Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Social Welfare. – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Wednesday, 4 Mar 1964

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

Tairgim:

Go ndeonófar suim nach mó ná £22,600,000 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1965, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh, le haghaidh Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, le haghaidh íocaíochtaí leis an gCiste Árachais Shóisialaigh, agus le haghaidh Ildeontas.

Mr. Tully

Nach bhfuil ach cóip amháin den óráid ag an Aire?

Mr. Boland

Tá.

An Ceann Comhairle

Tá sé á chur timpeall anois.

Mr. Boland

Ba mhaith liom i dtosach tagairt a dhéanamh don athrú i bhfoirm Meastachán mo Roinne i mbliana. Go dtí seo bhí trí Meastacháin againn mar atá, Oifig an Aire Leasa Shóisialaigh, Árachas Sóisialach agus Cúnamh Sóisialach. In aghaidh na bliana 1964-65 áfach, níl ach Meastachán amháin againn a thugann le chéile na seirbhísí uilig as a bhfuilim-se freagrach. Tá súil agam go n-aontóidh Teachtaí gur mór an áis bheith in ann caiteachas iomlán an Stát-Chiste ar sheirbhísí mo Roinne a fheiceáil i Meastachán amháin agus ag an am chéanna gan aon mhion-phointe riachtanach a bheith ar iarraidh.

Tabharfaidh Teachtaí faoi deara go bhfuil méadú de £5,216,000 i Meastachán Leasa Shóisialaigh in aghaidh na bliana 1964-65 thar mar a soláthraíodh don bhliain 1963-64. 'Séard is príomh-chúis leis an méadú seo ná an costas breise a éiríonn as forálacha an Achta Leasa Shóisialaigh a ritheadh anuraidh agus a mhéadaigh rátaí árachais shóisialaigh ó thosach mí Eanáir seo chaite agus rátaí cúnaimh shóisialaigh ó thosach mí na Samhna. Má chuirtear san áireamh, áfach, na Meastacháin Fhorlíontacha a aontaíodh annseo an tseachtain seo chaite, 'sé £2,690,000 an bhreis soláthar atá ag teastáil in aghaidh na bliana 1964-65.

I gcás Árachais Shóisialaigh tá suim £9,284,000 ag teastáil, 'sé sin méadú de £1,302,000 thar mar a soláthríodh don bhliain 1963-64. Méadú de £3,395,000 i gcaiteachas an Chiste Árachais Shóisialaigh agus méadú de £2,093,000 in ioncam an Chiste is cúis leis an méadú glan de £1,302,000. Meastar go sroichfidh oll-chaiteachas an Chiste Árachais Shóisialaigh £24,705,000 i rith na bliana 1964-65.

Maidir le h-ioncam, meastar go dtiocfaidh £15,421,000 isteach sa Chiste Árachais Shóisialaigh sa bhliain 1964-65. As ranníocaíochtaí a thiocfaidh £14,700,000 agus fáltaisí ilgnéitheacha a bhéas sa chuid eile. Táthar ag súil le £1,718,000 sa bhreis ó ranníocaíochtaí sa bhliain 1964-65 mar thoradh ar an méadú i rátaí ranníocaíochtaí a tháinig i bhfeidhm i dtosach mí Eanáir, agus £382,000 de mhéadú toisc an feabhas atá i gcúrsaí fostaíochta le déanaí.

I gcás Cúnaimh Shóisialaigh, tá suimeanna breise de dhíth mar leanas:

	£
Pinsin seanaoise	454,000
Liúntais leanaí	2,955,000
Cúnamh dífhostaíochta	222,000
Pinsin do bhaintreacha agus dílleachtaí	100,000

Comh fada agus a bhaineann le cúrsaí riaracháin, tá laghdú de £40,000 faoí Fho-Mhírcheann A—Tuarastail, Pá agus Liúntais. 'Séard is príomh-chúis leis an laghdú seo ná gur deineadh atheagrú ar ghnéithe áirithe d'obair na Roinne i rith na bliana i gcaoi is gur féidir an obair sin a dhéanamh níos éifeachtaí le foireann laghdaithe.

Sin gearr-chuntas ar phríomh gnéithe an Mheastacháin Leasa Shóisialaigh in aghaidh na bliana 1964-65. Má tá breis eolais or ghnéithe áirithe ag teastáil ó Theachta ar bith tabharfaidh mé dó é ach a iarraidh orm.

At the outset I wish to direct the attention of Deputies to the alteration in the form of the Estimates for the services administered by my Department. The three separate Estimates which hitherto covered respectively the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, Social Insurance and Social Assistance, have for 1964-65 been combined in the one Estimate for Social Welfare. Subheads A, B and D of the new Estimate cover the gross provision formerly made in the Estimate for the Office of the Minister, Subheads E and F correspond to the former Estimate for Social Insurance and Subheads G to K cover the gross provision for assistance services formerly made in the Estimate for Social Assistance. The provision under Subhead L, Appropriations-in-Aid, includes the receipts formerly provided for under the Appropriations-in-Aid subheads of the Estimate for the Office of the Minister and the Estimate for Social Assistance. On the whole I think Deputies will find the new lay-out more convenient as it will now be possible to see the total Exchequer expenditure on social welfare at a glance, while at the same time all necessary detail continues to be apparent.

There are two further changes in the lay-out of the Estimate to which I should draw attention. First, a new subhead — Subhead C — has been opened to provide for repayment to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs of the cost of services rendered by it to my Department. Secondly, certain grants which were formerly shown separately in the Estimate for Social Assistance are now combined under the heading "Miscellaneous Grants" in Subhead K. Details of the individual grants will, however, continue to be shown separately in Part III of the Estimate.

The main feature of the Estimate for Social Welfare for 1964-65 is the increased amount being provided, an increase of £5,216,000 over the original provision for 1963-64. This increase is of course mainly attributable to the increased rates of payment and the other improvements in the social welfare schemes brought about by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963. The increased expenditure arising in the current year from that Act is not included in the figures for 1963-64 shown on the Estimate, as the Supplementary Estimates providing for that expenditure have only recently been passed. If the Supplementary Estimates are taken into account, the increase in 1964-65 as compared with 1963-64 is £2,690,000. On the other hand, the Estimate for 1964-65 does not make provision for the increased administrative costs arising from the application to the Civil Service of the 12 per cent salary increase recently agreed upon.

Under Subhead E, which provides for the payment from the Exchequer of the amount by which expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund exceeds the Fund's income, a provision of £9,284,000 is being made, which represents an increase of £1,302,000 as compared with 1963-64. This is the net result of an increase of £3,395,000 in expenditure offset by a net increase of £2,093,000 in income. The estimated expenditure from the Fund in 1964-65 is £24,705,000 made up as follows:—

	£
Disability benefit	7,000,000
Old age (contributory) pensions	6,500,000
Widows' and orphans' (contributory) pensions	4,850,000
Unemployment benefit	4,044,000
Treatment benefit	447,000
Maternity benefit	168,000
Marriage grant	76,000
Administration, etc.	1,620,000
Total:	£24,705,000

This figure includes £2,481,000 for the estimated gross cost of the increase in benefit rates and other improvements brought into effect from the beginning of January, 1964 under the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963.

The estimated income of the Social Insurance Fund in 1964-65 is £15,421,000. Of this, £14,700,000 is attributable to employment contributions, the balance representing income from investments and receipts under Reciprocal Arrangements. These figures show that the total expenditure on social insurance in 1964-65 will be met as to 37.6 per cent from the Exchequer, 59.5 per cent from contributions of employers and employees, and 2.9 per cent from investments etc. The Estimate of £14,700,000 for contribution income in 1964-65 represents an increase of £2,100,000 over the 1963-64 Estimate. Of this £1,718,000 is due to the increased rates of contribution in operation since the beginning of January last, and the balance of £382,000 is expected to accrue from higher stamp sales resulting from a continuance of the upward trend in employment.

Under the social assistance heading, there are increases of £454,000 on old age pensions, £2,955,000 on children's allowances, £222,000 on unemployment assistance and £100,000 on widows' and orphans' pensions. These increases total £3,731,000. In fact, the increased cost in 1964-65 arising from the improvements in these services made by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963 amounts to £4,000,000, but this figure falls to be reduced by £269,000 as a result of offsetting factors, for example, a continuing decline in the numbers of non-contributory old age and widow pensioners according as more people in these groups become eligible for the corresponding contributory benefits.

The only other subhead which shows a substantial increase is Subhead C—Post Office Services—where the increase as compared with 1963-64 is £254,560. As I mentioned earlier, this is a new subhead made necessary because of a decision requiring all Departments to pay the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in cash for all services rendered by that Department to other Departments. My Department already recouped the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for telephone, etc., expenses and for postal expenses in connection with the social insurance scheme, the necessary provision being made under subhead B of the former Vote for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare. In addition to these expenses, it is now necessary to provide for recoupment of postal and other expenses incurred by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on the administration of social assistance services, and this explains the increased provision for 1964-65.

Subhead A—Salaries, Wages and allowances—is one of the few subheads to show a reduction. The decrease of £40,000 is mainly due to reorganisation of certain aspects of the Department's work which resulted in the centralisation and assigning to junior staff of certain routine work previously performed as part of their duties by more highly paid officers, and led also to a net reduction in the total number of staff. This overall reduction in numbers was achieved despite the allocation of some additional officers to meet the permanent increase in the work of the Children's Allowances Branch as a result of the admission to the scheme of one-child families as from the beginning of last November. While dealing with the question of the staffing of my Department perhaps it would be in order for me to refer briefly to the implementation of the increases in benefit and assistance rates announced in the 1963 Budget. As Deputies will appreciate, there is a considerable volume of work involved in this task—the printing and issuing of order books and receipt slips, receiving and deciding new claims, etc. As the work has to be done within a relatively short period it is inevitable that isolated errors will occur. I can, however, assure Deputies that the percentage of error is very small, and that where an error does occur it will be rectified immediately it is brought to notice.

The main item included in Subhead L—Appropriations in Aid—is a sum of £1,159,000 representing the amount repayable by the Social Insurance Fund in respect of the expenses of the Department on the administration of the social insurance scheme. A further item, for which a provision of £322,000 is made, represents the estimated receipts from certain local authorities under the Unemployment Assistance Acts. These two items account for almost 98 per cent of the total estimated receipts, the balance being made up of a number of minor items. I have now explained the main features of my Department's Estimate for 1964-65. I think all Deputies agree with the purpose of the expenditure involved, and accordingly I recommend that the House should approve of this Estimate.

Mr. O'Sullivan

May I say at the outset that we, on this side of the House, accept the declaration in the final paragraph of the Minister's statement that it is his opinion Deputies will agree with the purpose governing the expenditure involved in this Estimate and, in recommending it to the House for approval, he will certainly have the approval of the Party I represent.

Consideration of this main Estimate comes within a matter of a week after the House has had an opportunity on the recent Supplementary Estimate of expressing views relevant to the administration of the Minister's Department. Consequently, the discussion today must be influenced to some extent by the fact that views were expressed on social welfare policy within the past week and need not now be repeated.

More information is, of course, available on this Estimate than was forthcoming on the Supplementary Estimate. The Minister, in his statement, refers quite frequently to improvements that have been granted, or are projected, for the classes it is intended to cater for under this Estimate. There are, of course, glaring omissions. The omissions are relevant to the reasons that warranted the increases in social welfare benefits and to the fact that we have had increases in the cost of living, the like of which this country never experienced before, and which will continue because all the indications are that the spiral will go still higher in the future.

In such a situation, those worse affected are those who are catered for by the Minister for Social Welfare and for whom moneys are voted by this House—the aged, the unemployed, the sick, and so on and so forth. If there is any aspect of Government administration which commands unanimity in this House, it is that which recognises the necessity for improving the conditions generally of social welfare recipients. There is a climate of public opinion which favours the granting of the maximum awards possible, particularly to the aged. In this context I should like to pay tribute to Independent Newspapers for their constant advocacy of better treatment for old age pension recipients.

