Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Mar 1966

Vol. 221 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 47—Social Welfare.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

Tairgim:

Go ndeonófar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £3,835,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1966, 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.

Séard is cúis leis on Meastachán Forlíontach seo ná go bhfuil suim bhreise de £3,835,000 ag teastáil le haghaidh seirbhísí mo Roinne-se don bhliain 1965-66. Baineann £159,000 de'n tsuim bhreise le costaisí riaracháin, £1,307,000 le h-Árachas Sóisialach agus £2,471,000 le Cúnamh Sóisialach.

Maidir le costaisí riaracháin, FoMhírchinn A go D, 'séard is mó is cúis leis an mbreis caiteachais ná árdaithe pá a deonadh i rith na bliana méadú ar chostaisí taistil agus méadú san íocaíocht do dhoctúirí i leith deimhnite breoiteachta.

I gcás Árachais Shóisialaigh, FoMhírcheann E, tá suim bhreise de £1,300,000 ag teastáil. Meastar go gcosnóidh na méadaithe i rátaí árachais ó thosach mí Eanáir seo chaite suim bhreise de £1,462,000 in aghaidh na bliana seo. In a theannta san tá méadú thar mar a measadh i líon na ndaoine atá i dteideal sochar áirithe, agus dá thoradh seo tá £239,000 sa bhreis ag teastáil. Nuair a chuirtear leis seo suim bhreise de £117,000 i leith costaisí riaracháin a bhaineas leis na seirbhísí árachais, 'sé iomlán an bhreis-chaiteachais ná £1,818,000. Táthar ag súil, ámh, le breis fáltaisí toisc gur árdaíodh na rátaí ranníoca ó thosach mí Eanáir, agus dá thoradh san sé £1,300,000 an tsuim bhreise atá de dhíth.

I gcás Cúnaimh Shóisialaigh, is eol do Theachtaí gur árdaíodh rátaí cúnaimh agus gur deineadh feabhsanna eile ins na scéimeanna le h-éifeacht ó thosach mí Lúnasa seo chaite. Meastar go gcosnóidh na forálacha sin suim bhreise de £2,340,000 sa bhliain 1965-66. Taobh amuigh de na h-athraithe reachtaithe sin, de réir claonadh an chaiteachais ar sheirbhísí áirithe, ní mór suim bhreise de £131,000 a lorg, agus mar sin 'sé £2,471,000 an t-iomlán atá ag teastáil. Baineann an chuid is mó de sin le pinsin seanaoise.

This Supplementary Estimate provides for increased expenditure in all three sections of the Social Welfare Vote for the current year. Under the head of Administration—Subheads A to D—£159,000 extra is required. Under Social Insurance—Subheads E and F—the additional sum sought is £1,307,000. For Social Assistance— Subheads G, I and J—the supplementary provision is £2,471,000. The gross total comes to £3,937,000, but, as there are surplus Appropriations in Aid, estimated at £102,000, the net additional requirement from the Exchequer is £3,835,000.

Of the £159,000 extra now sought for Administration Expenses, £116,000 arises on the Salaries subhead. This is required to meet the cost of pay revisions for certain grades which was not included in the original Estimate. The gross amount is £176,000 but this is offset by expected savings of £60,000 on the original provision of £1,632,000. Under Subhead B, an additional sum of £10,000 is required to meet higher expenditure on travelling expenses and subsistence. An adjustment of an underclaim by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in the previous year is mainly responsible for an increase of £8,000 under Subhead C—Post Office Services. The extra provision of £25,000 under Subhead D—Insured Persons' Medical Certificates—is attributable to an increase in the capitation rate on which payment to medical certifiers is based.

The bulk of the additional expenditure under Social Insurance and Social Assistance arises from the increases in Benefit and Assistance rates and other improvements effected by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1965. A part of it is, however, attributable to a rising trend in expenditure otherwise. The 1965 Act provided, amongst other things, increases under the Insurance scheme of 10/- weekly in all the principal rates of periodic benefit for both beneficiaries and their adult dependants. On the Assistance side, the Act provided for increases of 10/- or 5/- weekly, as appropriate, in the rates of non-contributory old age and widows' and orphans' pensions and 5/- in the rates of unemployment assistance for both applicants and adult dependants.

As regards social insurance, provision is made for increasing the Exchequer contribution to the Social Insurance Fund under Subhead E by £1,300,000 bringing the estimated total for the year to £11,018,000. As Deputies are aware, provision is made under this subhead for payment into the Social Insurance Fund of the amount by which the expenditure of the Fund exceeds its income in any year.

The revised expenditure of the Fund in the current year is now estimated at £27,790,000, an increase of £1,818,000 on the original provision. Revised income is now estimated at £16,760,000, an increase of £506,000 on the sum originally estimated.

The main increases in Fund expenditure are disability benefit £675,000, old age (contributory) pensions £270,000, unemployment benefit £358,000, widows' contributory pensions and orphans' contributory allowances £282,000 and Adminstration costs £117,000.

On the income side, the increase is almost entirely attributable to an expected rise of £500,000 in the yield from employment contributions, the rates of which were increased from the beginning of last January. In addition, the insurability limit for non-manual employment was increased from £800 to £1,200 with effect from 6th September, 1965. One effect of the later provision is to bring back into compulsory insurance many employees who had received pay increases which brought their remuneration over £800 a year.

As regards social assistance, the increased provisions are non-contributory old age pensions £1,780,000, unemployment assistance £461,000 and widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions £230,000. In this connection, I should mention that the additional expenditure arising out of the 1965 Act already referred to includes provision for paying unemployment assistance to smallholders in certain specified areas through a modification in their case of the system of assessing means for unemployment assistance purposes. This modification took effect from 3rd January last.

In the case of the final subhead—L. Appropriations in Aid—the estimated increase of £102,000 in the current year falls under Subdivision 1—Receipt from the Social Insurance Fund under section 40 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. This relates to administration costs incurred by my Department in connection with the social insurance scheme. The increase of £102,000 in estimated receipts from the Fund arises out of the recovery of the insurance portion of the additional expenditure of £159,000 required for the administration Subheads A to D.

