I was under the impression that the confines of this debate were very limited and, because of that, I propose to deal with the matters contained in the measure before the House. I shall be as brief as possible. One would never have thought that the headlines in the evening papers on the day the first Budget was introduced here, saying 5/- increase for pensioners, would turn out to be 5/- per week for a very limited number. In fact, the increase in pension, as I read it, applies only to those who are destitute. Who can fit into that category? I do not know. I thought I knew until last week when I found the Minister here in the House defending the action of one of his officials who ruled that a woman who had a cottage in which she lived on her own, and a garden which she was unable to till, and out of which she could get no use, had an income of £3 per year. From what the Minister said earlier, I assume now that that lady is not destitute and she will not therefore qualify for the 5/- increase. That is just one case. I am sure there are literally hundreds all over the country in the same position.
While it is a good idea, I suppose, according to the Minister to confine this to those who have nothing, the Minister must, I think, be referring particularly to those who live in rooms in this city and in the big towns because he will catch out nearly everyone else, if he wants to, as being in receipt of an income of some kind. The fact that this increase will not be paid until 1st November next is something that should never have become a practice in this House and it is a practice which should be changed forthwith. It is no answer to say that I belonged to a Government in which the same practice applied. It has applied apparently all down through the years.
One thing I can never understand is that civil servants, and others, who get increases in salary never experience any hesitation on the part of those responsible for paying them in getting those increases backdated not only for a year but, in some cases, for a year and a half while an unfortunate old age pensioner gets 5/- but five months ahead. I do not say that in denigration of civil servants, and others, but if the principle can be applied to those with substantial incomes, then it should be possible to apply the same principle to those who receive very little.
There have been a number of changes suggested and I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies. It is now proposed in certain conditions to allow domestic servants and female agricultural workers to draw unemployment benefit. But the Minister proposes a qualifying period of ten years in the case of these people. Would he explain to me why this is being done? It is a pity he was not in the House this morning when we had a lecture from Deputy Dillon on our classless society. Domestic servants and female agricultural workers earn very small wages and, according to the powers that be, they are in the low-caste category. Yet, they are told that they will have to wait until they have ten years stamps before they qualify for unemployment benefit. Anybody else can qualify, if under a certain age, with 26 stamps. If they are over the age, they can qualify with 156 stamps.
Surely the Minister will agree it is ridiculous to introduce an entirely new category? Most young people who take up domestic service and the few who go into agriculture do not as a rule remain, or intend to remain, indefinitely at that particular type of work. They may get married after five, six, or seven years while still in their early twenties. If they have a spell of unemployment in the meantime, despite the fact that they have paid for their stamps, they will not qualify for unemployment benefit.
I do not know what mean-minded person thought this up. I am prepared to say the Minister would not be responsible for doing something like this. Someone who had domestic service difficulties must have decided that this was one way in which to ensure that domestic servants would not be able to draw unemployment benefit and would, therefore, have to go around looking for another job, or starve. That is the position as it stands. It is just too bad, when the Minister did decide to bring in something, that he should decide it in such a way. Before the Bill is passed, I would appeal to the Minister to withdraw his ten years qualification and agree that domestic servants and female agricultural workers are human beings and as such entitled to draw unemployment benefit if they qualify for it in the normal way.
There has been an increase in the stamps. The percentage increase for voluntary insurance is rather high but there is not much quarrel with it. Insured workers, once they know the money they are paying will go to improve benefits for their fellow workers, never complain, even when a substantial increase, such as the increase of 1/5d per week this year, takes place. They accept that as necessary. In the case of domestic servants and female agricultural workers, they will have the name and the Minister will have the gain.