The only limitation was said to be the non-availability of revenue. It was represented to the House not so long ago that the new and drastic changes in the system of taxation were designed to amass moneys to be devoted to relieving the lot of our social welfare recipients. What are the facts? Last week, when opening the discussion on the Supplementary Estimate, I asked the Minister whether he had considered, accepted, or rejected the recommendation of the Committee of Public Accounts, under the able chairmanship of Deputy Jones, with regard to the amalgamation of the various Estimates for his Department under one heading. I am very glad the Minister has accepted the recommendation of the committee. This new form has certain advantages.

The fact of the matter is that the extra amount necessary this year to cushion the aged, the unemployed and all the other people for whom the Department of Social Welfare have responsibility against the vastly increased cost of living could have been found by the State if the Government had been prepared to utilise the increased prices our citizens are now paying for beer, spirits, tobacco and petrol. There was obviously no need for taxation on bread, butter, tea, sugar, meat and medicines for humans. All the extra moneys required could have been found by taxation on luxuries and without any impact whatsoever on the price of the essential foodstuffs on which the social welfare categories rely.

Very good, Sir, but I can refer to the fact that the pensions which the Minister described as improved pensions are, in fact, no improvement at all because any improvement is vitiated by the rapidly rising spiral in the cost of living. The Minister has made frequent reference in his statements to the 1963 Act. When that Act was on the stocks, did the Minister envisage at that stage the increases that subsequently occurred in the cost of living and is it his intention now to alter the rates in accord with the increases that have occurred, that are occurring currently and that will occur in the months ahead? We are told that more revenue accrued to the Minister's Department by virtue of increased contributions from employers and employees. The employees had no option but to pay out of their earnings, but in how many cases have employers succeeded in passing on to the recipients the ultimate cost to them of increased contribution?

I allowed the Deputy to go as far as I could. I did not interfere until I had to.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I accept that. A colleague of the Minister, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, has stated that it is his intention, come what may, to make his Department pay its way. I know from the statement of the Minister for Social Welfare that he is making a formidable contribution to his colleague in this respect, the sum of £254,560. I want to know whether this item has taken into account the projected increases the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs announced when dealing with his Supplementary Estimate here a fortnight ago. If it has not, then this is an unreal estimate of what the expenses will be in the year ahead.

May I conclude by referring to the necessity for finding the additional moneys proposed in this Estimate to offset the difficulties which all the recipients of benefit are encountering as a direct result of the planned economic policy of the Government in creating a situation in which the price of bread, butter, tea, sugar, bus fares, medicines and other necessaries of life for the aged person, the unemployed person and every other recipient of assistance under this heading has increased? In order to counter the direct consequences of Government policy, it is vital that these moneys proposed to be voted be passed. However, I do want to make it clear, and I challenge anybody to counter it, that these moneys could have been provided by increases on luxury items alone so that these people would not have to suffer a diminution in the benefits to which the Minister refers by virtue of a constant cost of living increase which if it is not controlled or averted, can result only in a further reduction in the standard of living, already pitiably low, of the various people in our community for whom the Minister and his Department are responsible.

Mr. Tully

Because the Supplementary Estimate discussed last week was used by some of us to cover a number of points which properly arise on this Estimate, I do not intend to make a very long contribution. One thing, however, I think I should repeat is that the Department of Social Welfare have a great record for civility and service and, despite comments made by people who do not take the trouble to find out how to do things properly or how to make applications properly, the Department, as far as I know, will do everything they possibly can to accommodate those who have to approach them either for benefits or for information. It is only fair to make that statement here because on many occasions nowadays we hear Departments being criticised. I probably have criticised Departments myself for their lack of civility and their unbusinesslike approach. I have received nothing but the greatest civility from the Minister for Social Welfare and his officials.

That does not mean everything in the garden is lovely. It is true that many applications made to the Department for benefit are held up for unduly long periods of time because of regulations which have been in operation for a long number of years. I suggest to the Minister he should attempt to remove certain restrictions which are preventing even a better service being given by his Department.

I shall take as an instance the case of somebody who is drawing unemployment benefit or disability allowance, and this is one of the things about which the Minister should take strong action. Somebody may bring it to the notice of the Department that for one reason or another, a neighbour may not be entitled to benefit. Benefit to that person is stopped while an investigation is being carried out and the person is left without anything unless the local authority home assistance section help him.

I understand that in many cases these complaints come from anonymous people and quite a proportion of them turn out to be incorrect. I suggest to the Minister that unless the Department have very definite evidence that the recipient is not entitled to the benefit he has been receiving, there should be no question of suspending payment at any time. I further suggest that if payment is suspended and on investigation it is found the person is entitled to have the amount repaid to him, every possible step should be taken by the Garda Síochána to find out who was responsible for making the incorrect complaint.

I am afraid this habit of carrying a spite like that against a neighbour has not died out in the country. It is too bad to find some evilly disposed person acting in such a way against a neighbour as to cause grave hardship. I completely absolve the Department from any complicity. They are doing only what the regulations stipulate, but the Minister should tell the officials that unless there is very definite evidence that the person is not entitled to benefit, payment should not be suspended pending investigation.

Another problem which arises again and again is that of the insurability of certain employment. It is an extraordinary thing that a person can be employed for years, stamping cards, and with no complaint, and yet that man can find, if thrown out of a job through dismissal or illness, that as far as the Department are concerned his employment was not insurable. It very often happens in employment within families or when a person is employed by inlaws. The regulations are so framed that a man who has a large family, simply because he is working with his wife's brother and although he has been stamping cards over a number of years, is held not to be entitled to benefit.

I suggest that is drawing the bow far too long. I would appeal to the Minister to take some action to see that sort of thing is not allowed to happen in future. If a person has been employed for a long period it is unlikely there will be any question of fraud, of stamps being put on so that the person can qualify for benefit. It is just too bad that a person is debarred from benefit for the reasons I have given.

Another thing the Department should include is the system of hearing appeals. By question last year, I elicited from the Minister that in certain circumstances benefits could be paid to somebody who was awaiting a decision on appeal for a long period. The question applied both to unemployment and to disability benefits, and the Minister's reply then was not exactly correct. I have been trying to check and in no case have found an instance where a person awaiting a decision on appeal for a long period has received such benefit. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but the answer he gave me was not in accordance with the information I have now given.

I would suggest that when somebody who is drawing benefit and is debarred, while his application on appeal is being reviewed, the onus is on the Department to have the matter dealt with as expeditiously as possible. It is unfair that the person should be left waiting not for days or weeks but, on occasion, for many months before he gets a decision.

I am quite sure the officials are again working within the regulations but I submit these are regulations which the Minister should remove because if somebody who is awaiting a decision on either unemployment or disability benefit has no other income and if the local authority home assistance section do not come to his aid, he and his family suffer real hardship. In fact, I am aware of instances of real hardship having being caused. I know of a case where a man with a wife and eight or nine children were left without any source of income, good, bad or indifferent, until eventually the home assistance people gave them enough money to buy food. After months, the Department decided the person was entitled to benefit and he got it.

That is something which does not do the name of the Department any good. It is something which should be avoided. I have been citing instances in my own experience within my own area and I feel sure other Deputies can give similar instances in regard to their areas. In most cases there is no justification for the hold-up in the investigation. In regard to road accidents, we have had suggestions that a special corps should be set up and a special fleet of ambulances provided. I suggest this problem in the Department of Social Welfare deserves to have similar special treatment.

I had an interview with the Minister yesterday on the very vexed question of investigation officers. I wish to make it clear that I consider the Minister's attitude to be the correct one. We have had a number of officials, scattered around the country in offices, known as investigation officers of the Department of Social Welfare. Deputies and others on occasion accused them of going around counting the hens in the henhouse or the apples on the trees when investigating applications for non-contributory pensions. The Minister decided to remove them from the country towns and put them into certain centres. Immediately there was an uproar that this interfered with the good name and status of the towns concerned. Those people were appointed for the purpose of investigating and I submit that such investigation work does not and should not take place behind an office desk: it should take place in the homes of the people who apply and I believe the Minister is perfectly correct when he says that is the way it will be done in future.

I do not think any applicant, either for an old age pension or any other social welfare benefit, is losing anything as the result of these gentlemen and ladies being removed from the district. It should be made quite clear to all applicants for these benefits that any forms or information they may require may be obtained either at the local post office or employment exchange and that there is no necessity for them to travel to the home or the office of the investigator to get information about these matters. The officers should go out to them.

The contributory old age pensions have been improved slightly and I was told by the Minister a few days ago that as a result of the change of the qualifying period from 15 to 20 years, an extra six hundred people have qualified and that this number would grow. I again appeal to the Minister to implement the letter of the law in this matter. The Act which set up the contributory old age pension scheme specifically stated an average of stamps over the entire insured life of the person applying. While I am aware that quite a number of people have qualified for pensions because of the shortened qualifying period, first from ten to 15 years and now to 20 years, I am also aware that there is a feeling of frustration and annoyance in the minds of many old people who started to work in their very early years, who worked all their lives until they were almost 60 years of age and who then, for one reason or another, perhaps because they acquired a bit of land or started a small shop, left insured employment and now have not the required number of stamps to qualify them for a contributory pension.

Over the years these people have contributed very much more to social welfare than those who qualified for contributory pensions because they entered insured employment a few weeks before they reached the age of 60. The Minister may say that these people did not pay towards contributory old age pensions. He may be correct in that but the fact is that they did pay for social welfare benefits. The Minister might have another look at this very vexed question.

There is no use in his saying that the records are not there. When other Departments, such as the Department of Local Government, required evidence as to the number of weeks worked by certain people, the evidence was produced back to the beginning of the Department of Social Welfare itself. If the Department can supply information such as that, I do not see any reason why they would not be able to produce the records in these other cases. I appeal to the Minister to have another look at this matter. I am very grateful to him for the alteration he has already made but I think he can do better.

I also wish to call attention to the predicament in which a person, married and with a large family, who has been drawing unemployment benefit or disability allowance finds himself when he reaches the age of 70. Then all the children's benefits are withdrawn from him and all he is left with is the allowance applicable to a man and wife. There is no reason why he should be left like that and he then has to do what he probably never had to do before, apply to the local authority for home assistance. The amount of money involved in remedying this injustice may be considerable but the Minister would be well advised to have a look at the matter and see if he can do something about it. It is too bad that people who have been drawing up to £7 a week find themselves suddenly knocked down to slightly over £4 for no reason except that they have grown old. The Minister should remedy this matter and if money is required to do it, he will not have much difficulty in getting it.

I want to refer to an incident which occurred at an old age pensions committee meeting which I attended this morning. I do not know if the Minister intends to keep these committees but they do very useful work with regard to the non-contributory old age pensions and also in connection with applications for blind pensions. At the meeting of the committee which I attended this morning, there was an application from a woman who is blind. She is not completely blind— she can see to walk but cannot do much more. Despite the fact that the doctor who attended her certified that her eyesight was so defective that she was unable to do any work and was not in a position to travel without assistance, the Department of Social Welfare officer who investigated the application interpreted that certificate as meaning that as she was not stone blind, to put it crudely, she was not entitled to a blind pension. That is a very harsh interpretation and I think the Minister should look into such cases and see if anything can be done about them.

I understand that the officials who decided against her were not medical people. If an inspection were carried out by a doctor from the Department and his findings were different from those of the doctor who examined her in the local hospital, I could understand the attitude of the Department. However, in the absence of such an examination, I can see no reason why that situation should be allowed to continue. I appeal to the Minister to have cases like that dealt with in a different manner.

I am aware of an almost similar instance in which a local clergyman who was chairman of the committee so resented the fact that another applicant, also a woman, was treated in this way that he took her to a different specialist who again certified that her eyesight was so impaired as to be almost useless. As a result of this, a blind pension was granted to that woman. The lady I met this morning told me that this was her second application. She was first refused about 12 months ago and has been living on the charity of her brother since then. These cases should be dealt with in a different way.

Similarly, we find people applying for non-contributory old age pensions, people who missed the contributory pension by a fraction probably because they are a few stamps short in a particular year and so do not qualify for the non-contributory pension. I had experience of one such person and the investigating officer in the case certified that because the man had taken nine acres of grass in the previous year on which he was rearing a few sheep, he had made a profit of £1,000. It turned out that when the man's case was fully investigated it was shown that in earlier years he had been a herd. He was a good judge of cattle and sheep and had been in the habit of going to local fairs and making a bargain. Time and again he was listed as the buyer or seller of stock which, in fact, he did not own and with which he had no connection, except that he would get the price of the drink when the bargain was concluded. Despite this, the officer whose job it was to investigate his means certified that he made £1,000 in the previous year. We pointed out to this officer that it was absolutely nonsense to suggest this could happen and he promised to have it further investigated. He admitted he made a mistake. But he found there was another reason for debarring this man, and the poor old man still did not get his old age pension. If he had another year's stamps or had signed for sickness benefit for a year, he would have qualified for the contributory old age pension. I am sure none of us can blame these old people if they have a feeling of frustration as a result of the treatment they get.