I think I have covered the principal matters affecting this Supplementary Estimate. I shall be glad, however, to furnish any further information which Deputies may require.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): This Supplementary Estimate, introduced on the eve of the Budget, affords an opportunity of discussing the rates of social welfare benefits, their adequacy or inadequacy, in relation to the cost of living. Further, we will have the main Estimate for the Department in the not too distant future and that will provide an opportunity of going into the administration of the Department of Social Welfare in the detail. Therefore, I do not propose to take up the time of the House to any great extent in discussing these matters.

There are, however, a few topics I should like to deal with briefly. Since the Minister introduced his Estimate here last, we have had an increase in the rate of old age pensions and other social welfare payments resulting from moneys provided in the last Budget. I propose to say a few words about the increase in the contributory old age pension from 37/6 a week to 47/6 a week and to ask the Minister a few questions arising from it. We know that from August last the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension was increased from 37/6 a week to 47/6 a week but we know also that in order to qualify for that maximum payment, the income of the pensioner or claimant could not exceed £26 5s. per year. I should like to ask the Minister to tell the House on what basis his Department increased the pensions payable at the rate of 37/6 a week to 47/6 a week.

I believe that these increases were given on a hit or miss basis. I should like to ask the Minister if any investigation was carried out. On the discussion on the Budget, the Minister said it would not be necessary to carry out an investigation before granting this increase. I know for a fact that no investigation was made but I am not complaining particularly about that. The point I want to make is that a certain percentage of old age pensioners who were in receipt of 37/6 a week had their pensions increased by 10/- a week to 47/6 as from 6th August, whereas the remainder did not receive any increase. Many of the remainder who received no increase——

Mr. Boland

They received 5/-, surely?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Yes, that is what I mean. Many of the remainder received an increase of only 5/-, but later on, in September, October and even in November, when they applied for the maximum increase of 10/-, it transpired that a good number of them were held to be entitled to the full increase but yet they were only paid the additional 5/-, bringing them up to the 10/-, from the date on which they applied for it, although it was manifestly clear from the investigation that their means did not exceed £26 5s per year on the relative date, 6th August, 1965. The balance of this increase, namely, 5/-, should have been paid retrospectively as from 6th August when the investigation revealed that they were entitled to if from that date. It is probably correct to say that prior to the Social Welfare Act, 1965, there was not a very strict investigation of means as between nil and £50 because a person with £50 qualified for the full old age pension of 37/6 a week. Therefore it is difficult to see how some people were singled out and got the 47/6 from 6th August whereas others did not. I am not suggesting that there were any ulterior, unfair or political motives involved—I want to make that perfectly clear—but it was done on some sort of hit or miss basis which was unfair, and after the investigations these people should have received the full 10/- from 6th August. I trust that I have made that clear and I wait the Minister's comment.

I should like now to deal with the method of calculating the means of claimants for old age pensions. I think it is too harsh in certain cases. The investigators and appeals officers rely on what I will describe as technical or legal income, which in fact is not actual income. Take the case of a widow living on a farm with a son. The owner of the farm has died many years ago— in some cases I know of, the owner died over 30 years ago—without leaving a will. Some other members of the family have emigrated. The son marries and brings in a wife and has children and for all practical purposes, the son is the owner of the farm. He runs the farm and perhaps he has gone out and worked on the road and earned money to stock the farm, or has worked in England and has come home with the money to stock the farm. Yet when the means of the widow are being calculated for the old age pension, she is deemed to be in receipt of one-third of the income from that farm because on her husband's death, many years ago, she became legally entitled to one-third. In many cases she is assessed with one-half because the other children are away, and the son is assessed with the other half. As a result she gets a very reduced old age pension. I can point to many cases of that sort and I do not think it is a fair approach. It is availing of technicalities to deprive this old lady of the pension to which she is clearly entitled.

Of course, if she takes out a grant of administration and goes through the formality of sending the deed halfway across the world, getting it executed by the people abroad, and executing it herself in favour of the son, then of course she becomes entitled. I am aware of that, but furthermore, even if she assigns her interest over to the son who is at home, then unless the children who are abroad—and perhaps some of them cannot be found—also assign their interest in the farm to that son, the mother will be deemed to have an income from it and will be deprived of the pension. There should be a commonsense approach to this problem. If there is a mother who is a widow, aged perhaps 72 or 73 years, living on a farm of 30 or 40 acres, with a son who is 40 years of age, perhaps married—indeed whether he is married or not—but certainly if he is married and has a family, does the world and his wife not know that the son is in control of the farm, that the son is running the farm and is in receipt of all the income, that it takes all that income and more to keep himself, his wife and his family in existence and that the old lady who is there is merely marking time until the Lord calls her? She has no actual income from the farm at all. I would like the Minister to look into that point and instruct his investigation officers to take a more practical approach when assessing the income of people of that type.

There is only one other matter I want to mention. It arises out of unemployment assistance for smallholders which comes under the Supplementary Estimate. In the Social Welfare Act last year, the method of assessing the means of small farmers who are applicants for social welfare assistance in certain counties was changed. In the case of a farmer whose valuation does not exceed £10, means is assessed at £20 per annum for every £1 valuation. Advertisements appeared in all the provincial papers inviting smallholders to apply for unemployment assistance. The smallholders in County Cavan thought Santa Claus had arrived prematurely. I am sure the Minister's Department was flooded with applications. However, the advertisement should have contained an example of the type of person who qualified. A great number were disappointed. Applications came in by the hundred, but very few qualified. I was thinking of putting down a question to ask the Minister in respect of a number of counties how many smallholders are in receipt of unemployment assistance this year as compared with last year and other years. In some counties the new system worked to deprive people of unemployment assistance. I know the Act provided that a person in receipt of unemployment assistance last year could not be cut off this year, but in the counties with which I am familiar, no more people have qualified for unemployment assistance this year than in other years.