Reference was made to the fact that £268,000 was saved as a result of the British Labour Ministry agreeing, after many years, that those who qualify for pension in Britain and return to this country can continue to get increases in their pensions in the same way as they would, had they elected to continue living in Britain. We are very glad to know this matter has reached finality and we are very glad to know that such pensioners will at least have parity with those in Britain but we did not know that the Department of Social Welfare proposed to take this £268,000 and put it into their coffers to ensure that these people would be at the loss of the amount of increase in their British pension. I know the Minister can say that the regulations are there and what applies to one must apply to all. That may be so. At the same time, this is a let down which the Minister must feel. After all, we are not so badly off for money that we have to rob to the extent of £268,000 the "kitty" of the Department of Social Welfare.
A question that arises again and again is that of those persons who apply for pensions on the grounds that they seek to have their husbands presumed dead. Maybe many of the husbands would be glad if they were presumed dead. It seems to me a bit peculiar that somebody who disappears out of the country and is missing for as long as 30 or 35 years cannot be presumed dead and that the unfortunate deserted wife is still left in the position of being a grass-widow and as such has no claim to any benefit from the State. Perhaps the Minister would look into this. I want to pay this tribute to him. In his relatively short time in the Department, he has introduced a number of modifications in the code, some of which, I am sure he will not deny, were suggested from these benches. But he did at least consider them and have them attended to fairly quickly. I am grateful to him for that. This is another matter we feel could be improved upon.
I wonder whether the Minister has considered the situation when the last Budget was introduced compared with the situation now? Does he still think that, apart from the group covered by this Bill, other social welfare recipients will be in the same position as they were before the introduction of the first Budget this year? Surely it must be obvious to him that, although it appeared the cost of living was remaining static for a considerable time, it has now started again on its upward trend and the 3.5 or 3.9 points it had gone up early this year is likely to double before the summer season is out. Does the Minister not think some effort should be made now to compensate those on fixed incomes who cannot help themselves but who must try to live on what they get from the Department of Social Welfare? It may cost a lot of money but nobody will deny our first responsibility should be to those who cannot help themselves.
It often strikes me dealing with trade unionists throughout the country that we do not seem to have the realisation that the worker of today is the pensioner of tomorrow and that the pensioner of today was the worker of yesterday. If that could be brought home, we would probably have a different attitude entirely to this whole question of retirement pensions and old age pensions.
Deputy Ryan referred to the fact that some countries abroad pay very much higher pensions. One of our troubles here is that our unemployment problem is so great. If we had full employment —I hope we will have it some day, although it does not look like it now— naturally from the income we got from their stamps and employers' stamps, together with what we would save in not having to pay them unemployment benefit and assistance, we would be able to increase very substantially the pensions and benefits other social welfare recipients require.
One of the things that has surprised me when dealing with non-contributory old age pensions is this. An estimate is made by the investigating officer of the income of the person. If that person has earned £300 the previous year, the officer will blandly put down the income as £300. It requires a lot of explanation to point out to him that, if the person stopped work, naturally the income is not £300. On one occasion I had the experience of trying to persuade a man who had got it into his head for some peculiar reason that the money the applicant had got the previous year was still in his possession. It was a considerable time before I could shake him sufficiently to agree that the person concerned had to buy food, fuel and clothes and pay his rent so that the money was going week by week. This is a rather annoying thing which occurs from time to time. Perhaps the Minister might pass the word to anybody still carrying out that sort of investigation and persuade him to drop it as quickly as possible.
With regard to the contributory old age pension, as I said before, it was an excellent idea to introduce it. The only thing I cannot understand is that occasionally we have a delay for which there seems to be no reason at all. I had a case where I made an application with all the necessary documents three months ago on behalf of an old man. There was no question about his age. Not alone was he over 70 but he was 79 years of age. He had a full insurance record all his life up to the age of 79. Do not tell me how he succeeded in getting a card stamped for the past nine years. He was employed by the Office of Public Works as a mason. How a man of 79 could go up on top of an old castle and do repair work beats me, but I understand he was an excellent mason. Since that application went in, there has not been one cheep from the Department, good, bad or indifferent. His birth and marriage certificates were sent in. He has no family depending on him now. I checked his insurance record myself. I am satisfied he would qualify for a full pension, but apparently the people in the Department are not so satisfied. That is one of the annoying things in an otherwise very well run Department which cause a certain amount of trouble.
