have been increased to 27/6d. as from 1st November. The local authorities are called upon to pay half the cost of disabled persons' maintenance allowances. Normally, they supplement the allowance in deserving cases out of home assistance. In some cases, I understand, the local authorities have been criticised for abating the amount payable by way of home assistance. That practice should be stopped. It is of no benefit to the holder of the allowance if it is increased at Government level and decreased by the local authority. In most cases, if the applicant is deserving, the local authority does supplement the allowance and the amount generally paid is 25/-, now 27/6d., augmented by a subvention out of home assistance of normally 10/- but sometimes 15/-.

I find myself in favour of this motion of Deputy Sherwin, but I think most of the local authorities who have to pay 50 per cent of the cost out of the rates are liable to "kick". I would have no objection to having it increased to 35/- a week if the State footed the bill. This is the time of the year when local authorities have to prepare their estimates. With rising rates, they find it difficult to meet allowances of this kind. If the allowances were paid out of central funds, with no obligation on the local authority to pay the 50 per cent, it would be a different matter entirely. It is much cheaper for a local authority to pay the person who qualifies for one of these allowances the full amount of 27/6d. than to pay for the maintenance of that person in an institution, usually a county home. We should encourage the payment of higher allowances to keep people out of the county homes, where the cost of maintenance is far greater than 27/6d. or 25/-. The usual figure is £2 10s a week and in some cases £3, depending on the costings of a particular county home.

A case could be made for paying these people the same benefits as blind persons or the holders of non-contributory old age pensions. Since this scheme of allowances was introduced, there have been three increases and, as far as my memory serves me, all three were given by this Government. I appeal to the Minister that, if he gives any increase to this category, he will relieve the local authority of the obligation to meet 50 per cent of the cost.

Acting Chairman

If there are no further speakers, I will ask Deputy Sherwin to conclude.

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I shall intervene since apparently Fine Gael are preserving their usual ambiguous silence in relation to this matter. They put up a Deputy—a Deputy who was extraordinarily vocal at Question Time, interrupting the proceedings very frequently with irrelevant and sometimes. I am sorry to say, ridiculous questions—to give lip service to the principle enunciated in this motion. The crocodile tears which Deputy Lynch shed for the unfortunate disabled persons, to whom this motion refers, caused me to throw my mind back to the year 1953 when the Health Act was before this House.

We had the spectacle then of Deputy Lynch and his colleagues in opposition on the Fine Gael benches opposing the Act and opposing this section under which these allowances are being granted. At that time the maximum permissible allowance payable to a disabled person for maintenance was 20/- a week. It was not, perhaps, as much as some of us would have liked, but it was very much higher than the disabled persons were getting prior to the enactment of the Health Act, 1953. Before that, the persons to whom the motion relates had no other succour, no other assistance, no other help except what they could get through the home assistance officer from the home assistance authority. Their maintenance and assistance was entirely dependent upon the judgment of the home assistance officer, in the first instance, and of the local authority in providing for the financing of these allowances.

That, let me remind the House, was the position prior to 1953. That was the position which Deputy Thaddeus Lynch and his colleagues fought to maintain. The election of 1954 was fought by them upon the iniquitous provisions of the 1953 Act. Yet they come in today and Deputy Lynch speaks in a perfunctory way in support of the motion merely because he wants to be put on record as supporting Deputy Sherwin in this instance. If he had any sense, of course, he would support Deputy Sherwin on all the really critical motions in this House. He is very anxious to rub shoulders with Deputy Sherwin today. He was not so anxious to rub shoulders with Deputy Sherwin when Deputy Sherwin, maintaining his independence, asserted his right as a Deputy in this House to vote according to his best judgment upon any issue on which, if we had not been sustained, it is doubtful whether any consideration would have been given by the members of the Fine Gael Party to the plight of the disabled persons about whom they are so concerned today.

There is one thing we can say in relation to this matter and that is that there are at least two men who were elected to this House as Independent Members who have maintained that independence against all the obloquy which has been hurled against them, against all the efforts to prevent their discharging their lawful duties as members of this House.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I always dislike interrupting the Minister because I know how difficult it is for the Minister to get started but is it in order to discuss the position of Deputies in this House? It has not been referred to during the debate. It appears to be outside the terms of this motion. Whether or not Deputy Sherwin or anyone else is an Independent Deputy is surely not germane to the motion.