We will have an opportunity of dealing more extensively with the adequacy of the benefits paid when discussing the Budget, and we will discuss the administration of the Department on the main Estimate. I would ask the Minister to have second thoughts about the people who did not get the full 10/- per week old age pension under the 1965 Act until they applied for it. Then they got it only from the date on which they applied, whether that was October, November or even January. It may be a small sum to the Minister, but £5 or £6 is a lot of money to these old people.

I would also ask the Minister to consider the case of the claimant for the old age pension who has not taken out a grant of administration to her husband who died many years ago. In fact, she has no income from the farm because her son living with her is the actual owner and is in receipt of all the income from the farm.

In some counties the Minister might reconsider the effect of the new method of assessing the means of small farmers who are applicants for social welfare benefit. I know the Minister had the best intentions when he introduced this. I concede that when it was being introduced, I thought it would be a benefit, but I do not think it has worked out that way in all cases. I know that in theory, it means a small industrious farmer on a farm with a valuation of £9 could make a lot of money from it and still have his income assessed at only £180. But in some cases it has worked out to the disadvantage of the people concerned.

Mr. James Tully

It seems to have become the habit of the Government to keep bringing in Supplementary Estimates, admittedly for necessary things, right up to the end of the financial year. Here, when we are about to start discussing the financial year 1966-67, we have before us Supplementary Estimates for £3,835,000 for the financial year 1965-66, most of which has been spent. The Minister may say he did not know this money would be required and that would be a fair explanation, But the Government should do better budgeting. Some attempt should be made to know at the beginning of the year what money is actually being spent. If that is not done, we are going to reach the stage where any Budget will simply be guesswork. If one looks at the number of Supplementary Estimates introduced this year, one must assume that the guesswork carried out by the Government before last year's Budget was particularly wild. We have reached the stage where there seems to be a tremendous amount of extra money required.

I have always found the Department of Social Welfare most co-operative from the Minister down. I do not trouble the Minister very often because I do not believe Deputies should cry on the Minister's shoulder for every little problem. The proper way is to raise it through the ordinary channels in the Department. I have done that and I admit I have received nothing but courtesy from the Department. Occasionally you might meet a sore head, but we all cannot be in good form all the time.

Last year an alteration was made in respect of the non-contributory old age pension, but no attempt was made to assess the then means of those drawing the pension. I had a few cases —I grant you, they were dealt with quickly—of people whose means had been assessed ten or 15 years earlier when they first applied, but no attempt was made to find out if their circumstances had altered in the intervening period. It is all right to say these people should have known that with the new means test they would not qualify unless they proved their income was less than £26 a year. But I do not think we should expect old people completely out of touch with the world, who find it extremely difficult to carry on their own existence, to know these intricacies. The result was that many people did not get the 10/- when they were in fact entitled to it.

I would say that, even as yet, quite a number of people have not received the 10/- increase, though they were entitled to it, simply because they did not know and did not apply. They still do not know why they were paid 5/-instead of 10/-. There may be some way of resolving this problem, some way of re-assessing means. Another point is that some people who got only 5/- queried it. An investigation was carried out and, even though it was perfectly clear that at the time of the granting of the increase, namely, 1st August last, they had less than £26 per year, the increase was not granted to them retrospectively to that date; it was granted with effect only from the date on which they brought the matter to the notice of the Department.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That happened in every case.

Mr. O'Malley

That was where a mistake was made.

Mr. Coughlan

There were many mistakes made in that Department.

Mr. James Tully

With regard to the income of £26 per year, it is very difficult to calculate that a person has in fact less than £26 per year. Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned the person with a small farm which is being run by a son or some member of the family. In fact, the means are assessed against the original owner who had the farm in years gone by. At old age pension sub-committee meetings, I am always intrigued by the way in which the pension officers assess means in these cases. They seem to have an idea that if someone is working for himself or living with his parents, looking after the farm, all that person is entitled to is the minimum rate of wages for a 5 ½ day week. I find it impossible to persuade these people that someone who is looking after a farm, particularly a farm on which stock is involved, does a seven-day week; he may get an hour or two off here and there, but, if he is looking after stock, he must be there on Saturday and Sunday as well. In every case the minimum rate of wages for an agricultural worker is trotted out by the pension officer, and it is assumed this is the rate that should apply. Fresh instructions should be issued to these pension officers who assess means.

Another thing that puzzles me is how these people can be expected to buy fencing and pay for its erection at the rate allowed for this type of work. Those of us who have experience know that you cannot get someone to erect a fence in a couple of hours, though that is apparently what the pension officers think, and disappear after that, for the minimum agricultural wage. Again, this reacts against the unfortunate person who is applying for a pension for the first time or for some increase that has been granted. From the point of view of cost alone, there seems to be no idea of what fencing material actually costs. Other replacements are treated in the same way. They do not seem to be considered at all by the pension officer when assessing means. That is a mistake; possibly it is due to the fact that the matter has never been brought forcibly to the attention of the Minister. He should now have a look at this and see if he can adjust the situation.

I know a number of people who applied for pension increases and got them without any delay. However, I should like to know whose was the big brain in the Custom House which decided there was only one way to deal with the matter and that was by calling in all the pension books. The Minister is aware of what happened. There were piles of pension books lying in his Department for some unfortunates to wade through and, while this was happening, the income of those entitled to these pensions was nil. I am not blaming the Government or anybody else for this. But a mistake was made by somebody and such mistakes should not occur.

I had experience of one particular case. He was not a constituent but an acquaintance brought him in to me in my office here in Dublin. The complaint was that for six weeks this man, who lived alone, had not got one shilling from anybody. If he was not hungry, he certainly looked it and, if he was not cold, he certainly ought to have been. I phoned the Department at once and within 24 hours the man had the pension book in his possession. I am not blaming the officials who were trying to cope with this huge number of books and this very awkward situation. I am blaming the individual who decided this was the way to deal with the matter. Surely it could have been done in alphabetical order, perhaps, over a period in order to prevent hardship, a hardship which persisted right up to Christmas. It was then the books were finally clear. That is a blot on what is otherwise a wellrun Department.