Usually when speaking on this Department, I pay tribute to the Minister's officials. He himself I seldom bother. I believe he has enough to do without having the ordinary day to day worries of the Department put on his table. But where I feel an unsatisfactory decision has been given, I have no hesitation in going to the Minister and on every occasion I found him ready to have the matter investigated almost immediately. His officials—maybe all civil servants are the same if one is dealing with them as often as I deal with the officials in this Department—appear to be very decent people. Very often complaints arise simply because correct particulars are not given. I should like to pay tribute to the indexing department of the Minister's Department. If one is applying for an old age pension, it is very important to ensure that the correct information is obtained. I find that by giving an approximate age, name and an approximate address, in a matter of minutes the full particulars of the insurance record can be obtained. This is an excellent service of which I do not think everybody is aware. It should be publicised more. Perhaps it could be included in the Department's document SW4 which the Minister brings up to date from year to year.
Recently I came across a case where a person was working for five or six years full time, and became ill. As far as he was aware, and as far as he is still aware, his cards were fully stamped each year. However, when he made application for disability benefit, he was surprised to find that one card was blank. I do not know how this could happen but I imagine the Minister's investigating officer would be on the job pretty quickly to find out why that card was blank. The result is that the benefit has been held up, although everybody outside who was dealing with the cards seemed to be under the impression that the cards were fully stamped. It may be due to an error, but it does impose a considerable amount of hardship on the unfortunate person concerned who cannot get benefit until the matter has been cleared up.
In this regard could the Minister not consider, as he intends to do under the new Industrial Injuries Bill, where somebody has the normal qualification for insurance benefit, and where such a failure as this occurs in the stamping of the card, having the payment made to the person concerned? There is nothing so annoying to a man with a family who falls ill as to discover that he may have to wait for six, seven or even ten weeks to elapse before the matter is cleared up. I know a person can apply for some assistance, but people in country districts, particularly, are very proud and do not want to ask for home assistance if they can possibly avoid it. There is nothing wrong with applying for it but they feel it is not the thing to do. If the Minister is prepared to provide under the Industrial Injuries Bill that the State would pay and recover from the employer, I do not see any reason why it should not be done in this case and why the employee should suffer simply because somebody has been negligent. Occasionally it happens that the error is in the Department—I say only occasionally—but no matter who is responsible, the employee should not suffer as a result. If a person does not receive benefit because the card is not stamped, the State should recover the amount involved. This thing of leaving it to the person to recover the amount himself is a lot of cod. The State should recover it, and that would solve the problem.
In regard to the Industrial Injuries Bill, Deputy Ryan said that £4 10s a week was a very small sum. Probably he did not know that if somebody has a family, he can get social welfare in excess of £4 10s, but it is very much smaller than what is to be got under the Industrial Injuries Bill. Would the Minister give us some idea as to when he proposes to bring this Bill into operation? If a date is not fixed, I can see a great deal of trouble arising. If the Bill becomes law before the insurance which people have taken out with insurance companies in respect of workmen's compensation can be terminated, there will be a great deal of trouble as to who should be liable for the payment. The Minister ought to make up his mind. It is long enough since the Commission was set up originally by Deputy Corish. It is long enough since the Commission put in its report, and it is long enough since the matter was first discussed in this House. I know there were amendments and that the Bill has only recently passed through the Seanad, but there has been too much delay on it. If the Minister could give us an approximate date for the operation of this legislation, it would relieve many people's minds.
In regard to blind people, I believe they should be treated in a special way. It may be all right around the cities and towns where these people have an organisation to look after them, but when one goes out to the country districts. one often finds a blind man or a blind husband and wife who have no one to help them. They do not get as good value for the little money they have as the person with sight. The sightless person must accept everything he is told. He depends on other people's advice and often that advice is not so good. The State should try to improve the position of blind people and give them very much more than they are getting at the present time.