Mr. MacEntee

Before you give a ruling, may I correct the statement to which Deputy O'Higgins has committed himself?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I have raised a point of order.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Thaddeus Lynch did refer to the position of Deputy Sherwin as an Independent member.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He did not.

Mr. MacEntee

He did.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He supported Deputy Sherwin's motion.

Mr. MacEntee

He also gibed at Deputy Sherwin.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Nobody has gibed at anyone. I have raised a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter in the motion itself may be dealt with in discussing any contribution to the debate.

Mr. MacEntee

I really intended to indicate why it is that in my view considerable weight should be given by the House to any proposition put before it by a man of the independence and integrity of Deputy Sherwin. He, after all, represents a section of the people of Dublin with whose conditions he is intimate. He lives among them. He knows their plight and, as he said himself on the last occasion on which this Motion was before the House, he knows what it is to be disabled, to be so substantially incapacitated that he would not be able to earn a livelihood in an occupation for which his education, his experience and his talents best suit him. He knows that. He spoke very movingly on this motion when it was before the House on the last occasion. I know he is genuinely and sincerely interested in the plight of those disabled people.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Will the Minister tell us whether he is accepting the motion or not?

Mr. MacEntee

Am I to be permitted to make my speech in my own way?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister should come to the point.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. MacEntee

Am I to be interrupted by a Deputy who hitherto has been as silent as a sphinx on this matter, a graven image, portraying the social hypocrisy of Fine Gael.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Will the Minister come to the point?

Mr. MacEntee

I was indicating that I felt serious consideration should be given by the Government and the House to the proposition which has been put forward by Deputy Sherwin. I should like to be able to say offhand that I can accept his proposal but then, if I did, I should be accused of doing so for vote-catching purposes. It would be alleged that it was simply because we wanted to keep Deputy Sherwin tagging along with us. That is what would be said by our friends in the Opposition. They would ascribe to me the same sort of motive as, on another issue, they ascribed to Deputy Sherwin.

However, this is not a matter which can be considered just as lightly as irresponsible members of the Opposition would like us to do. This is a matter in which, as has been pointed out, the local authorities are intimately concerned. I mentioned a few minutes ago how, prior to the implementation of the Act of 1953, the whole burden of making any provision, even niggardly and completely inadequate provision for disabled persons, fell upon the local authorities. The Act of 1953 changed that out of consideration for those for whom it provided under Section 50, but also having regard to the position in which the home assistance authorities were, in so far as these could not and were not able to provide more than a most miserable sum in general for a very limited number of disabled persons.

As a result of the passage of the 1953 Act disabled persons' allowances of 20/- were given in 1954 and one half of the cost of the charges involved thereby was accepted by the State. The local authorities were considerably relieved by that change. Let me remind the House again that that change was opposed by the Fine Gael Party and that they actually made an issue of it at the subsequent election of 1954. Since the passing of the 1953 Act what has been the cry of Deputy Thaddeus Lynch and his colleague, Deputy T. F. O'Higgins? What has been their cry wherever they have gone throughout the country in regard to the Health Act of 1953?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

On a point of order, are we discussing the Health Act of 1953?

Mr. MacEntee

We are discussing a matter which involves money.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Is the motion now wide enough to permit the discussion of the Health Act of 1953?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not understand the Minister to be discussing the Health Act of 1953. I understand he is making passing reference to it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I have not spoken in this debate. The Minister in relation to this debate is referring to what he describes as my attitude on the Health Act of 1953. That, in my submission, is irrelevant to this debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a passing reference, so far as I know. He is not proceeding to discuss the Health Act.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I have not yet spoken in this debate. I intend to follow the Minister, if the Chair permits me.

Mr. MacEntee

May I try to establish the relevance of what I am saying. First of all, the motion reads:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that disabled persons now in receipt of 25/- weekly, paid by the State and the health authority, should receive certain increases and benefits.

As I have mentioned already, the position in that regard is that these disability allowances are paid under section 50 of the Health Act, 1953, and I submit to the Chair that I am entitled to discuss section 50 of the Health Act, 1953, and the attitude which certain Deputies in this House, who are now in favour of increasing expenditure under the Health Act, adopted towards the Act in 1953.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not agree that we are entitled to reopen the discussion on the Health Act, or any section of the Health Act.