If these committees are to continue and do their work properly, much more weight will have to be given to their recommendations. It looks stupid to take people from their normal business to attend in a particular place in the middle of the day, to waste a couple of hours investigating certain claims, to bring in the people concerned, and then to find that somebody who will not go to the trouble of getting the full facts simply writes off their recommendation, saying the person is not entitled to a pension though the committee recommended it.

One thing I noticed in the Estimate —Deputy O'Sullivan also referred to it—is that no provision appears to have been made for an increase to cover the increased cost of living at present. It is all right to say that the assistance people received an increase last November and the benefit people an increase on 1st January. Do not forget that referred to the possible effect of a 2½ per cent tax on turnover. It has no relation whatever to the ninth round wage increase and most certainly no reference to the tremendous increases in the cost of living which are being artifically created at present. Anybody who wants to find out whether or not living costs are going up for old age pensioners and those depending on social welfare benefit and assistance should check the prices of the ordinary articles these people have to buy, such as tinned beans and peas and bread. I do not think the Minister can suggest that the 5/- they got last January will compensate them for the increase.

Because this increase is likely to continue and become much worse inside the next couple of weeks, I would ask the Minister to do one of two things: either to make representations immediately to his Government to have a ninth round for pensioners and those in receipt of unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and disability benefit included in the coming Budget or, alternatively, to get the Minister for Industry and Commerce to stop further price increases before the matter has gone too far.

I wish to refer now to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Questions have been asked about it time and again. The Minister has given a stock reply which is becoming a bit hackneyed. The Minister is aware that seven years ago a Commission was set up. They sat for six years and brought in recommendations. The Minister almost a year ago apparently made up his mind what he was going to do. Yet we are in the position that we still have a maximum of £4 10s Od. a week paid to people on workmen's compensation, irrespective of family commitments or pre-accident earnings. It has gone beyond a joke now, particularly in view of the fact that one of the heavy drains on disability benefit is the amount of money which must be paid to those people in excess of their £4 10s. Od. when they have qualifications which entitle them to a higher rate of social welfare benefit.

What it means is that the Department of Social Welfare are subsidising the commercial insurance companies. I do not think it was ever the intention of the State—it certainly was not the intention of Deputies on this side of the House—that that should be allowed to continue. I do not mind whose feelings I hurt on this. I believe there are certain vested interests who would love to see the decision on the Workmen's Compensation Act put back for years to come, because with every week that passes a substantial amount of money is saved to the commercial insurance companies.

I would ask the Minister, in the interim period, if there is a grave cause for further delay in bringing in the change which he suggested, will he not even at this late stage decide to bring up to a realistic figure the amount being paid in workmen's compensation? There is no reason why he should not do it. It will reduce the cost to his Department. It will leave him more money with which to do worthwhile things and, while it may annoy certain interests outside this House, it is the right thing to do. I am sure that, on contemplation, the Minister will agree that it is the right thing to do.

Reference has been made to the fact that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are insisting on getting their pound of flesh. Could I ask the Minister, if there has been such a tremendous increase in the amount of business being handled between 1963/64 and 1964/65 as is shown by the figures? The figure in 1963/64 was £83,390 and in 1964/65 is £337,950. Or has the Minister's Department been caught out by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as short-changing them to the tune of that very substantial amount of money? We all agree that it is only right that each Department should pay their way and that it would be wrong for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs further to increase the already fairly high costs to the public because of the fact that another Department were not paying their share but I hope the Department of Social Welfare will not allow the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to value their services so highly as, apparently, one section of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the Television and Radio Authority, are allowing them to do.

I am interested also in some of the figures which the Minister has given. While, I suppose, there is no harm in being optimistic, I hope the Minister has not gone a little too far when he suggests that the increase in the number of people in insurable employment will bring in the extra revenue which he refers to here because that would be a very bad blunder and, at the same time, he gives a figure showing an increase in unemployment assistance of £222,000. I do not know where the Minister is getting his figures from because if there are to be more people in insurable employment, surely the number in receipt of unemployment assistance should drop? I am sure the Minister will not suggest that the 2/6 which these people got last year represents a further £222,000 in 1964/65 because it would be just too bad if that were so.

The Minister, according to his own figures, expects that the number of people drawing contributory old age pensions will increase and the number drawing non-contributory old age pensions will decrease. I hope he is right in that, but if he is, would he not consider that the stage has been reached when the very strict means test applied to applicants for non-contributory old age pensions could be relaxed considerably?

Today I met a man who had been living with an aunt who died and left him a county council cottage. The aunt had been in receipt of a non-contributory old age pension for ten years. She had almost £400 in the bank. After her death, the investigation officer discovered that this money existed. He discovered it when administration was being taken out by the young man who was the heir. That was three years ago and the Department of Social Welfare have not yet released that money, even though, under the regulations, the non-contributory old age pension would be granted and the first £25 of that would not count at all and the next £375 would count only as £18 10s. Despite that, for three years the amount which is still in the bank has been held up and every effort made by the heir and his solicitor have failed to dislodge it. If I give the particulars to the Minister, will he endeavour to have this case straightened out because it is one of the cases that are casting a reflection on a Department which is otherwise pretty well run?

Mrs. Crowley

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to several difficulties I have come across with regard to old age pensioners and widows' pensions. One matter I should like the Minister to look into is the question of allowing old age pensioners and widows to cash their pension vouchers at any post office. At the moment old age pensioners and widows have to come to their native town to cash the vouchers. That is often a great hardship on them because they sometimes go around to stay with their married sons or daughters and, if they have to come back every three months, especially in rural areas, it is sometimes quite costly.

The Minister will probably say to me that if they notify the Department that they are going to change their address and that they want their pensions payable at another post office, they can do so but the difficulty about that is that, naturally, it takes a bit of time for the Department to notify the post office and then perhaps the person concerned has moved to another area where there is another married son or daughter.

I do not think there could be any question of fraud. These people value their pension books. They should be allowed to cash their pension vouchers in any post office. If there were any difficulty over a period of a year, I would agree that it might be a good idea that they should come back to their own town or village at the end of the year but in the interim, it would be of great benefit to them if they were allowed to cash their pension vouchers in any post office.

There is another point about widows, for instance, who go abroad, to England, or to America, or to Canada. If a widow stays away for more than a year and then comes back, she is unable to draw any widow's pension but if she is an old age pensioner, she is allowed to draw three months' back pension. That matter should be rectified so as to give widows and old age pensioners the same facilities when they return to this country.

While I am on the question of the old people going, for instance, to England to stay with married sons and daughters but who have to come back in order to draw their pensions, may I say that some of them are very old, perhaps 85 or 90 years of age. I have known several of them. In many cases it is very expensive and very difficult for them to come back and I do not see why the Department could not agree with the appropriate Department in England to visit these old people once a year and find out what their means are so that they would not be drawing non-contributory old age pensions while being very well-off. I ask that for the reason that the Department of Defence do that for people enjoying special allowances. As far as I know, persons drawing special allowances, either in England or in America, are allowed to continue drawing the allowance because there is an arrangement with the appropriate Department in these two countries to investigate the means of these people, I suppose once a year, to see that they are not drawing the allowance when they are over the income level set in this country for the purpose of pensions.

When a woman getting a widow's pension is nearly 70, she is notified by the Department of Social Welfare of the fact. She is told that she will be 70 in a month's time and that she must apply for the old age pension. When she becomes 70, her widow's pension ceases but quite often some of the old age pension committees do not meet as often as they should. They are supposed to meet monthly but some wait until they have two or three cases before meeting and that may be in two or three months' time. Meanwhile, the widow draws no pension, neither widows' nor old age. She cannot draw the old age pension until the Department have given a decision.

I ask the Minister to allow a widow to go on drawing a widow's pension until it has been decided whether or not she is entitled to an old age pension. Occasionally, not very often, there is a lag of two or three months when the widow gets no pension. If she is drawing a widow's pension, she is nearly always entitled to an old age pension. I should like the Minister to look into these matters which are not very complicated and could be rectified if he made some arrangement to help old people who are quite often in difficulties regarding their pensions.

Mr. Jones

The Minister, at the opening of his statement, referred to the format of the Estimates. Without dwelling on the matter, I think it would have been appropriate if he acknowledged that the change in format arose as a result of a recommendation of the Committee of Public Accounts.

Regarding the question of staff mentioned by Deputy Tully, what the Minister has done is to remove, not the expensive staff but the experienced staff from country areas and this has not helped applicants for social welfare benefits. Local offices of the Department were in places where the applicant could at least meet the official and make his case. With these offices now further apart, it means a longer time must elapse between the application and its investigation.

Last year I mentioned means tests and I make no apology for returning to the subject. The Minister mentioned then that means tests were laid down by law. As passed by this House, the social welfare code allows certain sums of money in certain conditions for the alleviation of the lot of social welfare recipients. The regulations which govern these are drawn up by the Minister's Department for which the Minister is responsible. Where are these regulations? Where may copies of them be obtained? Have copies of them been laid on the Table of the House and where, or when, have they been brought up to date?

The means test operates in the main against the person seeking a non-contributory pension and I think it is realised that these people are the least of our brethren in the community, least able to defend themselves against the estimation of means which is made. From my own experience certainly, I am not at all satisfied with the way these means tests are applied and I propose to give the House some instances of their application.

The first is the case of a small farmer who married late in life and who, at the time of his application for an old age pension, had six adult dependants on the farm. I gave the necessary particulars when trying to sustain an appeal on behalf of this man to the Department. Yesterday I received a reply from the Department stating that it has been determined by an appeals officer that the claimant was not entitled to any pension. First let me say it is a fundamental element of justice regarding these appeals that the person appealing should be entitled to be heard. For somebody to dismiss an appeal irrevocably without having heard the applicant is certainly not the way to administer this type of legislation.

The reply goes on to state that in accordance with the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act, he—the man is named—was assessed with half the yearly value of a farm of 48 statute acres of valuation £29 10s. on which were carried ten cows, eight other cattle and a quarter acre of tillage, allowance being made for the necessary labour. On this farm, as I submitted and which is not contradicted, at the time of the claim, three sons aged 32, 29 and 22 were working. There was a girl, aged 19, at home and two other children away at school. I said that the creamery return for the year was approximately £600. That is not contradicted because the figure quoted here as the creamery return is £640 17s. 10d. I should like the Minister to tell the House what value is put on the adult labour of these four individuals on that piece of land in West Limerick.

I should like to know what assessment is made in regard to these people for their existence. I should like to know what provision is made for the further education of the two members of that family, or how it is that regulations can be so framed that in a case like this, of a man who decides to keep control of the family farm in order to ensure that the younger members of the family will have an opportunity in life, it is held that he is not entitled to an old age pension. I should like any member of this House to try to justify that type of situation, where a family income from a small dairy farm of £640 disqualifies an individual from receiving some assistance from the State. Great sympathy is expressed at times for these people on small farms who are the backbone of the country but they are unable to stamp cards or provide for themselves in any other way. They are self-employed and may not contribute to the social welfare funds in order to get a contributory pension. Yet when we reach the stage where it might be thought they would qualify we find that instead by some system of regulation, it is decided they can be wiped out.

The other contributory fact, as I see it, is that there was half the yearly value of a sum of money in a joint bank account with his wife. Lest anybody might think that this was being concealed, I quoted the £560 joint account in the bank. It seems very strange to me that we encourage young people to stay in the country and remain on the land and yet penalise the parents of the self-same people when they look to the State for assistance in their old age. It is the kind of regulation that I cannot understand.