We shall be discussing the main Estimate in a short time and I will not therefore elaborate on the Department generally but there are one or two matters I should like to mention. With regard to smallholders, it is very difficult for a smallholder on the MeathCavan border, living in very bad conditions, whose land is as bad as or worse than his neighbour's on the adjoining farm in Cavan, to see the man in Cavan entitled to draw assistance while he, because he is living in Meath, is not. That is the type of discrimination to which the Government have lent themselves for quite a number of years, and not just this Government but successive Governments. If one lives in a certain area, one gets preference. That is wrong. Deputy Clinton, a neighbour of mine, knows quite well the area about which I am talking. Just beside the Cavan border this situation is causing a great deal of annoyance.

Deputy Fitzpatrick talked about the people in Cavan who applied but got nothing; he did not hear half as many complaints as he would have heard if he had been living in Meath because of the numbers there who did not get it, not because they were in better conditions than those in Cavan but simply because they lived in County Meath. These are reasonably intelligent people and I think the Minister should do something to make this apply all round. For years people from certain areas get preference over others where the division of land is concerned. This is an extension of that. These people have a grievance, and rightly so. They ask: "Is it not extraordinary that if we lived in a certain area, we would be entitled to something to which we are not entitled now because we are living in a particular area?" Where they live is what governs the situation. That is wrong. It makes a mockery of treating all the children of the nation equally; we are back to the old aphorism that all are born equal but some are more equal than others.

Another matter is the way in which unemployment benefit figures are compiled. It could be embarrassing to the Government to allow people in certain areas to be included because they would be listed as unemployed.

Mr. Boland

That is the Taoiseach's Department.

Mr. James Tully

But it is the Department of Social Welfare that pays the money.

Mr. Boland

I think the Deputy is thinking of unemployment assistance.

Mr. James Tully

Yes, of course; if I said "benefit", I am sorry. However, does the Minister suggest that the people who are receiving this assistance now are unemployed or are not looking for employment, because that is the test which is applied? If they are looking for employment, they should be included in the list. This is something which, I suppose, every Government have got away with since the State was founded or since statistics have been compiled. It is something which no one should get away with. In addition to people who sign at the employment exchange and who are being paid some benefit or assistance, there are thousands of people who have no job, who are anxious to get a job but who are not included for one reason or another. A little bit of juggling around in compiling the figures may help the Government but it does not help the people who are affected by it.

Quite a number of people have been brought back into insurance, employees who have had increases which brought their remuneration over £800 a year, and arrangements have been made by the Minister's Department to ensure that if, through no fault of their own, they are out of benefit they will get credit to bring them back into benefit. One of the things which so many of these people are glad about is that it brings them back for benefit under the Health Act, because most of those who are now included are people who would in the normal way—there are exceptions of course—be entitled to benefit from unemployment.

The Minister is now preparing his Estimate for the coming year. Is there any possibility, even at this stage, of trying to impress upon him this idea: since men and women who are 65 years of age—sometimes 64½ years of age if they are "ikey" enough—can draw unemployment benefit if there is no suitable employment for them from then until 70 years of age, is there any reason why these people should not be able to draw old age pensions at 65? If the Minister cannot do it now, would he put it on the short list of amendments to his social welfare legislation? This matter does cause a great deal of trouble at the present time. It means people have to travel and sign at the exchange, whereas when they reach 70, they can draw as much, or perhaps more, and they do not have to travel. That is outside the ambit of this legislation but it is something the Minister might consider.

Mr. Molloy

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a certain anomaly in the present social welfare system. The Minister is already aware of the matter to which I intend to refer but I believe it is important to mention it in the House. On 27th August last year, employees in the Galway Foundry and Engineering Company who are members of the AEU Union decided to withdraw their labour. As a result of this withdrawal of labour, the employers were forced to close down the foundry. There were three or four other employees in the factory who were not a party to this strike but who were thrown out of employment, due to the action of their fellow workers. These men have been working, 30, 25 or 20 years with the firm and have been contributing towards the social welfare fund. They reported to the union in Galway what had happened and were told to go back to the foundry and to offer themselves for work and not associate themselves with the AEU strike. They went back to the firm and were told there was no work for them.

A natural course for these workers then was to call down to the local labour exchange and sign on. They were not accepted and they got no unemployment benefit, although they had been regular contributors for many years. They were all men with families and they were left for two months without any assistance from the State and no means by which they could maintain their families. They endured great hardship, and when I brought the matter to the notice of the Minister in November, the matter was rectified as from 1st November.

However, the Minister informed me that he could not do anything about the anomalous situation, although I think he agrees it is something which needs improvement. Where men are put out of employment due to a strike, even though they are not a party to it, I am told they are not entitled to any benefit. If this is so, I am surprised that more attention has not been drawn to it in this House before now.

I should like to put on record a letter of 22nd September, 1965, which was written by the manager of this firm, the Galway Foundry and Engineering Company, Ltd., to An Roinn Leasa Shóisinalaigh, Claddagh Quay, Galway:

Re: M/s. P. Burke, P. Lee, M. Moran—Employees.

A chara,

We write in connection with the above employees to state that it is now apparent that these workmen——members of a different trade union than the tradesmen—were not consulted prior to the withdrawal of labour by the tradesmen on Friday, 27th August, but realised that the factory could not continue to operate as a result of this action by the tradesmen.

Whilst they are anxious to continue in their work here, the Company cannot, unfortunately, offer them suitable employment at present.

I wish to put on record also a letter of 24th September, 1965, to the manager of the Galway Foundry and Engineering Company, Ltd., from the Branch Secretary of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union:

Dear Sir,

This is to confirm that our three members, Patrick Burke, Martin Moran and Patrick Lee are not in dispute with the Galway Foundry and Engineering Company and are prepared to return to work, as the dispute which took place was an unofficial one involving members of the AEU.