Mr. MacEntee

Except the one, I submit, involved in the motion because were it not for section 50 of the 1953 Health Act, there would be no disabled persons' allowances, and were it not for the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947, the local authorities would have to bear the whole cost.

An Ceann Comhairle

There may be a certain relevance, but not sufficient relevance to reopen the section.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not reopening the section. I would not venture to do so, because I was one of the people responsible for putting the section there. I was drawing your attention to the fact that in the motion it is pointed out that these allowances are paid by the State and the health authorities. I was coming to the obligations and the liabilities which fall upon the local health authorities by reason of Section 50 of the Health Act, 1953, and the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947.

Under the latter Act, the local authority is required to meet the cost of 50 per cent of these allowances. Undoubtedly the number of people in receipt of disabled persons' allowances has grown very considerably over the years. This means that the cost to the local authority has gone up, and as the maximum permissible rate at which the allowances can be paid has been increased again and again, the cost to the local authority has gone up, and there has been some increase in the rates. I am reminding the House now that Deputy T. Lynch and his colleagues, whenever they have been down the country, have alleged and emphasised that the cost of these allowances, and everything else in the Health Act, is excessive and has been imposing an undue burden upon the rates. That has been their common cry since the Health Act was enacted by this House.

Did Deputy T. Lynch, when speaking this evening, advert to the position of the health authorities? Will Deputy T. F. O'Higgins advert to it? He will follow me. Will he advert to it? Of course he will. What will he say? He will say the whole cost should be borne by the State. That is what Deputy T.F. O'Higgins will say tonight, but what will he say when the Budget for next year is before the House? What did he say when the Budget for the current year, which is now expiring, was before the House? What did he say when the Government found it necessary to impose additional taxation in order to provide money to allow among other things these maintenance allowances to be paid? What will he say when he goes to Cork next week? What will he say in Kildare? Will he say that in Dáil Éireann on 5th February he got up and supported a motion which would mean a significant substantial increase in the expenditure of the State, and a corresponding substantial increase in the amount of money that has to be raised by the local authorities? Will he go down to Cork or Kildare and tell the people that with one voice he shouts for an increase in expenditure, and the next day turns around and tries to prevent the Government from raising the money necessary to meet that expenditure?

Many motions in this House have evoked what I regard as hypocritical manifestations of sympathy for the downtrodden among us. The position is that we here in Fianna Fáil are the only Party who have done anything for the socially submerged classes in this country. As I have pointed out, it was the Fianna Fáil Party who brought in the 1953 Act. We have reason to know that. We have been carrying the burden ever since, and the political burden of misrepresentation which has been indulged in by our opponents. We brought in the Act under which the allowance was fixed at 20/-. That was in 1953.

We were superseded in 1954, and Deputy T.F. O'Higgins was Minister for Health from 1954 to 1957. What did he do in relation to these maintenance allowances? I am looking to see if I can find——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I suggest that the Minister should look very carefully.

Mr. MacEntee

——between October, 1954, and 1st January, 1957, any indication that any thought was given by the then Minister for Health to the position of disabled persons——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Except introducing the disablement allowances.

Mr. MacEntee

You had no option.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

They were brought in in 1954.

Mr. MacEntee

They were brought in under regulations prepared by your predecessor——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I made the regulations.

Mr. MacEntee

——and if the country had not had the misfortune or had not been so misguided as to replace the Deputy's predecessor by himself, it would have been brought in fully 12 months before.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is not so. The Minister is making his advisers blush. It was laid out in the Act that it would come in in October.

Mr. MacEntee

Is the Deputy trying to induce us to forget that the Deputy's first act as Minister for Health was to bring in a Bill to suspend the operation of the 1953 Act? Does the Deputy think memories are so short as to forget that? We remember it well. Now the Deputy says he did it. He did it because he could not do anything else. The things had been laid down for him and all he had to do was sign on the dotted line and take credit for the work of his predecessor. There was the period of four years in which nothing was done for disabled persons. On 1st January, 1961, the allowance was increased by 2/6. I am not saying that was very generous but it was better than nothing.

General MacEoin

The food subsidies were gone.