On a previous occasion, I asked the Minister if he would consider these regulations and see what could be done with them. I believe it should be within the compass of investigating or appeals officers to have that liberty of movement which would enable them to do justice to any case put before them. They should not be hidebound by any type of regulations which are framed to suit the general case. Perhaps a person might say it is a weakness to argue from the particular to the general or from the general to the particular, but here we are dealing with the welfare and happiness of people as well as with their very existence and we should ensure that nothing in regulations framed by a native Government will deprive these people of such assistance. They work hard on their small farms and they produce a certain amount of wealth for the State.

The other type of regulation which is used equally in this regard is in relation to a person who has property or a plot of ground. I referred to this on a previous occasion and asked the Minister what value is attached to the occupation of a half-acre plot adjoining a cottage. There seems to be some type of notional value attached to this plot. You cannot detach the plot from the cottage but I should like to assure the Minister, and I am sure he knows it, that the fact that the plot is there certainly does not mean that the person of 70 years or over is working the plot or, that if he does succeed in putting down a bed of onions or something like that, it has a cash value which should be taken into account so as to reduce in any way the pension to which he would be entitled.

The same applies to the question of widows' pensions. There is the operation again of a means test. As I say, neither the ordinary individual nor any Deputy—indeed nobody outside the Department of Social Welfare— can understand the regulations as they are administered. Certainly I should like to see a copy of them and I hope the Minister in his reply will deal with the question of these regulations which are drawn up within the social welfare code. The Minister has mentioned that they are brought up to date from time to time and I should like him to say when the last revision took place and where Deputies may see them, or if he will put them in the Library for inspection.

In regard to unemployment benefit, I want to mention the type of disqualification which can occur. There are cases where applicants sometimes think they are entitled to benefit but after some weeks receive notification that they have been disqualified from a certain date for six weeks. This is something which the Department should bring to the notice of the public because it will save heartsearchings among some individuals. I know of a case involving a married man with eight children who was travelling four miles to work. He left his employment because he was not satisfied with his conditions. He thought he could better himself and that he could get work nearer home. It is a very human thing that a person should think that and that he should decide that if he could avoid travelling a distance to work, he should do so. He went to the labour exchange and signed his forms and has been doing so for four weeks. Today I learned from the Department that this man has been disqualified as it is held that he left his employment.

I do not quibble with the principle that if a person leaves employment, he is held not to be entitled to benefit for a certain number of weeks. What I do quibble with is that this is a fact which the working public do not understand. It is not brought to their notice sufficiently that such a thing can happen. I should like to raise the problem of this individual with the Minister. He must now turn to home assistance because that is the only other thing left to him until such time as he is lucky enough to get work somewhere.

It has occurred in the past that where home assistance has been paid by local authorities, such as in the case I mention, the local authority later find that they cannot recover the amount they paid on behalf of the Department when the individual concerned comes into benefit. The only reason the local authority have to step in in the first instance is that the Department are not able to pay the benefit soon enough. Now, local authorities cannot work miracles and, if a local authority do provide assistance, then they should be recouped by the Department. Local authorities have only a small pool in any financial year for the relief of such necessitous cases and, if demands are made on that pool such as the demand I have mentioned, that will certainly reduce the amount available for other cases that fall to be met.

With regard to the payment of benefits, I should be grateful if the Minister could find some way to speed up payments administratively. There are regulations in regard to certificates and so on. I have in mind the case of an individual who had been in a sanatorium. The procedure in the sanatorium is to issue a monthly certificate. Apparently the regulations require that certificates must be furnished at shorter intervals —subject to correction, I think, weekly. What is an applicant who is getting a monthly certificate from the sanatorium to do? Weekly certificates are required and he is waiting for payment of insurance or sickness benefit. This may not be widespread —I should like to think it is not— but it is a type of case that ought not to happen because it is not just the question of the individual; his dependants come into the picture, too. This benefit represents the only weekly source of income for the family. If it is withheld for any reason, that is bound to inflict hardship on quite a number of people.

I should like to hear from the Minister how the footwear scheme is administered by his Department. What instructions are issued to local authorities in regard to the operation of the scheme? What classes are excluded from the scheme? Are the local authority, having judged the merits locally through their investigating officers, entitled to make footwear available, subsequently recovering the necessary percentage from the Minister's Department?

There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer. I may be ignorant of the reasoning governing cases and I shall be glad to have the Minister's enlightenment. I refer to employment exchanges and the register of unemployed. On occasions people have approached me in regard to work. When I have asked the local exchanges what the prospects are, I have found that the situation is that the man with a wife and children who is drawing insurance benefit is left on stamps while those who are drawing unemployment assistance are sent out on whatever work offers, even though those may be single men. The Minister will correct me if my version of what happens is wrong, but I should like to know why a married man, with dependants, on a small weekly sum, may not qualify for employment while a single man, who has no stamps, is allowed to go to work. I have no objection to any man going to work but I should have thought the greater obligation would have been to the person with dependants to support. The Minister may be able to give a reasonable explanation for the practice that obtains.

I said earlier that the Minister's Department is a very important one. It is very important where the weaker sections of the community are concerned. It is a Department which comes into very close contact with the people, with the aged, the infirm, and the weak. These are all dependent on the Minister and his Department for what little sustenance they are able to obtain. I should like to be assured now that the Minister will go over the regulations and assess them from the human point of view to see whether there could not be an easing in order to eliminate the kind of hardships to which I have referred. This is within the competence of the Minister and I hope that this year he will give his earnest consideration to it.

Mr. Kyne

The Minister asked that the House pass this Estimate. The Minister can rest assured that any Estimate dealing with the most needy sections of our community will receive the support of the Labour Party. That support has been forthcoming in the past. That support is there today. That support will continue in the future. It is only right, however, that we should make some comments both on the provisions made for those who need benefit and on the administration of the various schemes by the Minister's Department.

I cannot but agree with my colleague, Deputy Tully, in regretting that there is no provision to offset the further increases that are bound to arise in the cost of living as a result of the 12 per cent national wage increase, which is now being granted to all the strata of workers in the country and which, in a very short time, must have a consequential effect on the cost of living. It is all right for the Minister to reply that that has been taken care of, that the 2½ per cent was covered by the increase of 2/6 to the non-contributory pensioners on 1st November and the further increases on the contributory side on 1st January. Nevertheless, there will still be that gap which will widen during the year to come and for which no provision appears to have been made.

Therefore, I cannot but agree with Deputy O'Sullivan who stated that if the revenue from the increases imposed on cigarettes and drinks were put to the use of social welfare, devoted to the increases given in November 1963, and in January, 1964, it would have amply provided for those increases. As Deputy O'Sullivan said, there is no justification for claiming that the turnover tax and the consequent 12 per cent wage increase had to happen to provide for the old, the unemployed, the sick, the widow and the orphan. Indeed on page 2 of his speech, the Minister admits that a sum of more than £2 million in increased contributions from employers and workers is again going into the fund to provide for total increases, including expenses of administration, which only amount to over £5 million. There would be ample to spare, without any other imposition, from the tax yield from the commodities I mentioned, plus the increased contributions, to provide all the benefits and indeed provide more than the benefits that have been passed under previous legislation.

I would also draw attention to the fact that although we were being twitted with being a Coalition Government and derided for giving 2/6 increase to old age pensioners at a cost of £1 million, at the present time 2/6 increase to the non-contributory sections costs only £454,000. Therefore this latest increase in non-contributory old age pensions must be only half the value of the 2/6 increase given by the inter-Party Governments. I cannot see how it was that a greater increase could not have been provided for this, the most necessitous section of our people who have nothing else to keep them but what they get from the State.

I welcome an increase of 2/6. I would welcome an increase of 1/- or 6d for any old age pensioner because I believe any increase is good. However, I do feel that the increases granted during last year were not adequate then and will certainly not be adequate to meet the needs of the people during the year to come.

Of all the things I deplore in connection with non-contributory pensions, it is the horrible and detestable means test. I may be told that if the means test were not adhered to pensions would cost considerably more. I wonder how it can be justified that a means test must be rigidly carried out in every case involving a sum of less than £500,000 for old age pensioners whereas a sum of almost £3 million for children's allowances can be paid out regardless of means. In the case of the old age pensioner, a thorough investigation has to be made so that Deputies complain that the eggs laid by the hens are counted, all contributions by a son are investigated and every sum that an old age pensioner may hope to get is investigated and calculated against him.

I suggest to the Minister it is both irritating and out-dated to continue the means test for non-contribuory pensions. It leads to concealment, evasion and fraud, and the game is not worth the candle. We have endeavoured several times by question here to ascertain from the Minister what is the cost of investigation. There is no doubt that the cost of investigation must almost offset any gain that is secured by depriving people of a pension for the period in which they live over the age of 70 years.

I wish to draw to the Minister's attention delays in the payment of disability benefit and sickness claims. The Minister will be aware of one case to which I have already drawn his attention, and in connection with which I got an immediate reply and immediate results, but nevertheless the complaint was such that the Minister should ensure that such cases will not arise again. The local agent in my area sent in certificates amounting in benefits to over £104 so that they would be paid before Christmas. They failed to arrive on a certain day and, believing that the Christmas post caused the delay, he did not notify the office for a day. When he received no communication and believing something serious had gone wrong, he telephoned the Department—for which I do not know whether he can claim or not— and he was assured that benefits amounting to more than £104 were sent out to some eight or ten people who were waiting for their money for Christmas. That money did not arrive. Immediately the offices opened a few days after Christmas, the agent was again in touch with the Department of Social Welfare. It was only after the third telephone communication that any search was made in the Department of Social Welfare and that the cheques, which were alleged to have been sent out about 18th or 19th December, were then dispatched on 30th December and arrived on New Year's Day.

That type of delay should not occur. I know it is human to err. Any clerk can make an error and benefit cheques which should be put into a pigeonhole for one agent can inadvertently be put into the next pigeonhole and go out to the wrong agent. I suggest that one telephone communication from an agent, drawing attention to a delay in the payment of benefit, should be accepted above an entry in a book that the cheques had been sent out. A thorough search should have been made in the office after the first or second complaint. Instead, they waited for the third complaint and left at least eight families in my town without the means of sustenance over the Christmas period. I feel quite sure the Minister or any of his officials would not deliberately countenance anything like that.

Immediately I got in touch with the Minister's Department by telephone, investigations were carried out, the facts were discovered and the cheques posted with apologies. I suggest a tighter examination should have been made on receipt of the first complaint. If such delays are found to be due to carelessness or incompetence, the Minister should see to it that the responsible official is suitably reprimanded with a view to securing greater efficiency. No man feels the loss of these benefits more than the sick person depending entirely on them, added to which, of course, is the consideration that money is never scarcer than during a period of sickness.

At the moment I am investigating a case which I shall submit to the Minister's Department this week in connection with a lady claiming sickness benefit. All the satisfaction she has been able to get so far is that her number has been mixed up with that of somebody else. Apparently, in the Department she and somebody else have been allocated the same number. It has been clearly established, as the Minister will find when he examines the particulars, that the lady in question not only has the 26 stamps, which would qualify her for benefit: she has something closer to 76. Notwithstanding that, she has been waiting four weeks.

I should like to ask the Minister if he has any idea whether provision has been made, and if so what, to give agents the benefit of the 12 per cent increase recently awarded to the Civil Service. I do not see any provision in the Estimate for it. Some of these local agents are full-time but a big number of them are part-time officials. I understand a previous application for an adjustment of their emoluments was unsuccessful and I suggest now to the Minister that provision be made to pay them the 12 per cent, plus whatever award comes from conciliation and arbitration, where their present application lies.

Even though some of these men are part-time workers who engage in additional employment, there are cases in my area where they give every day of their working week to the carrying out of duties in connection with social welfare. From my experience as a local agent in the days of the National Health Insurance Society, I know the pittance these men received in the past. Their position has improved somewhat but it is still pretty close to starvation level. Therefore I would ask the Minister to endeavour to make provision to have adjusted the emoluments of these men who carry out a hard task in a pleasant and capable manner.

I am afraid Deputy Tully stole some of my thunder when he appealed to the Minister to deal with the recommendations of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. In this connection, a good deal of strain is put on the funds of the Social Welfare Department which normally should be borne by insurance companies. If the maximum workmen's compensation of £4 10s. a week were increased correspondingly with increases in wages over the past four or five years, a considerable amount of money would be needed to raise the present figure of £4 10s. in cases where the insured worker has a large number of dependants. If the recommendations of the Commission were adopted, it would save the Department quite a considerable sum in future.