I should like to hear from the Minister if anything can be done to improve a situation like this where three honest, hardworking men, who were regular contributors to the Social Welfare Fund, can be deprived of benefit, even though they were not involved in the strike and at no time withdrew their labour. I would ask the Minister to give this matter his attention so as to ensure that such a situation cannot arise in future.

Mr. Foley

On this Estimate there is only one case which comes to mind as requiring amendment. It is the case of a man who has been insured for a considerable number of years and who about a year or two before his death, becomes uninsurable. He is a regular contributor to social insurance and his wife finds on this man's death that she is not entitled to a contributory pension. This is an injustice to the wife of a man who has contributed for a long number of years to social insurance, but who just because, not through his own fault, for two years, or maybe one year, before his death, he was not an insurable person. Owing to this, his wife was not entitled to a contributory pension, whereas, on the other hand, in the case of a young married man who has, let us say, not half the number of stamps this man has, on his death, his wife will receive a contributory pension. I feel this is somewhat unjust and I would ask the Minister, in this particular case and in any similar case, to look into it and see if any adjustment can be made.

I also feel that if the Department would deal with this on the basis of about ten or 15 years and work it on the basis of the number of contributions each man has made, it would cover this unfortunate person who does not receive a contributory pension just because her husband was not contributing two years before his death, although he may have contributed two or three times as much as the young man whose wife is entitled to a contributory pension. That is only one case which I can see needs some adjustment.

The increases given last year were substantial and were more than welcomed by all, but though they were substantial, the rates of pension are still too small. I would ask the Minister to look into this again. I know he has a very tight budget and has to keep within the limits of his Estimate but I would ask him to try once again to provide for this more needy section of the community.

Mr. Carter

In commenting on this Supplementary Estimate, one could say that the Minister has brought about great and beneficial changes in the social welfare code in the last number of years. I must pay a tribute to him for having accepted a number of resolutions regarding the code in general and for easing in a very kindly way a number of provisions which pressed down on smallholders throughout the country who would be deemed to be in receipt of unemployment assistance.

I want to refer to unemployment assistance and to say that we appreciate the Minister's action in relaxing the code in regard to this section of the community. It is no mean achievement to extract from the Exchequer, last year, a sum of £5½ million which was devoted solely to increases in unemployment assistance, social insurance and the remainder of the social welfare code in general, old age pensions, contributory and non-contributory pensions and so on. While we all appreciate his action in dealing with benefits and assistance in general, I must come to a point which has for a very long time been a source of friction throughout the country in general in relation to the unemployment assistance code.

We are familiar with the fact that certain types of farmers, primarily those deemed to be in the £1 to £10 rateable valuation class, go off unemployment assistance from March to the end of October. We are not at all happy about the rules which provide that those farmers go off yearly at certain periods of the year, and it leads one to speak on the subject of what are known as Employment Period Orders. Frankly, I have looked up the social welfare code and, going through it, I never can understand the reasoning or the logic behind what are known as First and Second Employment Period Orders. It can be said at the outset that those orders are unjust, unfair and inequitable. They are unjust in so far as the idea behind them seems to be that a farmer living on a rateable valuation of £3 19s 6d is entitled to remain on unemployment assistance throughout the year, while his neighbour, who may be living down the road, and who indeed may be in worse circumstances, who may have a larger family, is required to go off unemployment assistance from March to the end of October. It can be said that these orders are inequitable in that that is so.

We have a large number in that group. From recollection the figure stands at something like 68,500 or 69,000 farmers in that particular category. I have no documentary proof before me, nor have I had time to brief myself properly on the subject, but some years ago I went into it in detail. I think it was at an Árd Fheis that I brought this matter before a former Minister for Social Welfare and I again took up the subject last year. I think one would be correct in saygory ing that one can appeal to the present Minister who has shown himself thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the social welfare code, especially in relation to smallholders and I believe one could appeal again on the floor of this House that something be done to wipe out these orders and to provide a more equitable system. The present system is not just or right, and indeed, it is no incentive to better farming, even amongst small farmers. It is no incentive to increased production, nor is it an incentive to a higher standard of living amongst those farmers to continue to enforce such orders on this particular category of farmers.

We are paying, and this House provides for, certain subsidies in respect of agriculture, housing, health and so on. At the other end of the scale, we are providing that we shall penalise a man merely because he lives on a rateable valuation over £4 and we shall put him off unemployment assistance from March to October each year. One could say, finally, that this provision has nothing whatever to recommend it to anyone who studies the social welfare code. I make this appeal in the hope and in the knowledge that the Minister will do his best in this coming year to wipe out this inequality and so go a step further on the road to keeping up the good work he has been doing, because it will be admitted on all sides of the House that we have made great strides in social welfare in general.

Mr. Reynolds

One cannot help but make references to the increase in the old age pension given last year in the Budget, but one must say that it is a kind of hit-and-run type of scheme. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why these cases were not investigated prior to giving the increases. I am quite satisfied that the Minister, in his reply, will say: "Surely you did not want me to investigate every case in the country; you did not want to create hardship on the applicants by being re-investigated". But I am fully convinced of this fact—that if it were not for our Just Society policy in the last general election, I doubt if there would have been any increases given to the old age pensioners.

Mr. Carter

Nobody will believe that for a second.

Mr. Reynolds

I am not terribly interested in whether or not the Deputy believes it—it is a fact. The way in which the scheme is operated at the moment should be sufficient to convince the Deputy, or any other Deputy on that side of the House, of the fact. The 10/- was given to a number of people without investigation. A number of people got 5/- more or less to shut their mouths but these people who did get the 5/- increase—and I do not know what percentage of them would have got it—re-applied to the Department of Social Welfare to get the full 10/- which, in my opinion, a big percentage of them were justly entitled to. At the moment some of the cases are only being investigated and I am sure this investigation will go on for the next few months; but, when they are granted the extra amount, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, they should get it from the date the scheme was changed, away back in August of last year. It is most unfair of the Department to deprive them of it.