Mr. MacEntee

That was what the disabled persons had to put up with. On 1st October, 1962, there was a further increase of 2/6 to 25/-.

General MacEoin

And the food subsidies gone.

Mr. MacEntee

On 1st November last year, it was increased by another 2/6 to 27/6. No one regards that 27/6 as being a subsistence allowance. It is merely a supplemental allowance, something to help a disabled member of a family, and we must realise that the family have some responsibility to a brother or a son, as the case may be. As I have been saying, it is merely an allowance given to a disabled member of a family to enable him to preserve some degree of independence, some control over his own spending. I am not saying it is by any means a maintenance or a subsistence allowance but it is a help which is provided at the expense of the ratepayers and the taxpayers.

Therefore, as I said at the beginning, this is not a matter in which I am prepared, no matter how much is said about the inadequacy of the allowance, to get up and say the money does not matter, the ratepayers do not matter, the taxpayers do not matter, the general financial position of the State does not matter, so that it will get me a few votes. I know that is not what moves Deputy Sherwin in this. I know he feels deeply on this; I know he has good reason to feel deeply about it. But it is the attitude of Deputy T. Lynch and those other people who opposed—and let me repeat it, who opposed—any grant for these disabled persons in 1953. We have to consider certain things when dealing with this motion. First of all, we have to consider the position of the ratepayers, of the local authorities, and in this regard I must say that most members of local authorities are by and large as humane as any member of this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps I should remind the Minister that he has two minutes left.

Mr. MacEntee

Therefore, I shall say, as I did at the beginning, that this is a matter to which consideration will be given in due time, and in so far as a totally incapacitated person is concerned, I hope we will be able to bring the maximum permissible allowance up to the same rate as for an old age non-contributory pensioner. However, there is a very great difference between the disabled person and, say, a blind person. If I had time, I would elucidate that further. As far as the general principle of the motion is concerned, all I can say is that the most favourable consideration possible will be given to it when the time comes. The nation's accounts have to be looked at, settled and, if possible, balanced.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

What time is left?

An Ceann Comhairle

Thirty-five minutes.

Mr. Sherwin

I had hoped I would get the matter decided to-night because I understand there will be no Private Members' Time from this on because of the pressure of public business. If Deputy O'Higgins would allow me half the time left——

Mr. MacEntee

What Deputy Sherwin is pointing out is that if we do not dispose of it tonight, we may have to put it back indefinitely.

Mr. Corish

Would the Chair tell us what is the total time left?

An Ceann Comhairle

From 6 o'clock, it was two hours and 35 minutes.

Mr. Corish

Then there would be 35 minutes left for another night.

Mr. Sherwin

I was informed that because of public business, if this is not decided tonight, it might have to be postponed for another six months. I had hoped to get it decided tonight.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is plenty of time for the Deputy to reply.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

At times I entertain considerable sympathy for the Minister as a person. I always have sympathy for the Minister for Health but for Deputy MacEntee I entertain sympathy from time to time because he is obviously so concerned, when he speaks on matters that may in any way be slightly controversial, with attacking as many people as possible as quickly as possible, that he found it rather difficult tonight to dissociate Deputy Sherwin from his remarks. Deputy Sherwin had to be excluded and apparently anybody else who supported the motion was hypocritical and was shedding crocodile tears. That applied to everybody but Deputy Sherwin.

Mr. MacEntee

And Deputy Kyne. In fact it applied only to Fine Gael.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister cannot afford to offend Deputy Sherwin. Anyone else can be freely attacked, and indeed the record may be altered and changed in order to conform with the line of the Minister's attack. He found it convenient to say in relation to the period in which I was Minister for Health that I had not evidenced any concern for the people dealt with in this motion. I should like to remind the Minister—and he can check up on this in his Department—that while I introduced, as I did, legislation in this House to suspend the operation of the Health Act of 1953, I declared in this House in introducing the legislation that I would ensure that while I was Minister for Health, the Health Act would be brought fully into operation in an orderly manner.

That undertaking was fulfilled strictly by me. I would remind the Minister that when I introduced that legislation it was designed to deal with parts of the Health Act other than section 50 to which the Minister referred. Section 50, which provided for these disabled allowances, was in fact brought into operation by me and by nobody else. It was brought in on 1st October, 1954, which was the earliest date it could have been brought in, because the Budget of 1954 which, as I recollect, was introduced by the then Minister for Finance, the present Minister for Health, only provided that the necessary financial provisions would operate from October 1954, and on 1st October 1954, the regulations providing for these disablement allowances were made by me.