I have come across recently many cases where unemployment assistance has been refused on the ground that Departmental officials were not satisfied the applicants had proved they had genuinely sought employment. In the past fortnight alone, two cases have come to my attention. It is very difficult for a man to prove he has genuinely sought employment. I suggested to one such man that he should go to the half-dozen industries in the town and not only apply for work but ask them to let him have written indication that he had done so. I have seen the letters stating that this man, giving his name and age, though suitable for employment could not be employed because no work was available for him. This case is on appeal and I cannot say whether it will be turned down or not.

However, I had experience of a female employee who was out of work and who sought benefit. I told her to take similar action but of course her area of possible employment was more restricted. She went to the apple-packing factory in Dungarvan where normally girls are employed. Her custom was to go to the Isle of Wight from May to September or early October each year to work in an hotel, then to return for the apple harvest and work in the apple-packing factory until the following February. She will follow that pattern this year. Meanwhile, her claim was turned down on the ground that she had not provided genuine proof she had sought employment. I feel there is something wrong when a person who secures evidence from an employer cannot have that evidence accepted.

I am sorry if it seems that all I can do is put forward complaints because the Department do 95 per cent of their work perfectly. However, when I receive complaints, it is my duty to bring them to the Minister's attention. There is one complaint which I have already brought to the notice of the Minister, that is a case in respect of which a question of insurability arose, and it went for decision by the Minister's Department. The investigator found that the employment was insurable and the employer was asked to stamp the cards. However, he has consistently delayed stamping the cards, thereby depriving the insured person of his right to benefit for a period of six months. I have received promises from the Department that efforts are being made to secure the contributions but up to the present moment I have had no indications that the contributions have been received or that there is any hope of them being received.

I am well aware that it is open to the worker to bring the employer to court but we all know that a man without money finds it very difficult to get a lawyer to take a lawsuit on his behalf. They will always advise the people without money to go through the usual channels of approaching their local Deputy or the agent of the Social Welfare Department. The only hope there is for this man is that the Minister's officers should do the work they are appointed to do: proceed on behalf of the worker, and see that he gets the benefits that are really due to him. I should like the Minister to do something to expedite this case.

Last year I addressed a question to the Minister and I repeated it at the end of the year. It had to do with the question of Irish seamen employed on British registered ships, such as those of the Clyde Shipping Company in Waterford. If an Irish seaman, resident in Ireland and contributing to our Social Welfare Insurance fund, is injured in the course of his employment, that company claim that, following a court decision arrived at in Ireland, they are free from the obligation of paying workmen's compensation. In all fairness to that firm, I must say that they voluntarily pay to the man an amount equivalent to what he would get under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but they do not admit the principle that they are bound in law to pay him workmen's compensation and they base that on a court decision.

I gave particulars of that case to the Minister when I put down the question and the Minister in his reply promised that the matter would be investigated. He also promised that if the investigation proved that action should be taken, he would see that such action was taken. I would now ask the Minister if any action has been taken and if not, would he pursue the matter and endeavour to set right anything that may be wrong.

I should like to conclude on a cheerful note. I should like to congratulate the Minister and his Department on the booklet issued on 1st January each year which brings us up-to-date on the various changes that have taken place in the social welfare code. I think that is an excellent production. It is kept up-to-date and if there are interim alterations, the Department issue an addendum which can be stuck into the booklet. This is a great help to Deputies, as it contains all the information we need to reply to the many questions that are put to us with regard to social welfare. I suggest that some of the other Departments, such as the Department of Health, could copy this scheme with advantage.

My attention has been drawn to a footnote on the 2nd page of the Estimate which states that the private secretary to the Minister gets an extra allowance of £70 a year. If there is any person who ever earned £70, I would say that the private secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare earns it. I am but one of 144 Deputies who must give him continuous anxiety with the various complaints we get and the £70 that is given to this official is more than earned. If it is within the Minister's power I think he should consider increasing that amount.

I must thank the Minister for the courtesy which he himself, his private secretary and the Department have extended to me. Whenever I draw attention to what I feel is a complaint, I always receive courtesy and consideration. I hope the Minister will continue as the responsible Minister dealing with the most needy section of our people and that he will press for the maximum benefits he can get from the Minister for Finance so that our old, our sick, our unemployed and the widow and orphan will get as much as the country can afford to give them.

Mr. Cunningham

Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeachas a dhéanamh leis an Aire i ngeall or an Meastachán seo. Tugaim fé ndeara go bhfuil £5 milliúin níos mó ar fáil i mbliana ná mar a bhí ar fáil anuraidh. Is cinnte go rachaidh an tairgead seo chun socair dóibh siúd atá i dtaobh le seirbhísí na Roinne. Is lua an difhostaíocht i mbliana ná mar bhí sé roimhe le tamall de bhlianta anuas agus is docha go bhféadfaidh an tAire níos mó a dhéanamh do na daoine seo de thairbhe an airgid bhreise seo.

I want to draw attention to a number of grievances to which previous speakers have also referred. They are not very major ones but they are most annoying to the people concerned, the poorer sections of the community. I want to refer first to the serious delays in some cases in the payment of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. Unlike other Deputies, I do not find similar delays in the payment of disability benefit. But a delay of up to ten weeks in the case of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit is too long. No person in employment could afford to wait that length for the payment of his wages, and these people can less afford to wait.

I have cases with the Minister's Department where the delay in paying unemployment benefit reached ten weeks. I appreciate that investigations must be made into whether a person has the required number of stamps, whether they are properly affixed and whether the person has made honest and truthful statements. But surely some benefit should be paid to him during the waiting period? In nine cases out of ten, everything turns out all right, except that the recipient, although he does get back-dated payment, has to suffer the lack of payment during the intervening weeks. Surely we should pay him something, even half, and proceed to recoup in the very odd case where a discrepancy occurs.

I should like to support the previous speaker in his appeal to the Minister concerning an employer who refuses or neglects to stamp cards or delays in returning them to the employment exchange, thereby causing payments to be delayed to the applicant and causing him to forfeit unemployment benefit of up to three months. I agree with Deputy Kyne that it is not enough for the Department to say you can go to the courts and recover from your employer. The Department should take any action required against an employer who refuses or neglects to stamp cards or delays in returning them. As Deputy Kyne said, these people have not the wherewithal to fight court cases. They are loath to create trouble with an employer, even an ex-employer, because they feel they may be regarded in the area as troublemakers and that all employers will shun them.

Another matter to which I drew the Minister's attention when speaking on this Estimate last year was the fact that in some of the small farm areas in the western counties, income from a small holding was credited to a son or son-in-law living with the owner of the holding. That is getting away completely from the established position so far as the old age pension is concerned. An owner of a holding who assigns that holding to a son or daughter qualifies for the old age pension. But in the case of unemployment assistance, if the son is living with the father or mother or father-in-law or mother-in-law, he will not get unemployment assistance because the income from the small holding is attributed to him when he comes to apply. In other words, the whole income of the farm is set against his application and in some cases debars him from receiving part or all of the unemployment assistance. That is not fair.

These people who hold on to their farms even though they have reached a ripe old age still run them with an iron hand and allow very little to the unfortunate son or son-in-law, who has to work very hard for very little. Eventually, even at the end, he has no guarantee that the small holding will become his, and very often it does not. Having spent the best years of his life on this small holding, he finds he is penalised by the Department of Social Welfare.

The Department have a reciprocal arrangement with the Ministry of Labour in Britain and in the North. That should be reviewed with a view to the extension of reciprocal benefits. I find people coming back from England who have worked there for a number of years. The most they are entitled to on their return is 26 days' benefit. Having contributed in England or the North for a number of years, it is not a good enough arrangement to have such a small payment made when these people return home. Twenty-six days' benefit is very little.

I should like to know from the Minister if it is proposed to increase the incomes of managers of branch employment exchanges in line with those of other State employees by the amount of 12 per cent. Perhaps he would let us know that.

I do not think Deputy Kyne was quite right when he said that the Minister should have made provision because of the fact that the 12 per cent would create a spiral of commodity increases. I think the basis on which that figure was reached was that both employers and labour would agree and that increased production and output and other methods would absorb at least a fair amount of that increase.

The figure of £5 million increase in the Estimate this year is a very substantial one indeed and one which will give greater benefits to the sections of the community catered for by the Department of Social Welfare. A further point to be appreciated is the great drop in the number of unemployed since this time last year. We hope that that trend will continue. It will mean that the extra money provided can do more good. It may be, if that trend continues, that the Minister will find, as I hope he will, that he will be able during the year to pass on any savings there may be in that respect.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): This is submitted to us as an annual Estimate but I cannot help feeling that it is in the nature of an interim measure and that before the year ends the Minister will find it necessary to come forward with a further Supplementary Estimate to try to do, in some fashion, justice to the social welfare classes.

In this House a few months ago, the Minister for Finance stated that increases given to the population in general in relation to the turnover tax at that time had compensated one million of our 2,800,000 people but, since then, the ninth round wage increase has spiralled off an increase in the cost of living of which we have not yet seen the end and it will probably be five to six months more before we realise what this ninth round wage increase will entail as regards expenditure to every section of the community. In our society, like every society, when inflation hits us, the people affected are the retired people, people on pensions, people self-employed in a small way and, in our society, of course, farmers who have no weapon against inflation.

Deputy Cunningham mentioned that the social welfare classes would be covered as regards the ninth round wage increase and its inflationary effects, by increased productivity. For Heaven's sake, how will increased productivity help many of the people in these classes? I cannot see how it can directly help very many of them. He mentioned also that this substantial increase which the Minister has in his Estimate of £5,300,000 will be a tremendous help. I do not deny that it is of some help but let us not forget that of that £5,300,000 it appears that £2,100,000 comes from the Insurance Fund. I admit that some of that is Government—37 per cent of it—but the substantial part of it will come from employers and employees—in other words, from the people. It is just taking it from one pocket and putting it into another.

I am disappointed with this Estimate because I thought I would see substantial improvements given out on the basis of all the money we are supposed to get in from turnover tax. I find, for instance, that we have an estimated expenditure increase of £5,304,000. When you analyse it and break it down, as the Minister quite honestly did, you find £2,614,000 of it applies to 1963/64 and £2,690,000 of it applies to 1964/65, so that brings it down to half.

When we realise that in 1963/64 we got in only £2,500,000 from turnover tax and, in 1964/65, we ought to get in £10 million, £11 million or maybe £12 million from the turnover tax, or maybe more, I fail to see where is the generosity. It does not seem that the Minister is giving us any help at all on foot of this turnover tax. We are just as we were and much of the increase we have got has been paid really by the contributors themselves and there is no evidence in this Estimate that I can see of an overall generosity on the part of the Government as regards increased disbursements of money to the social welfare classes.

It may be, indeed, that I am anticipating the Minister. It may be, indeed, that we will have a wonderful and happy Budget and that these people will be compensated in one stroke for the 2½ per cent turnover tax and in the second stroke for the 12 per cent ninth round inflationary effect on the cost of living.

I should like the Minister to tell us also why he has not taken into consideration in his Estimate the expenses of the 12 per cent salary increase in respect of his staff. He stated in his introductory speech that it is not provided for and I should like to know why.

The other point I want to make is that I agree with Deputy Jones that the regulations governing some of these social welfare benefits should be made available to Deputies. In a general way, guidance is given in the annual booklet issued by the Department but sometimes when one is consulted, one finds oneself quite unable to give the information sought. One is constantly confused as regards old age pensions about which we are often consulted. I have always had to tell people that I think they are entitled to a pension, that I hope they are, and that I would write in about it. In most cases I am unable to arrive at any decision of much use to them. Perhaps the Minister could give some better guidance as regards eligibility for social benefits.

I particularly urge on the Minister the necessity of making more generous provision for the social welfare classes, the most unprotected members of the community, who have no defence against the increased cost of living and the progressive fall in the value of money. They are in exactly the same position as other retired people living on pensions of some sort. I often wonder whether some provision should not be made to tie some of these social benefits and pensions in general to the cost of living or the gross national product or some other index, in the same way as we are now trying to tie incomes.

