I am talking about the scheme as it is operated at the moment. It is designed to meet a particular case. It is the case of the person in good insurable employment who has to give up that employment to take care of a parent and who, for that reason, does not qualify for unemployment benefit because she is not available for work. There are people who give up insurable employment, draw unemployment benefit for as long as they can and, by doing so, certify that they are capable and available for and generally seeking work. Then they apply for benefit in respect of a parent, pointing out they are not available for work because they have to stay at home. Now they cannot have it both ways. This is a detail, but it shows the type of problem that can arise. This scheme meets the case of the person precluded from qualifying for unemployment benefit because she is tied to the home looking after a parent and does not fulfil the qualifications necessary for benefit.
This initial toe-in-the-door effort is very valuable and could, I think, lead ultimately to the promotion of a better scheme. But there are so many things that are desirable one just has to get one's priorities right from the point of view of making the necessary finances available.
Deputy Harte raised the case of bankrupt employers whose employees discover that their stamps have not been paid up. They have no redress. These cases should be a warning to all employed persons to ensure that their cards are being stamped correctly. There is certain action open to such employees and to the Department but, as has been explained frequently here, there are also cases in which there is just nothing to be got.
Many speakers referred to the three waiting days. I have answered questions on this matter recently. One of the things which justifies these three days is the frequency with which we would have people getting occasional days now and again. The short-term applicants would increase if we did not have this waiting period. This does not hurt the intermittent applicant for benefit. In his case, unless a period of, I think, 13 weeks has elapsed, there are no waiting days and so the inconvenience, if any, is minimised in those cases which might be most adversely affected.
Deputy Harte referred to free travel, free electricity and free television and radio licences. He could see no merit in them. All he feared—he was, of course, talking politically—was that people might attempt to claim credit for providing these facilities; he said it cost nothing to have them carried on the buses; nothing to give them free electricity and nothing to provide them with free television and radio licences because all the bodies involved were State sponsored. That is so much nonsense. The services are paid for. The free travel is a very useful amenity because it enables old people to go out and visit. I am glad the facility is availed of to a considerable extent. It is an excellent scheme. It will cost a good deal; it is not just a book transaction as far as we are concerned. It will be paid for by the taxpayer ultimately. The same is true of electricity and television and radio licences. All these schemes are movements in the right direction, towards doing things for the older people among us, things which extra money granted to them would not give them. I should like to see more of this type of assistance.
Deputy Harte referred to a specific case in his home town. Other speakers also raised specific cases. I should like them to write to me giving me all the details and I shall have them examined to see if anything can be done. We will always have marginal cases. That is inevitable in any scheme. So long as there is a means test there will always be marginal cases. I do not think there is much one can do at the moment to eliminate such cases.
Deputy Tully dealt with the things he would like to see improved. He paid tribute, I am glad to say, to the officials of my Department. It is very easy for all of us to indulge in attacks on faceless people who administer schemes. It is not often we hear tribute paid to them. They are not infallible. They may make mistakes. Sometimes we have not enough of them to do the amount of work that has to be done and we have to suffer the occasional embarrassment of unnecessary delay, but 99 times out of 100 there is just cause for any delay that occurs.
Deputy Tully had a complaint, which he said was referred to him by an ex-employee of the Department, regarding a file dealing with an old age pensioner being given to another Minister or shown to another Minister. I can only say quite frankly that I cannot equate what he said with anything I have known to happen in the Department in my time. I do not see anything wrong in any Minister of any Government, at any time, having the right to see any file in any Department. I hope that will always be the case. Frankly I was never asked by any member of the Government to show him a file on an old age pensioner.
Old age pensions are decided by appeals officers who have statutory functions, and interference with them by Deputies on any side of the House so far as I am aware is nil. Even if it were not, interference would be ineffective. Deputies have the right to put forward cases in support of particular claims and to give information they may have which others may not have had. I can neither confirm nor deny this complaint because I have absolutely no knowledge of it. If the Deputy were more specific about it, it might recall something to my mind that would make the cap fit. At the moment I cannot.
Deputy Tully raised a number of matters which are well known to be what might be called minor anomalies. I was disappointed that he did not refer to some of the matters about which he used to complain. We have tidied them up in recent times. Nearly every year when the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is before the House, we take the opportunity to correct some of the things which we learn about in the course of the administration of schemes which are part of the social welfare code. These all go to solidify and co-ordinate a system which, despite what anyone says, I think is the superstructure of a good social welfare code, on which any Government can continue to build, to expand and to improve. It is a superstructure which is well laid, and it is not a lot of ad hoc decisions or piecemeal schemes as some people would suggest. I could submit it for examination to anyone who is inclined to make these remarks or allegations quite glibly, or perhaps after a superficial examination of the system.
Deputy Murphy referred to access to appeals officers. I do not know if anyone has any particular privilege in regard to appeals officers. I should like to refute this. When people write to me, if there is information they can give which has a bearing on the case, it is brought to the attention of the appeals officer if and when he is deciding the case. Deputy Murphy, this year as well as last year, dealt with something which I often talked about in this House particularly when I was on that side of it and, indeed, on this side too, that is, the question of providing employment for unemployed persons. I do not know if the Deputy would believe how deeply we have examined that problem in the Department. I can only say it is a very difficult problem and one which it is not as easy to solve as he suggested.