Mr. MacEntee

I provided the money and you took the credit.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I did not take any credit but I do suggest to the Minister that, on reflection, he might consider his remarks in that respect as being slightly wide of the margin. If I did not wish to do this, it was perfectly easy not to do it. I have always described the provision in relation to disablement allowances and one or two other sections of the Health Act as being worthwhile sections. I said that at the time and I have always said it. If the Minister will consider further, he will realise that the whole problem of rehabilitation of disabled persons was given priority in the Department of Health while I was Minister. I established an organisation to deal with this problem in a realistic manner and may I suggest that the Minister now claims credit for many of the decisions then made?

Mr. MacEntee

I have never done that. I have been always careful to refer to the Deputy's activities in that regard.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Let us leave it at that. We are concerned in this motion with a proposal by Deputy Sherwin to increase these allowances and to provide that disabled persons should be regarded as, and put in the same position as, blind persons and non-contributory old age pensioners. Deputy Sherwin tabled this motion before the operation of the turnover tax. It is equally true that he tabled it because of the turnover tax. He may have had in mind, in tabling the motion, that this particular tax would affect disabled persons very seriously.

Mr. Sherwin

I put down that motion long before we heard of the turnover tax, some 15 months ago. It was not put down because of any tax.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Whenever it was put down, it is opportune to discuss it now because whatever the situation was when the motion was tabled, it is far worse now when we are discussing it. The effect of the turnover tax and other actions taken by the Government have been manifestly severe on people in this category. May I remind the House that when these disablement allowances came into operation on 1st October, 1954, there was then in operation a system of food subsidies under which the bread and butter of these people —and of the whole population—was subsidised. I forget the price but I think butter was about 2/9 or 2/10 per lb. An allowance of £1 per week at that time was, as the Minister said, intended to be a help to disabled persons. What happened since? The Fianna Fáil Party came back into office and swept away some £8 million in food subsidies. The food that disabled persons had to buy out of their allowances and whatever home assistance they obtained was increased in price and some form of increase in allowance had to be given. We had the spectacle of three grudging half-crowns given out by the Minister for Health and he expects everybody to applaud his generosity, after bread, butter and flour had been increased in price by deliberate Government policy.

No doubt Deputy Sherwin tabled this motion after he had voted for proposals to abolish the food subsidies. Why would he not? The shameful thing is that this motion is necessary and that it is necessary for Deputy Sherwin and others to try to undo the harm that has been done to disabled persons by this Government.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps the Deputy would inform the House when Deputy Sherwin voted to abolish the food subsidies?

Mr. Sherwin

I do not remember voting for any such thing. That happened years ago. The Deputy is accusing me of something I did not do.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is in the light of that background that the latest assault on the living standards of persons within that category must be considered. There are no food subsidies now to abolish. They are already gone. We have this new tax, a direct tax on the food, on the necessaries of life of the poor people who must buy bread, butter, flour, tea and sugar which are now taxed under the turnover tax. Something must be done about it. A halfcrown was provided last November to meet this problem. I do not know if Deputy Sherwin, whose motion was tabled when the disablement allowance stood at 25/-, would suggest that the November halfcrown has met the effect of the turnover tax on the food of these unfortunate people. I am sure he would not and, if so, I do not see how the Minister or anyone else can suggest that is the proper way to meet the problem these people have to face.

I should like to remind the House that the disabled persons referred to in this motion, in order to qualify for any allowance, must establish themselves as being amongst the poorest of the poor. Many disabled persons who might qualify for a medical card could not qualify for a disablement allowance.

Mr. MacEntee

That could be because they are not substantially incapacitated.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am talking of means, and I suggest that the means test for a disablement allowance is more stringent than for medical registration. In relation to disablement, all possible means are considered and the definition of members of family and so on is much wider, so that the people concerned in this motion can fairly be described as among the poorest of the poor and to them any tax on food may be a bitter blow. Many of them are forced to eke out some form of existence on the assistance alone they receive.