If incomes are tied to the national productivity figure, in social justice we should consider whether social welfare benefits should not be somehow tied to some such figure so that people will not get an increase in social benefits on 1st January and find before half the year is out the increase is worthless. In the past when there was a constant value for money, it was easy to arrange pensions and incomes for retired people. Now, and for the past 40 or 50 years, we have progressive inflation in every country and some solution must be found for the people in these classes who have no protection against progressive inflation which seems to be something we shall have to live with in our age.

Mr. Treacy

There are so many flagrant defects in our archaic and outmoded social welfare code that one could speak for a long time on them but suffice to say the man who pays 5/11 or the woman who pays 4/10 a week towards a stamp is getting very little in return. The Taoiseach recently in reply to a Dáil question indicated that if the people of north-east Ulster were to join the Twenty-Six Counties, he would make available to them the same social welfare benefits as they enjoy in Northern Ireland. That was a brave statement and one that was received with joy throughout the country. If the Taoiseach is sincere in his overtures to these people, I think it behoves him to take immediate steps to up-grade the social welfare classes here and bridge the very wide gap that exists between the social welfare benefits payable here and in the North. It would be a practical demonstration of goodwill on the part of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social Welfare to ensure that the aged, the sick, the unemployed and all those against whom the winds of adversity blow hardest are adequately and fully cared for.

One would expect in a Christian society such as ours that we should at least conform to the standards in the North and not lag behind to the extent that we do. I hope, therefore, that speedy steps will be taken to increase benefits to the unemployed, the sick, the widowed and the aged and when our standards are about on a par with those of our brothers and sisters in the North, then we can look with enthusiasm for the return of these people to the fold in a united Ireland.

I have always felt that employment exchanges were places where thousands of Irish men and women suffer for a time before they go to England. It is a fallacy to suggest that our exchanges are employment exchanges in any sense of the word. The amount of work provided by them is negligible and any work offered is of a most menial and arduous kind. No wonder Irishmen have an absolute horror of signing as unemployed. There is no more detestable place than an Irish employment exchange because one is dragged down to subsistence level there; one is humiliated and degraded and one's future hopes sadly blighted. The vast majority of those who were forced to go to these places abandoned hope, packed their bags and went to England.

One would expect an employment exchange to be a place where men and women, having regard to their talents, aptitudes, skills and trades would be directed to places of employment. That is not so in Ireland. Work in this country is virtually impossible to find. It seems to me that all the art of man has been used to devise tricks and devices to deny the social welfare beneficiary of entitlement. Every possible device, trick and gimmick is down in the Statute Book to make it as difficult as possible for a beneficiary, even with the required stamps, to draw benefit. Everything possible is done to ensure that he does not draw it or, if he does, does not do so for very long.

The unfortunates who sign as unemployed can be caught out by innumerable devices, thought up by the wizards in the Department of Social Welfare. They can be disallowed benefit on the grounds that they are not available for work, or not genuinely seeking work, or that they lost employment as a result of misconduct, which is a very ugly word. They can be disallowed benefit on the ground that they are not resident in the area sufficiently long to qualify. Heaven help the emigrant who returns home in the hope of securing employment—and many of them do in the belief that employment will be forthcoming. If they are obliged to sign on at the labour exchange, they are denied benefit straight away and must wait a considerable time before they can qualify for any assistance under the social welfare code.

People can be turned down on the ground that they refused work that was offered. This is a pretty good trick in the labour exchange. Having been turned down by any of these tricks or devices, the unfortunate person must appeal and may be waiting six weeks or more before his appeal is heard. What happens to him and his wife and family in the interim is nobody's business. No one seems to care what happens to that human being or his dependants when the aspects of the social welfare code I quoted are invoked against him. Clearly he can seek home assistance. He has hit rock bottom in society. He may now beg for home assistance or, as so many do, throw up his hands in horror and quit the country altogether.

Those of us who are close to the ordinary people and know their sufferings and hardships are very acutely aware of the manner in which these devices are operated to deny people social welfare benefit, particularly unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. If a man happens to say to a clerk in the labour exchange that his wife was ill in the morning and he was obliged to care for her and the children, he would find in the post a day or two later a statement from the Department of Social Welfare saying that he was been disallowed benefit on the ground that he was not available for work. If a man—and this is not an exaggeration—signing for unemployment benefit were to go in with a bad cough or a cold and is asked by some slick well-paid clerk how he is feeling that morning and he replied that he is unwell, then just as God made little apples, within 24 or 48 hours, he will be informed that he is no longer allowed unemployment benefit and should apply instead for disability benefit as he is a sick man, as determined by the clerk in the labour exchange. This has happened many times.

We have then those categories of people who are denied benefit because, allegedly, they were guilty of misconduct under their employer. This word "misconduct" is a most obnoxious word. I have sat on boards of referees to which boys and girls came on appeal, having been disallowed benefit for a number of weeks on the ground of misconduct. They have pointed out that they were forced to quit the job by reason of the overbearing or tyrannical attitude of an employer; or by reason of the slave wages and the rotten conditions of the job; or by reason also of misconduct of a very nefarious kind by the employer from time to time, or because of allegations of theft. These people who exercised their fundamental right under our Constitution to terminate their employment were penalised under the social welfare code because they exercised that right. Depending on the decision of the officer who decides the cases at the tribunal, they may or may not be allowed benefit in part or in whole or, as so often happens, they may be denied benefit.

As far as I am concerned, the social welfare code has a class bias directed, in the main, against the worker. The dice is loaded against the insured employee at all times under this code. That is borne out quite clearly by that part of the code which lays down that any worker, any insured person, who as a result of a lock-out loses his employment shall not be paid any benefit. This is fundamentally wrong. That is a piece of anti-working class and anti-trade union legislation which should be amended and will be amended at the first opportunity we get. It is bad enough that a person should be denied unemployment benefit as a result of being legitimately on strike, or legitimately locked out, but to include in this category hundreds of other workers who, as an indirect result of this strike, may be locked out is patently unjust.

The House will appreciate that a strike can take place affecting certain essential services or supplies of essential goods or services, and that if that strike continues, it may result in unemployment in other quarters as a result of a shortage of materials, goods or services. People who are not in any way connected with this strike are put out of employment and when they go to the labour exchange, they are denied benefit under this code. It is high time that kind of anti-working class legislation was amended and that all these tricks and devices which man can devise and which are directed against the employee and the insured contributor should be amended to give fair play to both sides.

Clearly the employer is not penalised for exercising his right to terminate employment. Why then should the employee be penalised in such a brutal fashion because he exercises his right to terminate employment under, in most cases, appalling circumstances? The Minister and his officials will understand that before a man or woman terminates his or her employment, the matter is given very serious consideration. These people realise that there is no alternative work and no man in his proper senses would throw up his employment and go on the labour exchange just for what he will derive from it. There are always sound and cogent reasons why people terminate employment and it is clearly wrong for the Minister to permit this kind of code to be operated under which people, if they lose employment through misconduct of that sort, are denied social welfare benefits.

We have too many cases of people being denied benefit on the ground that they are not seeking employment. I have seen many of these unfortunates walking about the town seeking work and being refused work because work was not available. They are still denied benefit until they prove in writing that they were genuinely seeking work. These people are compelled to humiliate themselves, going around from potential employer to potential employer, asking him to give them a statement that they called seeking work and that no suitable work was available. It is not a question of just one statement; half a dozen are probably required before a person is again put back into benefit.

One of the most obnoxious aspects is the refusal to grant benefit because a person refuses to accept work offered by his employment exchange. I have known cases of industrial workers, skilled workers, artisans, who were directed from the labour exchange to agricultural or labouring work of a certain kind. Were they not legitimately entitled to refuse? I have known cases where highly respectable girls, highly educated, well reared, were directed from labour exchanges to peeling potatoes in a chip shop. One girl, who had been doing office work, was denied benefit because she refused to peel potatoes.

We should have some justice in the matter of the payment of unemployment benefit. Regard should be had to qualifications, to status, to the particular trade, vocation or profession. A man should not be demeaned, degraded and humiliated by being directed to work other than that which is his normal pursuit or his natural bent. It is patently unfair and intrinsically wrong that officials in employment exchanges should direct people to employment which is clearly unsuited to them and completely at variance with their status in life.

The Deputy is advocating legislation.

Mr. Treacy

——will, in time, remedy the disparities that exist.

There is an aspect of the social welfare code to which I take exception. It is in regard to men and women in the country where there is no employment exchange where they can conveniently sign on. The people are obliged to go to the local Garda barracks and present themselves there for observation and satisfy the authorities that they are, in fact, in the area and unemployed. It is particularly degrading that any citizen of ours should, as if he were a prisoner and had done some wrong, have to present himself to the Garda and have a statement issued in order to qualify for benefit. I would ask the Minister to devise other ways and means of satisfying himself that these people are qualified to receive benefit without compelling them to subject themselves to interview by the local Garda sergeant.

I had occasion to bring to the notice of the Department a very serious defect in regard to the payment of workmen's compensation on the one hand, and disability benefit on the other, in respect of a particular category of workers. I referred to miners in particular. It has come to my notice that a miner who falls ill of pneumoconiosis or coal in the lungs, as it is popularly called in those parts, has in many cases not qualified for workmen's compensation. At the present time I know of miners who are suffering from this disease and who have been denied workmen's compensation by their employers. They applied for disability benefit to the Department of Social Welfare as insured contributors with the proper number of stamps required to qualify and were denied that benefit or at most were paid only the difference between workmen's compensation and what they would be getting in disability benefit by reason of the number of children in the family.

The Department presumed all the time that these miners were receiving workmen's compensation and despite the evidence we provided to the Minister's Department that they were not— the workers wrote in and said they were not receiving workmen's compensation and I corroborated that they were not receiving workman's compensation—it was only after great difficulty we persuaded the Department to pay the full rate of disability benefit. It is disconcerting, to say the least, to know that these sufferers from pneumoconiosis are treated in this fashion. If it is within the competence of the Minister's Department I want him to investigate the reasons why the people who suffer from this dreadful disease, after giving a lifetime of service in the mines of this country at the most arduous and dangerous work one can find, should be treated in this fashion. I want the Minister to investigate whether it was justifiable to deny such benefit to these people in the circumstances.

There is some confusion in this regard. On the one hand, it is felt that this is an illness in respect of which people should get social welfare disability benefit; on the other hand, the Minister's Department feel it is an industrial disease contracted on the job and that workmen's compensation is more appropriate. I should like the Minister and the employers concerned to make up their minds speedily on this issue to obviate the terrible hardship and suffering which can be inflicted on families in the interim period if there is delay in arguing out the case.

It was a retrograde step on the part of the Minister's Department to withdraw from the local authority the powers and functions they exercised in respect of the administration of the so-called free footwear scheme. As one who has some knowledge of this scheme, I can say that when the local authorities administered this scheme, it was administered in an impartial and just manner. The local authorities, with their knowledge of the people applying for these free boots and shoes, were able to allocate them on a just basis. The Minister thought fit a short time ago to take over the administration of this scheme and since then he has perpetrated some terrible injustices on the applicants.

I wonder if the House is aware that under this so-called free footwear scheme the only people who are entitled to free footwear are those in receipt of home assistance and that a charge is made to all other categories of persons? A poor unfortunate who may be drawing disability benefit under the social welfare code, who may be drawing the disabled person's maintenance allowance, a TB allowance, or an allowance as a person with a large family who is unemployed or is in casual employment, all have to pay so much per voucher under this scheme.

I wonder if the House is further aware of the amounts that can be charged under this ridiculous and absurd scheme which is the negation of a free scheme. An unemployed man can pay 5/- or 7/6 per voucher on a pair of shoes. In fact there are cases in my county where under the scheme as administered the beneficiaries have to pay anything from 5/- up to 22/6 for supposedly free boots and shoes.

I would appeal to the Minister, if he is not prepared to take cognisance of the ridiculous state of affairs existing in relation to the administration of this footwear scheme to give back to the local authority the functions they had in this regard. It is farcical to suggest that there is a free footwear scheme in any sense where the beneficiaries have been obliged to pay as much as 22/6 towards a 30/- pair of boots or shoes. It is as absurd as that.

Clearly a change in this matter is desirable. I do not know what the reasons were that induced the Minister to take over the administration of this scheme but I believe it is the desire of most local authorities in Ireland that the Minister should hand back that scheme to them. I wonder if the Minister is aware in respect of this scheme that so extortionate were the demands made by his Department on the beneficiaries, that they should pay up to 22/6 for a pair of shoes, that in many cases to my knowledge and belief, the vouchers were returned to the local authorities and the commodities were unavailable as far as the unfortunate people are concerned.