Deputy Murphy suggested that this money should be used to provide factories or industries, and that there should be more co-ordination and liaison between Departments in order to provide work for these people. The people receiving these benefits are scattered all over the country in different places and, unless we start an employment camp of some kind and bring them all into it, it is not as simple as the Deputy suggests. There are small pockets here and there from Cork to Donegal, and the amount which they are receiving would, unfortunately, play a very poor part in establishing an industry which would be suitable for their employment. The whole basis in dealing with the social services must be the provision of employment, and the provision of suitable employment is not always easy for particular age groups. That must be perfectly obvious to everyone.
Deputy Crotty referred to specific cases also. He has a question down for answer tomorrow. Again it is a question of delay. I will not go into it because it is an individual case and the name is supplied, but I can assure him that, if he went into it very accurately, he would find that there are good reasons why it was not merely difficult but practically impossible for a speedy decision to be taken in that case.
Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to a number of specific cases also, all of which I think he said he had brought to our attention already. One related to free electricity for a sister and brother living together. The brother is an old age pensioner. I should like to remind persons who may have that type of problem that this is a case that could qualify if the sister's care is essential to the brother with whom she is living. However, in this case the Deputy made it clear that the brother was a very active man, even more active than the sister. He also advocated pensions at 65 years as did most Deputies. I will deal with that in a general way later on.
Deputy O'Connell was highly dissatisfied with the approach of the Department to the whole question of giving social welfare benefits. He said we were pursuing a Victorian plimsoll line approach to these matters. I should like to point out again that we should understand that we cannot apply just a humanitarian approach. Deputy Lyons suggested we should be flexible and sympathetic in our approach. The people who go out as investigation officers and who are in any way concerned with compiling the necessary information which leads to a decision on qualification must necessarily be guided by the statutory regulations which we in this House have laid down for them. It does not permit of a personal decision however one may be motivated by a desire to help and to have a humane approach and however one's conscience might be likely to react.
Hard and fast rules are laid down for the application of a means test and, while we have a means test, we must ascertain whether a person is qualified or not. In order to do that, I am afraid you cannot avoid having a certain approach and asking for certain information. It may be that in their approach some of these officers are not as courteous as they should be but, by and large, they are usually regarded as people who observe all the necessary courtesies. Indeed, any instruction or training they have in that respect is towards making their approach in the proper manner.
They go there to help the applicants, although people sometimes feel they go there to hinder them. The idea that they are out to prevent people from getting what they are entitled to is wrong. They are there to learn if the person is qualified according to the regulations. Even where the means test does not apply there are other regulations and qualifications. You do not get benefits in any country in the world just as you go to a railway station and buy a railway ticket. You have to satisfy certain conditions about your contributions, about your medical condition. You do not march up to the hatch and say that you want your benefit because you are ill. We must have people who know these regulations to see that the applicants qualify under them. If they do not get the proper information the first time they have to go through the matter again and again and then delays occur.
Deputy O'Connell questioned the medical qualifications of these appeals officers. They have available to them the advice of the medical referees who are men well qualified and accustomed to dealing with cases of every kind. They may resort to obtaining specialist advice if that is found to be necessary. To those who criticise this system I would say that sympathy and social conscience are not the things which guide an official, however much he would like to use this yardstick. He must obey the statutory regulations laid down for him by this House. If we can relax the regulations and completely abolish the means test then we can go knocking at the doors of the people and asking if there is anyone inside who wants social benefits.
Deputy Treacy at the beginning of his speech complained about the cost of the social welfare stamp and then finished up by proposing that there should be all contributory benefits and that all should be made to pay for the benefits to those who are not employed. I would like to see everybody contributing so as to be able to operate a system similar to that operated in other countries where they have 100 per cent employment insurance but we have a big assistance section directly financed by the Exchequer. We have a relatively small number of insured persons and in that situation the social welfare burden is relatively a very heavy one. Deputy Ryan was making comparisons about the lack of progress made by us and I went to the trouble to obtain figures which show that we are paying one-fourth of our total tax revenue in social welfare, which is not bad. I think it is excellent. The remarkable increase in the last ten years, as I have frequently said, is the greatest assurance of our catching up in the near future with many of the other countries operating this insurance system.
Deputy O'Hara from the west of Ireland, defended what is commonly known as the dole, or unemployment assistance. He is in a position to know a few things about it. Sometimes unfair criticism is made of this system. When we applied the means test to small farmers it was done for the purpose of enabling a small farmer to qualify for unemployment assistance and at the same time not to regard this unemployment assistance as a disincentive to operating his holding to the best advantage. In the past we were accused of putting a premium on laziness and on doing nothing because it was pointed out that if a small farmer improved his holding he would lose the unemployment assistance. Under the new system any extra income accruing from the better management of the holding, the selling of a few more cattle or an increase in tillage, does not affect the amount of unemployment assistance of which the smallholder is in receipt.
This is a step in the right direction. Deputy O'Hara rightly pointed out that the smallholder or the rural recipient of unemployment assistance who spent it on his children or on the provision of the necessaries of life for his family spends it with the shopkeeper. So there is a circulation of money which is very necessary and which has been a great help in maintaining at home many people with large families who otherwise would have had to leave. Like Deputy O'Hara, I make no apology for this and I entirely agree that it provides an essential circulation of money in areas where people who criticise the system would be very slow to go to live at all. I think that covers most of the points made by the various speakers.