I think it was Deputy Carter who referred to the position of local authorities in this regard. It is true the local authorities are expected to contribute half the cost of these disablement allowances, but, mark you, they have not lost on this account in the past because when the allowances were introduced, what was the first effect? Certain local authorities proceeded to reduce their home assistance provision. They reduced the measure of home assistance being given, because of the disablement allowances. Efforts were made by the then Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Corish, to prevent that practice continuing. I was never satisfied that it completely ended. One of the troubles in relation to an increase in these disablement allowances may well be that certain local authorities may then reduce whatever home assistance addition is payable on the allowance itself. I do not know whether Deputy Sherwin is anxious to get in or not?

Mr. Sherwin

I should like to finish, if you do not mind.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I would certainly support the proposal in this motion. I think it is necessary, far more necessary now than it was when Deputy Sherwin tabled it. If the only way these people can be helped is under the present provisions in the Health Act, very well. Any increase, of course, must be borne as to half by the Central Fund and half by local rates. It is not a very large sum. I do not know what the total disablement allowances now are—something around £700,000?

Mr. MacEntee

£900,000. In a full year, they would be much more. This would put them up another £300,000.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is not a very considerable sum.

Mr. MacEntee

I am glad the Deputy thinks so.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I certainly do not regard that as beyond the capacity of this House and of local rates. The Minister said it could be considered at Budget time. As Deputy Kyne pointed out, the Civil Service increases announced yesterday or the day before did not require any budgetary decision.

Mr. MacEntee

Are you against those?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am not against them.

Mr. MacEntee

All right.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Why would I be against them?

Mr. MacEntee

You seemed to be talking as though you were.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am pointing out that these increases can be granted and were granted and brought into operation without any budgetary decision. Surely, if we aim to compensate and meet the situation of persons in the Civil Service and elsewhere who are affected by this turnover tax, at least we should have some regard for the very poorest of the poor. They have no organisation to fight for them and to them the effect of this taxation can mean a tremendous loss in worry and hardship.

I would suggest that the Minister should now agree with the principle involved in this motion and do something to alleviate the situation. It is now clear, even from what the Minister said, that the half-crown granted in November has not been sufficient and some increase in that should surely be possible and I do not believe it would cost too much.

Mr. Sherwin

It is difficult to argue about anything without getting into politics. I introduced this motion and it has nothing to do with the turnover tax or with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or anyone else. In fact, I have been advocating something like this since 1960 and on every Health Estimate and every Estimate to do with health I have spoken on this subject. The motion must be on the Order Paper for 15 months, since before the turnover tax was heard of. I only mention that. It does not matter whether I introduced it since the implementation of the turnover tax or not. Regarding the allegation that I voted for the abolition of the food subsidies, I forget that. I believe that was done in 1957 or 1958. I did not come in here until the end of 1957.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I withdraw that.

Mr. Sherwin

I did not vote for such a thing, anyway. It could be said that every word that comes out of a politician's mouth is a vote catcher. I accept that. A politician gets credit for doing good and is entitled to get credit for doing good but he can be genuine in what he advocates even though at the same time he might like a little credit. The late President Kennedy said that you have to boost yourself if you hope to get power and do more good. How can you do good if you have not power? There is no great harm in trying to get a little backing for what one does if the aim is to get a little more influence and greater power to do greater good.

My interest in this subject is great. We do not like to shed tears about ourselves. I happen to be affected and have been affected for 40 years. It has been my lot to mix with these unfortunate people during 40 years. In fact, I mixed with some of them this morning in the Richmond Hospital. I will say no more about that. I know these people and what they are up against. I have several letters here. I do not want to read them. I have a letter from a person in Kerry saying: "The old people deserve increases and we know they are getting it hard but they cannot be compared with cripples and people who are bedridden." They are considerably worse off than even old people because old people at least may have their health and may be able to get around. They may have a small pension. They are allowed to earn up to £1 a week and receive maximum old age pension of 35/-. In a great many cases the disabled person has been crippled from birth or for a great many years and may have no pension. He may not be able to earn anything. I am referring to those who are 80 per cent, 90 per cent or 100 per cent disabled.