I shall conclude by asking the Minister to indicate his intention to reduce the old age pension qualifying age to 65 years. The overwhelming consensus of opinion in the country is that the qualifying age should be reduced to at least 65.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is advocating legislation again.

Mr. Treacy

I suggest also that the three-day waiting period in regard to unemployment benefit should be done away with. I urge the Minister to have the courage to say whether or not he intends to reduce the age for qualification for the old age pension and to abolish the three-day waiting period to which I refer. He would be conforming with the wishes of the Taoiseach by improving the social standards of our people and bringing them on a par with our brothers in the north-east of the country. We all look with enthusiasm to the day when we shall be reunited with our brothers in north-east Ulster. To achieve that, the Government could make no better move than bridge the terrible gap existing between the social benefits available to our aged, our sick and our infirm and those available to our brothers in north-east Ulster.

Mr. Carter

One can appreciate every Deputy taking an active interest in the Vote for social services, but one can also dispute the point made by the last speaker in his somewhat bitter condemnation of local labour exchanges. This country is not very big. We all have active knowledge of local labour exchanges. Even those of us who have never drawn either unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance know the position. We also know our country towns. I am speaking here as a Deputy for ten years, as a person of some experience, and I know the position to be that officials in social welfare offices are very kindly in their dealings with individual applicants. I know that indeed in some instances members of social welfare staffs go out of their way to bring into line claims which might not otherwise succeed.

Let me also say that we all welcome the fact that the Minister has consolidated, more or less, this Vote under one heading. The Committee of Public Accounts, of which I have been a member for a long time, sought this system and the Minister very kindly met the Committee. It makes for more simplicity and better working.

One can deal with this Vote only on certain points. Let me mention in this context that one can appreciate the saving the Minister has effected in his Department and the fact that such saving has not been effected at the expense of any of the benefits administered under the Vote. The saving was effected through reconstruction, and I find from my part that appeals in all categories, old age pensions, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and all the rest, have been speeded up. That does not show any evidence of laxity or disinterest on the part of the Minister or his staff.

Therefore, I think it only right one should mention the facts as one knows them. Whatever fault we may find, it is not that the staff of the Minister's Department have been unkind to anybody. I have yet to meet the employee of that Department who has been unkind to an applicant. Fault has been found in regard to our social services generally and several speakers have contested the point that we are not doing enough on this side of our programme. I suppose it can be said one can never do enough in regard to social services in any country at any time, but it can be said with reason that we have since 1957 gone as far as our resources would permit us.

I do not think anyone can disagree that all social progress demands that special attention be given to social welfare. For that reason, since 1957, in every single year and in every Budget, the Minister for Finance in a Fianna Fáil Government has made provision for improved social welfare services in one category or another. I do not propose to go on in that vein. What I really want to do is mention a few points in the hope that the Minister will take note of them and do something about them.

One point in particular I have in mind is unemployment assistance. I merely mention this problem and, in mentioning it, realise that it is not an easy problem to solve. We know that some farmers up to a certain valuation are permitted to draw unemployment assistance. I realise that payment of unemployment assistance to small farmers cuts across everything we are trying to do in this way. Unemployment assistance was designed for the industrial worker and qualification for it was and is that the worker be deemed to be able-bodied and genuinely seeking employment. In this context, small farmers cannot be deemed to be genuinely unemployed. A small farmer may seek employment of a marginal kind. If the recipient of unemployment assistance improves his holding in any way, if he buys an extra cow or an implement or improves an acre of land, he is thereby deemed to have improved his holding and is liable to be cut off unemployment assistance. I would suggest to the Minister that he should slant this regulation in favour of the small farmer and call it agriculture aid or some such name. Instead of penalising the smallholder for improving his status, he should be given some incentive in that direction.

We are paying large subsidies from the Exchequer to aid agriculture and it is foolish to be paying agricultural instructors to advise farmers as to how to improve their holdings and, at the same time, to penalise those smallholders in their unemployment assistance for the mere fact that they have improved their holdings or improved their positions by hard work. I shall not advocate any extreme measures except to say that as far as I know the Minister takes a reasonably sensible and wise view of these matters and I know of no case where extreme penalties were imposed for contravention of the regulations. However, there is the danger that smallholders in receipt of unemployment assistance will be stultified, or get into a groove in not improving their land, and, therefore, we should try to direct assistance to them through different channels.

I wish to express my thanks to the Minister for accepting a point I made previously regarding the payment of unemployment assistance. It concerned a case of a recipient whose assistance was cut off and whose appeal was pending. The Minister made the decision in that appeal retrospective in order to ensure that the applicant would be paid from the date he was cut off rather than from the date of the decision of the appeal. We appreciate that.

Another small point I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister is that there is some inequity in dealing with widows' pensions. You will find certain widows, widows who are blind, and up to the age of 70 years, they can draw a blind pension and a widow's pension. On reaching 70 years, the blind pension ceases because of the fact that the blind pension and the old age pension go together and so a person cannot continue to receive the blind pension. I should like to see that system smoothed out to provide that persons in that category who have been in receipt of a dual pension will not have their standards lowered on reaching the age of 70.

We all know that the Minister's Department deals with an enormous number of claims. For my own part, I have given the Minister as much annoyance as any other Deputy and I must admit that I have always found him more than well disposed to any particular case submitted to him. On that account I must add my voice to those of other Deputies here in paying tribute to his enthusiasm in providing all the social welfare benefits possible for our people.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I think Deputy Carter put his finger on the trouble spot of the Department when he said that he has given the Minister as much annoyance as any other Deputy in continually writing letters to the Department about unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, national health, widows' and orphans' pensions and old age pensions. Surely if a person is entitled to any of these social benefits, there should be no necessity for Deputies to write to the Minister in support of his claim? Deputy Carter has pointed out that he is continually pestering the Minister about these other matters, as is every other Deputy, so there must be something wrong with the Minister's Department.

Prior to the establishment of the State, we were educated to look on civil servants with suspicion and they looked on the people with suspicion, but since the establishment of the State, the Army, the Garda and all other officials of the State have become the friends of the people and are taken into the confidence of the people, with one exception, that is, the investigating officer. He is the enemy of the people throughout the country; he is looked upon with suspicion; and he looks with suspicion on the people. It is on the question of the means test that I want to say a few words.

I come from a very poor constituency, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle well knows. A great number of the people there are depending on unemployment benefit, national health and old age pensions. We have a number of fishermen, part-time fishermen particularly, and I believe they are being very unfairly treated by the Department of Social Welfare. They are scattered all along the Rosses, Gweedore and the north-west coast of the county. Take two brothers living in the same circumstances. One has to migrate to Great Britain, where he is paid a fairly liberal wage. He may come back at the end of eight months with as much as £600 or £700 saved as a result of his labour there. He immediately becomes entitled to unemployment assistance and, in some cases, as a result of an agreement entered into by the late Deputy Norton and the British Government, to unemployment benefit. He can continue to draw it for the remainder of the year.

But his brother who is a fisherman decides to remain in this country and to fish for salmon. During the salmon fishing season, which is at most eight to ten weeks, there are many nights when he goes to sea and for various reasons fishes all night and catches nothing. But the fact that he has gone to sea debars him from proving unemployment during that day. Supposing he is fortunate enough to catch during that season £100 worth of fish, that £100 is assessed as means for unemployment assistance. Surely that is wrong? If his brother can go to England and earn £600 or £700, why should he not be entitled to be classified in the same category? His earnings from his livelihood as a fisherman should not be assessed against his means. I would appeal now to the Minister to see that these unfortunate fisherman from Teelin and Arranmore Island areas will not be victimised in this way in future but will be treated in the same manner as their brothers who are unfortunately compelled to migrate but who later return.

It is true, as Deputy Carter says, that down through the years the various Ministers for Social Welfare have increased the benefits payable, but, so surely as there is an increase, around comes public enemy No. 1, the investigation officer, reinvestigating the means. What happens? Up goes the means and down comes the amount of benefit. I have known many people who have had their means doubled within the past five or six years, despite the fact that their visible means are the same as they were five or six years ago. That is very unfair.

Quite recently in our courts I came across a case of poor man whose poor law valuation was 3/- for the land he owned. Three different social welfare officers went into the box and swore that they assessed the profit on that farm of 3/- poor law valuation at £18 a year. Is that fair? If these people are making £18 a year on a valuation of 3/-, I wonder what the gentlemen we were referring to last night on the Land Bill, the gentlemen whose poor law valuation is £50, are making?

The Minister should look into the manner in which investigation officers assess the means of recipients of unemployment assistance living on very small uneconomic holdings. Just imagine a poor law valuation of 3/-! The Minister knows the case I am referring to. The man's means were assessed at £18 profit. I know there are very hardworking men in that locality and that they take every ounce they can out of the barren rocks on which they live, but they cannot work miracles and take £18 profit out of a poor law valuation of 3/-. The Minister should review that. If he does not, he will drive more of these people out of the country.

We have all heard of the good work which Father McDyer is doing in north-west Donegal through the Errigal Co-operative Society. Again, his efforts are being frustrated by the Department of Social Welfare. This co-operative society is being set up in the Glencolumbkille area, one of the poorest parts of the west of Ireland, a fíor-Ghaeltacht area, an area in which every effort is being made to stem the flow of emigration. Fr. McDyer, with the assistance of others, has done a wonderful job there. He has, first, encouraged the small crofters, who prior to this were in receipt of unemployment assistance, to plant vegetables on their small holdings. We know that may not be economic for a few years. But, so surely as these small farmers follow the advice of Fr. McDyer, they immediately lose their unemployment assistance. If the investigation officer comes around and finds them tilling a plot with vegetables for the co-operative society, they are immediately debarred from drawing unemployment assistance in respect of the day on which they are working.

Again, if these small farmers are fortunate enough to make £50 or £60 —and that would be a very high average indeed—on the sale of their produce to the co-operative society, that £50 or £60 is taken into account in assessing their means, and unemployment assistance is cut down accordingly. That is no encouragement to people such as Fr. McDyer, to those engaged in trying to stem emigration and to those engaged in trying to make economic holdings out of these uneconomic holdings in the mountainous districts of the Gaeltacht. Surely they should not be doubly victimised? They should not be victimised, first, for engaging in manual work on their own land and, secondly, they should not be victimised by taking into account in assessing their means whatever profit they make.

I would make an appeal to the Minister to co-operate with Fr. McDyer. He knows exactly the case Fr. McDyer has put to him, that unemployment assistance should be treated as a social service so far as the people in these uneconomic patches are concerned. If the Minister can do that, I can assure him that despite the activities of his investigation officers, he will have the blessings, the thanks and the prayers of the people in those localities.

I wish to complain, as other Deputies have, about delays in payment of old age pensions, unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. I have known applicants for old age pensions whose claims have been held up for months and months because the investigation officer has not had time to investigate their means. If the Minister would pay these people the maximum pension at the beginning, investigate their means afterwards and, if they are found not to be entitled to the full pension, deduct what overpayment they may have received, it would be much more satisfactory.

Another complaint is this. When it is finally decided, possibly after two or three months' investigation, that an old age pensioner is entitled to the full pension, the pension book is issued to the pensioner but the arrears of pension are not paid for some weeks afterwards. That is very unfair. Surely, once it is decided that a person is entitled to the old age pension, the full amount of the pension and arrears should be paid forthwith? I am personally aware of these cases and that is one of the reasons why I quote them.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is this: A person applies for unemployment assistance and is turned down on the question of availability for work, ability to work and the fact that he may not be genuinely seeking work. Prior to 1948, the applicant for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit had the right to appeal to a court of referees. That court was comprised of a professional chairman, a representative of the employers and a representative of the employees. They knew local circumstances; they knew the local facts of the case. They heard the evidence. They heard the investigation officer. They heard the representatives of the Department. They heard the workman and any witnesses whom he could call in support of his case.