We have the case at the moment of a woman who is in receipt of a widow's pension and, when she comes to the age of seventy years, it is quite possible she would not qualify for the full old age pension, due to the method of calculation. I do not think, in 1966, anybody's income should be reduced. The Minister should have another look at this and make sure that this unfortunate woman will get the full old age pension.

Reference was made to the change in employment assistance. If my information is correct, I think there will ultimately be, under the new Act now in operation, fewer people in receipt of unemployment assistance than there were prior to the introduction of the Act. I think that will be the position in County Leitrim: fewer people will be in receipt of benefit.

Mr. Molloy

There will be more people working.

Mr. Reynolds

Where will they work?

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy should look at the papers—they are full of advertisements.

Mr. Reynolds

Yes—in Birmingham, Manchester and other places. I will gamble with the Deputy that in the constituency which he represents the number will be down in the next census.

Mr. Molloy

I do not think it is the custom of the House to have bets across the floor but I would take the Deputy up on it.

Mr. Reynolds

The Deputy can take me up on it—he knows it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Did Deputy Molloy look at the vital statistics yesterday?

Mr. Reynolds

He is not interested. The basis of calculation is £20 to £1 of valuation. For a farmer with a valuation of £10, the calculation is that his income is £200. I do not know who got this brainwave but I wish the Minister or some of the higher officials of his Department could come down to any county in the west of Ireland and get himself an income of £20 on £1 poor law valuation. It is altogether too high. The Minister should have another look at it because, in my opinion, it is really ridiculous.

Deputy Carter made a point, with which I am very much in agreement, in relation to the people in receipt of unemployment assistance for six months of the year if their valuation is over £4. If it is under £4 they are in receipt of it for the whole year round. There is no reason why that figure of £4 could not be substantially increased in order to take in a bigger number of people who would qualify for benefit for the full year. That figure of £4 has been there, I think, for some years and, due to the increased cost of living and many other things, everything suggests that the figure should be increased.

In conclusion, I should like the Minister to give me some information on this matter. The North Western Cattle Breeding Society employed a number of people last year as warble fly operators, and the Department of Social Welfare have decided that these people are insurable. They were not paid directly by the Society; they were paid by the farmers for whom they did the work. A number of them, being sons of farmers, would not qualify for any benefit under the Act. I should like the Minister to have another look at this. The North Western Cattle Breeding Society appealed to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Social Welfare about this decision. I should like the Minister to make some reference to it when replying.

Mr. Dowling

I shall be very brief. Deputy Tully spoke about people who were brought back into compulsory insurance. There is a section which is not insured at all, that is, domestic servants. There is no justification for the fact that they are not eligible for unemployment benefit. It may be true to say that normally it is easy for them to get a new job when they become unemployed, but in many cases these people have been in the same job for a considerable period of years, and having developed a set of habits, find it difficult to get a new position that will suit them. Sometimes they become unemployed when they are at an advanced age, and this is a further disability they have to carry. There are many cases of hardship which are well known because unemployment assistance is not available to them. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider this section. They have no trade union to back them and there are very few people to put their case forward. They are an unfortunate section of the community who are being cast aside, so to speak, by the Department of Social Welfare. I think the Minister should rectify this position.

I hope that in the future the same sound thinking will apply as applied last year and for some years past in relation to social welfare benefits. Substantial increases were made last year in many of the benefits. Many people feel that they are not up to the standard at which we would like to see them. I hope further consideration will be given to this in the future, and I trust that Minister, who is doing such a remarkable job, will ensure that the arguments which were valid on the last occasion will be valid in present circumstances. I am quite sure that the national response which was there last year will be there in the future to meet any demand for a further increase in social welfare benefits.

Unfortunately we were treated again to political speeches like that made by Deputy Reynolds who spoke about the policy of the Just Society, but there was an unjust society when they were in power and they should be ashamed to talk about social welfare advances. Cuts-back were a feature of their day.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Deputy knows that there was not a word about social welfare in the last general election campaign by his Party until they were pushed into it.

Mr. Dowling

Any social advances made in this country were made by this Party. Fine Gael cannot point to one single advance made in social welfare by their Party.

Mr. James Tully

We do not want to hold up the House or we would take the Deputy up on that.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Only 2/6d. a week was given to a man with a wife and two children and a valuation of £10.

Mr. Dowling

When it was 10/-they cut it back to 9/-. I do not want to be drawn into this. The people who are now talking about a just society proved very unjust when they were in power.

Mr. Boland

I think I can interpret the debate as meaning that the House in general is quite willing to give me the amount of money I am asking for in this Supplementary Estimate, and so far as I can interpret the tone of the debate, the only complaint is that it is not more. I am always interested to hear suggestions for improvements in our social welfare services. I would be the last person to say that we have reached the end of social welfare development in this country. I can see many more things waiting to be done and, indeed, mostly when suggestions for specific improvements are made, they do no more than confirm my own opinion as to what are the desirable lines on which to make progress.

The only limit to the development of social welfare is the availability of money, that is, the capacity of the community to finance it. Therefore, all the suggestions made for specific improvements have to be considered in conjunction with the need which I admit is still there to improve the rates of payment in the existing social services—not all of them. Some are reasonably satisfactory in our circumstances, but social assistance payments in particular, I quite freely admit, are inadequate for the purpose which they have to serve. There is an urgent need to improve them. The thing is that there has had to be—always I suppose but in particular since we got back in 1957—a concentration on improving our economy, on improving the capacity of the community to finance social welfare. In spite of that necessity, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, we have been able to arrange for gradual improvements in social welfare. In this Supplementary Estimate, we are asking for money to be provided to finance the first really major step forward that was made last year. As I said before, that can only be regarded as the beginning of a process that must continue according as it is possible to get the money to improve these benefits. I am not by any means complacent with regard to the level of social welfare cover in this country and I hope to see many further improvements.