I am not asking that every disabled person should get 35/-, the same as a non-contributory old age pensioner gets. There are degrees of disability. A man may be disabled but may be able to earn a certain amount of money. There are others who are totally disabled and cannot earn anything. Only those who are unable to work and are greatly disabled would get the maximum. I am asking that the maximum be increased to the same level as the maximum non-contributory old age pension.

It is the local authority, not the Minister, who will decide the degree of disability. The Minister merely fixes the maximum. Unfortunately— and this is why I am pressing the motion—it rests with the local authority whether those unfortunate people are subsidised by way of assistance or not. While in some cases the assistance officer may be generous, in other cases he is not. That has been proved. I have here a letter the writer of which says she has £1 a week and is getting nothing from the assistance people. It was in order to get something from the assistance people that she wrote the letter. There was no stamp on the envelope. The writer said that she could not afford a stamp.

Too much is left to the local assistance officer as to whether those people should get additional assistance or not. My point is that in their own right, if totally disabled, they should get it. Of course, there is a means test. There is a means test in respect of all non-contributory pensions or allowances. The beneficiary is entitled to certain amounts, irrespective of income, in the case of contributory schemes. It is the accepted practice, in the case of non-contributory schemes, to have a means test. That is understandable. If a person is totally disabled, I trust the assistance people will not be a bit too tight on the question of means. I want to see a totally disabled person getting at least 35/- a week, the same as the non-contributory old age pensioner. That is not a lot. As time goes on and as the non-contributory old age pensioner gets an increase I should like to think that the disabled person will get a similar increase.

My complaint is that because all those other beneficiaries such as the unemployed, the blind, the widow, the orphan, and so on, come under the social welfare code the focus every year is on those people and none of them are missed. They all get something. The disabled people do not come under the social welfare code and they are forgotten.

I have been in this House since late 1957 and I have seldom heard anybody talk about the benefits for disabled persons. I am alive to that situation because I am interested in that class. I found that although they got their £1 in 1953, which was paid in 1954, they have got no more money since 1960. Six long years have elapsed during which they got nothing because they were forgotten. Maybe it was nobody's fault but the fact is that they were forgotten.

If the disabled persons came under the social welfare code I know they would have got increases in those years. I want to see the gap closed in relation to what all the others got during those six years, so far as disabled persons are concerned. They got 2/6 over the past three years and I do not despise that 2/6.

I argued the matter here and the Minister was good enough to indicate that he would keep those people in mind for the Budget. I appreciate that attitude. The people I speak for, who are totally disabled are a burden on their families. A lot of them have to be lifted from bed to chair, and have to be fed and dressed. Someone must always be there lest they should fall into a fire or something like that. If those people were in homes, it would cost the local authority probably £10 a week for each one of them.

People who are bedridden, and lots of them cannot get around, need little luxuries, no matter how small, to tide them over. You know what it is to be in jail, with nothing to do. Lots of people who are confined in jail would prefer to be out working. The cell kills them.

I understand the Minister is willing to accept the principle of the motion in so far as the non-contributory old age pensioners are concerned. I am willing to accept that. He said he would deal with it during the Budgetary period. I do not see anything wrong with that as it will be in a few months' time. It will not be terribly costly. There is not a great number of seriously disabled persons and the fact that half the amount is payable by the local authority makes it easier on everybody. I made the same case a year ago when we were accepting recommendations for the Health Committee. Actually this proposal was favoured by that committee.

I do not say the Opposition are callous. I know they are political and the game is that everyone has a "go" at everyone else with his eye on a vote. I have no doubt they are as sympathetic as I am towards this class of person only unfortunately a little politics are mixed up in it.

Other classes of beneficiaries have had three and four increases whereas the disabled persons got none because they were forgotten about. Surely it costs at least as much, if not more, to keep a 100 per cent disabled person as it does a non-contributory old age pensioner, and so on? I want at least parity and to ensure that henceforth when one class gets an increase the other classes will get as much. I do not want to dwell on how pitiful it can become when one knows such people and realises the feelings of their families. So long as I have the Minister's statement that he accepts the principle of this motion——

Mr. MacEntee

Let me be quite clear before the Deputy withdraws the motion. I said it was a matter which would fall for consideration in relation to the Budget and that, in relation to a totally incapacitated person, I would press for accepting it in principle.

General MacEoin

That is a long finger and a half, anyway.

Mr. Sherwin

I accept what the Minister says and, with the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.