What happened? That court of referees has been abolished and now if an officer of the Department turns down an applicant for unemployment assistance, the applicant has the right to appeal. Appeal to whom?—to another officer in the same Department. I do not think that is fair at all because both officers are servants of the Minister and, sometimes, indeed, the appeals officer does reverse a decision of the junior officer but, human nature being what it is, it is not fair to him because if sufficient appeals are reversed by the senior officer, that junior officer eventually will be rapped across the knuckles. The Minister should consider reverting to the old system of courts of referees and trial by one's peers.

I think it was Deputy Treacy who referred to the humiliating queuing up of applicants for unemployment assistance at Garda barracks and labour exchanges. There is a sufficient number of peace commissioners throughout the country and it should suffice for an applicant to appear once a week before a peace commissioner, swear a declaration that he was genuinely unemployed during the week, that he was available for work and genuinely seeking work. Also, instead of requiring attendance at the labour exchange for payment of unemployment assistance, the moneys due to such applicant should be sent out by post. If that were done, it would save a considerable amount of the hardship which poor unfortunate recipients of various social welfare benefits suffer.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer If the recipient of a retirement pension or old age pension in Great Britain wishes to leave Britain and to return to this country, he will be paid while he is living here whatever pension he is entitled to on the other side. That is only right. Many of our migrants and emigrants do not voluntarily leave this country. Force of circumstances drives them to England. There they become entitled to certain benefits and pensions and if they wish to return to their native land it is but right that they should continue to draw those pensions when they come back here.

But, take the recipient of an old age pension in this country. His or her family may have found through economic circumstances that it was necessary for them to emigrate or migrate to Great Britain. When the head of a family reaches the age of 70, draws the old age pension and possibly after a few years finds that he has no person to look after him, he is most anxious to go to Britain and live there with his sons and daughters. If he goes across there and remains for longer than three months, he automatically loses his pension. He is entitled to a pension neither here nor in Great Britain and during the three months payment of his pension is suspended.

The same thing happens if a person crosses the Border into the Six Counties. The pension is automatically stopped. If he comes back within three months, he will receive the old age pension but if he remains longer than the three months with his brothers, cousins, or sisters across the stream which is the Border, he automatically loses whatever social benefits or retirement benefits he has become entitled to.

We in Donegal are unfortunate in that we have no home for old people in the county other than the county home, but in the neighbouring county. Derry, there is a very fine home provided by the Nazareth nuns. It has been a bone of contention down through the years that if an old age pensioner from Donegal wishes to cross the Border and take up residence there, he automatically loses his old age pension. Those nuns would be very glad indeed to keep the old age pensioner if they were assured that he would be entitled to the pension, and would be paid the pension. The nuns would be prepared to keep him for the pension. I have raised the matter here very many times and the answer I always get is: "In certain circumstances the pension will be paid." Why should it be in certain circumstances? It should be in all circumstances. If a man wants to cross the Border into the Six Counties and live with some of his relatives there when he finds himself without friends and relatives in the Twenty-Six Counties, he should be entitled to draw the pension which he has earned while here.

I appeal to the Minister to look into that matter again and to do what he can to have a reciprocal arrangement made with Britain, and not to have it one-sided. Recipients of old age pension in Britain may draw their old age pensions and retirement pensions here if they become entitled to them on the other side. Surely if they become entitled to them on this side and wish to go across the Irish Sea, they should remain entitled to them when over there and the full amount should be paid to them?

Mr. Timmons

I should like, first of all, to congratulate the Minister on introducing this Estimate dealing with such an important aspect of the country's welfare, particularly in relation to social welfare classes. At the same time, I should like to express my disappointment that the Minister has not seen fit, so far at any rate, to raise the limit of insurability under the Social Welfare Acts, which still remains at £800 a year. With the changing trends, with increases being sought and obtained within the past few years, a strong case exists that workers whose earnings are up to £20 a week should enjoy the benefits of the Social Welfare Acts. There are numerous non-manual workers in this city engaged in the building industry and other trades whose earnings approach that figure and, certainly, are much more than £16 a week. The Minister should look into that matter and take steps to raise the insurable limit.

I also feel that some consideration should be given to the granting of children's allowances to old age pensioners who have dependent children. I believe that, so far, representations made to the Minister in this respect have been resisted. I understand representations have been made in respect of cases of hardship which exist in the city and throughout the country where there are dependent children in respect of whom, I am told, no allowance is made. The whole income tax code is based on giving reliefs for dependants and I cannot see why the Minister and his officials should fail to recognise this problem and handle it in the way I have suggested.

There was a great deal of discussion about delays in dealing with claims. I should like to refute some of the allegations made. My personal experience has been that matters relating to administration have been handled by the Department with expedition. I should like to congratulate the Minister and his officials on that happy situation.

The Department deal with thousands of people and are centralised and, perhaps, inevitably that causes some delay. Possibly some review should take place with the idea of decentralising some of the activities to provincial centres. A start has been made in the Department of Justice with the transfer of the Garda Training Depot to Templemore. That is a very welcome move. Some consideration should be given to transferring to main provincial centres on a regional basis some of the administrative work of the Department. This should help to expedite social welfare claims.

Under the present system, Dublin Health Authority take responsibility for the delivery of free fuel to those in receipt of home assistance but have no authority to arrange for delivery of such fuel to old age pensioners. The authority's function is limited to permitting recognised hauliers to deliver to old age pensioners for a fee arranged between the pensioner and the haulier. In the past few months, it has come to my notice that there has been a breakdown in that arrangement and old age pensioners in my constituency in North-East Dublin, in Howth, Raheny and Clontarf, have been denied that facility because of the failure of the individual involved to carry out deliveries. It has been represented to me that this is because more attractive work is available to him and he has no obligation to the health authority. It is purely an arrangement under which the health authority give him permission to take an amount of fuel to these people. Beyond that, they have no responsibility.

The matter will come before this week's meeting of the health authority on a motion I have put down asking the chief executive officer to investigate the question of providing a free delivery service for old age pensioners. I understand the health authority have no funds at their disposal for that purpose and I suggest the Minister might look into the matter and see if it is possible to give a grant to the authority towards providing that service. It is a reflection on our society generally to see in Dublin city old age pensioners obliged to go to the fuel depots in all weathers and where they do not get the assistance of some able-bodied person, they must fetch the fuel themselves. They should not have to undertake that.

I should also like to support the plea made by Deputy Kyne in regard to the allowance paid to the Minister's private secretary. It is my experience, and I am sure the experience of most Deputies who deal with him, that he is most kind and courteous in his position as liaison officer between Deputies and the Minister. I was surprised and disappointed to learn that he receives such a small allowance. If the Minister has any function in the matter, I ask him to see if he can get that allowance increased.

Mr. Carroll

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the position of people who are affected by a strike. Suppose a strike takes place on the docks, people who are not associated in any way with the strike are laid off. They are denied unemployment benefit. For over 20 years as a member of the Appeals Board, I have continually endeavoured to have this position rectified, but yet, even though a person has no connection and perhaps no sympathy with the strike, unemployment benefit is denied him if he is laid off as a result of it. As far back as the time of the late Tadhg Forbes—which must be 20 years ago—I raised this burning question time and again but I never succeeded in having it remedied.

I wish to join with Deputy P. O'Donnell in asking the Minister to consider the reconstitution of that Appeals Board because many of the cases that came before that body when I was present could not have been interpreted by a representative of the Minister without the assistance of outside evidence of people speaking on behalf of the individual concerned. I have seen many times cases reversed on appeal but yet the situation of which I complain persists. If it cannot be remedied in any other way, I think there is some case for the re-establishment of the Appeals Board.

I also ask the Minister as I have done for the past three or four years, to give some consideration to the ceiling fixed in relation to the eligibility of those applying for social welfare benefits. As various increases take place in the cost of living, whether due to taxes, indirect or otherwise, or to other factors, the old book of rules governing the operations of the investigating officer should be readjusted. The people now face increased costs which the benefits they are getting cannot possibly cover.

There is one other small point which I am sure can very easily be righted. It is that between 9 and 9.30 a.m. when one is passing along Gardiner Street in Dublin, one notices that even though the weather may be inclement—it may even be snowing—the doors of the labour exchange are closed and the applicants are huddled together outside, while they could be enjoying the heat inside the exchange without harming anybody. The doors are not opened until 9.30. Some of these men have walked from distant places such as Finglas and they may be wet enough by the time they get to Gardiner Street but they are denied shelter. It is a bleak spot and this matter could very easily be rectified without delay.

It was mentioned that applicants who are about to receive the old age pension invariably find that they are getting less than what they had before when they were in receipt of national health. This applies to a very limited section of the community but, as Deputy O'Donnell said, the Minister by doing something about this would get not only the blessings and prayers of that section but might also get their votes.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

There is really only one point which I want to make. There is general agreement on all sides that whatever Government are in office, they should do their best as far as social services and social welfare benefits are concerned. When discussing an Estimate such as this, it is right that Deputies from various constituencies should deal with particular cases or points, or draw particular aspects of administration to the attention of the Minister, not in any carping manner, not as criticism directed against the Minister or his officials, but with a view to trying to streamline or iron out any difficulties that exist, or at least that might be avoided in dealing with recipients of social welfare benefits.

It is in that spirit that I want to refer to a particular case that has come to my notice, the particulars of which I have sent to the Minister to see if anything might be done about it. This is the case of a man whose unemployment benefit was disallowed by the deciding officer on the ground that he was not unfit for work during a particular period. He appealed against that decision and the matter is to go to the appeals officer. This unfortunate man's difficulty is that he is in a nursing-home. He cannot appear before the appeals officer. An effort has been made to have the case heard and evidence on his behalf given by his wife and also by his clergyman who was prepared to appear before the appeals officer in support of the appeal. I have seen copies of the medical statement and it would seem to me that it is an appeal which might well be allowed.

The position apparently is that the appeals officer—and I am not criticising him or faulting him in this—feels that he should have the appellant before him before he comes to a decision in the matter but the unfortunate applicant is too ill to go out and his doctor will not allow him to go out. There are probably other cases on a par with this and I want to urge the Minister to endeavour to ensure that the appeals officer will hear the other evidence, that is, the evidence of the wife and the clergyman. It may very well be that on hearing that evidence, he may reach the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed, in which event this man would become entitled to the unemployment benefit which at the moment is disallowed.

On the other hand, if on hearing that evidence, the appeals officer decides that he still requires further evidence from the applicant in support of the appeal, no harm has been done. He can adjourn further consideration of the matter and convey his view to the applicant that he thinks he cannot come to a conclusion without hearing him. Arrangements of one sort or another may possibly be made in that event. I would ask the Minister to look into the case. It is a difficult one and the man is without benefit at the moment. It may be that——

Mr. Boland

Would he not be getting disability benefit?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am talking about unemployment benefit. I am not sure of the details——

Mr. Boland

I take it that now that the man is laid up in a nursing home, it would be disability benefit at this stage. It may have been unemployment benefit at another stage.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Quite; that is so. The case may not have reached the Minister's desk yet, but I would ask him to look at it particularly.

Mr. Sherwin

Some criticism of the Department was expressed by Deputy O'Donnell. First of all, I want to say that recently I had a lady in with me who complained that because she had £4 15s. a week, her husband who is unemployed would get nothing. I had a similar case of a man who was getting 1/6d because his wife had something like £5 a week. It is rather unfair that a man should be deprived of any assistance just because his wife has a certain income. I could understand it if her income were above a certain figure, or if she had property, but it is hard luck on a man when he has to beg the price of a packet of cigarettes from his wife and may not even get it.

We have heard criticism of the Minister's Department and in the past we have heard criticism about what welfare recipients get. I was surprised this morning when at a rent case in the Corporation, in which a woman was due for eviction, I heard her say that her husband was idle and that her differential rent was 17/6d. I said that it was amazing to me that it should be 17/6d. Because usually people pay only about 6/-. She then said: "But I have £6 16s. 6d. because there are seven children and we got a big jump in the last Budget." When we are criticising the Department about what people get, we should remember that a man can get £6 12s. 6d. although he is idle. I have heard that in England people were supposed to get as much as if they were working. We are approaching that situation in this country and it is nice to think that you can get £6 12s. 6d. although you are idle. I have nothing further to say beyond repeating that I think it is strange that a man should be deprived of a few shillings just because his wife has £4 or £5 a week. I will sit down and let the Minister in.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 4 Mar 1964

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Social Welfare.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1964