I think Deputy Tully was on the wrong lines when he referred to what he described as this habit of keeping Supplementary Estimates until the end of the year rather than having the actual Estimate when introduced sufficiently accurate to cover the amounts that will have to be spent. As Deputy Tully knows, the Book of Estimates is published before the Budget. This increased expenditure we are dealing with here today arose largely because of the increases granted in the Budget, plus some other extensions of the Social Welfare Act which were made last year.

Mr. James Tully

Do I take it, then, that when the Book of Estimates is being prepared there is no knowledge of proposed increases?

Mr. Boland

In the Budget? No. There is no knowledge of increases that will be granted in the Budget.

Mr. James Tully

No consideration at all is given?

Mr. Boland

The Book of Estimates is framed, purely and simply, on the basis of the legislation that exists at the time for the provision of social welfare services. Therefore, in any year in which increases are granted, we may take it that unless something extraordinary happens there must be a Supplementary Estimate. Since Fianna Fáil took over in 1957, there has been such a Supplementary Estimate every year because it is only since that time that social welfare increases have become so regular. So, the Supplementary Estimate is inevitable. The Social Welfare Supplementary Estimate, in particular, is usually kept until fairly late in the financial year so that it can be as accurate as possible. It is not easy to make an exact estimate of what these increases will cost and the later we keep it in the financial year the more accurate the estimate will be.

I was surprised to find, in the discussion of this Supplementary Estimate, some criticism of the fact that, before the award of the 10/- increase in the case of old age pensioners whose means are under £26 5s. a year is made, there is no investigation of circumstances. If Deputies will look back over the speeches that were made both at the time of the Budget last year and on the Social Welfare Bill, they will see that one of the major criticisms advanced was that this would mean a wholesale reinvestigation of means by the Department of Social Welfare. A dire picture was painted of what the result of such a reinvestigation would be. I pointed out that we had, in fact, got the information available on which to base these awards. It is true that some of the information was rather out of date. In a number of those cases where a question was raised for the increase of the pension, the means, as previously assessed, were reduced and the increased rate of pension was paid. Therefore, what has happened, in fact, has been, if anything, the reverse of what is was suggested would happen. We have not had a wholesale "upping" of the means of old age pensioners. Instead of that, our estimate of the number of people who would qualify for the maximum rate of pension was on the small side and, in fact, a bigger percentage have qualified. In cases where there was a reassessment of means—mainly as a result either of a direct request from the pensioner or approaches by public representatives— there have been a number of instances where the means have in fact been reduced and the higher pension awarded.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister will appreciate that the complaint is——

Mr. Boland

I shall come to that later. That is due to the system that application for an increase in pension has to go through this process of the old age pensions committee and it can only be increased or decreased as a result of a question being raised with regard to the means and it can be done only from the date on which that question was raised. I can see no way out of that short of abolishing the system for the award of pensions that exists at the moment and, indeed, that might not be a bad idea.

Mr. James Tully

Does the Minister mean the local committees?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. James Tully

It might not be a bad idea. Very little attention is paid to them, anyway.

Mr. Boland

It is difficult to see what function they fulfil. However, I do not want to bring in that red herring.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): When the social welfare officer raises a question, a person can be ordered to repay as from a date, before it comes before the committee.

Mr. Boland

That is if there is a question of fraudulent concealing of means. It means that means were concealed and that as a result of the concealing of the means, a person received a pension at a rate to which he was not entitled.

Mr. James Tully

What if he accidentally conceals his means?

Mr. Boland

If he accidentally exaggerates his means——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What if he is a stupid old person who does not know?

Mr. Boland

I do not see why the same consideration should not apply. I think the type of case Deputies referred to here was rather the type of case in which the means assessments had become out of date and the means had actually decreased, possibly because of reduced efficiency of the person concerned. The estimate that was made of the numbers that would qualify for the maximum rate of pension at the time of the Social Welfare Bill was that 71,000 would qualify for 10/- and roughly 41,000 for 5/-. In actual fact, 81,551 have received 10/-and 31,734 have received only 5/-, that is, 73 per cent of old age pensioners have qualified for the maximum increase. Therefore, I think the allegation that what was described as a new means test would be very severe and would result in increasing means being assessed against a large number of existing old age pensioners has been proved wrong and should be withdrawn.

Mr. James Tully

I do not agree with the new means test at £26 a year.

Mr. Boland

I am surprised that Deputy Tully does not, because it is surely logical——

Mr. James Tully

I do not think 10/- a week is a fortune.

Mr. Boland

——that a limited amount of money should be distributed on the basis of need and that those who are worse off should get the greater amount.

Mr. James Tully

I should not like to see them very much worse off than 10/- a week.

Mr. Boland

There are people worse off. Only a few weeks ago, Deputy Esmonde asked me if I would not think of providing something extra for those who have no means— and I think he was on the right lines. I think that it is in that direction we should move. We should have pensions graduated as far as possible in accordance with the means of the people, when the amount of money that is available is limited—and the amount of money which is available for social welfare, although it has been increasing, is still limited and I certainly cannot visualise a time when it will not continue to be limited.

It was claimed by Deputy Fitzpatrick that the means test for old age pensioners is too harsh. In fact, the means test for old age pensioners is a lot less rigorous than the means test for other social assistance benefits. A number of things are disregarded. Deputy Tully went into some detail about the method of assessing the means of farmers. His experience appears to be that a realistic view is not taken of the expenses incurred by old people in extracting some income from a small farm. It may be that there is some need to have another look at the manner in which the cost of materials and labour is taken into account. On a number of occasions, in looking at particular cases, I must say that I had some doubt about that but on the whole I think it was quite fair, although we may need to get some more uniformity into the system of allowing for costs of production on the farm.

Another point raised was the question of an old age pensioner who has a son, whether married or single, working on the farm and to all intents and purposes in control of the farm. In a case like that, whether it is a case of intestacy or not, it can be dealt with by the old age pensioner or pensioners, whether man or woman or both husband and wife handing over his or her or their interest, whatever it may be, in the farm. So long as that is done in an irrevocable way, the means of the farm will not be assessed against that person or persons. It is reasonable to ask that to be done before the person or persons can be dissociated from the farm profits. They should divest themselves of their interest in it a legally binding way. Apart from anything else, that is good social policy. They can maintain the right of residence and maintenance in the home and that is assessed at a very nominal value, usually a shilling a week or £2,12,0 a year. Very likely, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, they have not in fact got any more rights on the farm than residence and maintenance and do not get any more out of it. It is a very considerable advantage to elderly people residing on farms to have the handing over of the farm accepted for old age pension purposes and I think rather than press me to do something more about this, Deputies should encourage old people to hand over their farms in such circumstances to their sons or daughters or nephews or other young persons residing and, in fact, working the farms.

Questions were raised in regard to the unemployment assistance scheme for small farmers and the new method of means assessment. This has in fact brought a large number of people into benefit who were not getting any assistance before and, to my knowledge, has not adversely affected anybody. I do not see why it should because there is a provision that anybody who finds the factual method of means assessment more favourable can opt to remain on that system. It was suggested that the assessment of £20 per £1 valuation is far too high. No doubt it is higher than the amount being extracted from these farms by many of the people concerned but at the same time, some thousands of new people qualified under this method of assessment who were ineligible when the factual method was applied.

That shows that this is not as excessive as some people thought because in fact people who were excluded on the factual basis can qualify under this method of means assessment. It shows that for the really industrious and efficient farmer at any rate, it is not too high. For one reason or another, a number of people are not extracting that amount from their farms but we have had only a short period of experience of this method of assessing means and I, certainly, would not be inclined to reduce the amount, at any rate until I have some considerably longer experience of its operation.

While dealing with unemployment assistance for small farmers, I should mention that one of the suggestions made by Deputy Carter, and which was supported by Deputy Reynolds, was that the practice of making Employment Period Orders should be discontinued. There are theoretical justifications for both the first and the second Employment Period Orders. I am not going to give them to the House again because I am not convinced of the force of these arguments at all. The one reason I will give for not abolishing the Employment Period Orders is that according to the latest estimate it would cost £590,000. Any question of spending more money on this aspect of social welfare has to be considered in conjunction with the claims of all other sections.

Mr. James Tully

Surely that argument assumes that all the people who are disbarred because of the Employment Period Order would in fact be unemployed over the period? That is the biggest argument the Minister has against it?

Mr. Boland

No. I can tell Deputy Tully that the officers of my Department are quite well able to take account of the number of people who would in fact get employment. At any rate the estimated cost is £590,000. I have not got that amount available and I do not know when it will be possible to consider stopping the practice of making Employment Period Orders. I suppose one effect of it is that it does encourage people whose own farms are small to take casual labour with larger farmers and to take whatever employment is available in these rural areas.

It was suggested by Deputy Tully that this new method of means assessment for unemployment assistance for small farmers should be extended outside the areas where it applies. The decision to do this was based on the fact that there are certain areas where the small uneconomic farm predominates and constitutes a separate kind of social problem which is peculiar to these areas, and the definition of the congested districts which we have taken for this purpose is the widest definition that is available.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister ought to go down to Mullagh, Moynalty, Kilmainhamwood or Kingscourt.

Mr. Boland

I know that there are pockets outside the boundaries——

Mr. Clinton

And pockets not far from where the Minister lives.

Mr. Boland

That is right, but how could you possibly define the congested districts except in some similar way to the way in which it is done now? You could not take pockets in County Dublin or County Meath——

Mr. James Tully

By joining the Cavan area, all of which is included outside. There is an argument for that.

Mr. Boland

The idea is that there are these large areas where this type of farm predominates and where it constitutes a special social problem.

Deputy Molloy raised the question, which has been raised before by way of Parliamentary Question, of people who are disemployed because of strike action taken by other people, not being eligible for unemployment benefit. As I have explained before the possibility of arriving at a more acceptable formula for this is under discussion with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the last discussions took place with them in 1964. Since then the Congress has been studying the situation and their further views are awaited. If we are to arrive at a more acceptable formula, it is desirable to get the views of the people concerned first before——

Mr. James Tully

Did the Minister say that he is awaiting further views from Congress?

Mr. Boland

I am awaiting their further views.

Mr. James Tully

Since October, 1964?

Mr. Boland

I did not say the date : since June, 1964.

Mr. James Tully

The ball was put into their court then and it has not come back. It is a long time coming back.

Mr. Boland

My colleague, Deputy Foley, referred to the position of the widow of a man who had been an insured worker for practically all his life but went out of compulsory insurance a few years before his death and did not avail of the opportunity to become a voluntary contributor. I think he is thinking of the same case as I am thinking of myself.

Mr. James Tully

We thought the Minister would know all about it.

Mr. Boland

This is a matter which is under consideration. The existing provision, whereby eligibility for a widow's contributory pension is based on insurance over the last three or five years, was originally intended to make it easy for a widow to qualify for the contributory pension, and of course it does that in the case of a widow of a man who became insurable only comparatively shortly before his death. It has, however, had the effect of excluding some people whose husbands had quite a long insurance record, and I agree that that is something which should be looked into.

The point which Deputy Dowling raised was raised last year in some of the discussions we had, that is, in connection with unemployment benefit for domestic servants. I undertook at that time to see what could be done in that regard. I am not in a position as yet to say whether or not I will be making changes in that sphere this year, but if we have a Social Welfare Bill, I suppose the matter can be discussed then. I thank the House for the manner in which they have discussed the Supplementary Estimate and ask the House to pass it.

Question put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.

Votes 6, 16 and 51, already agreed to in Committee on Finance, reported and agreed to.