Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Dec 1943

Vol. 92 No. 6

Children's Allowances Bill, 1943—Committee (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Norton

When the House adjourned on the last occasion this Bill was under discussion I was endeavouring to induce the Minister to recognise that Section 3 does not go sufficiently far and that under the section, as at present drawn, large numbers of persons who are existing on low wages or, in fact, who are endeavouring to exist with no wage income whatever, will be very severely penalised. I quoted for the information of the Minister cases of widows with two or three children where no children's allowance whatever will be payable. I also quoted for the Minister the case of a widow with three children whose ages are, say, 12, 14 and 16. That widow might have a non-contributory widow's pension of 8/- per week but, although she had three children who, in her circumstances, will be a very heavy liability on her, there is no provision whatever in the Bill which would enable such a woman to secure a children's allowance.

I was pleading with the Minister that the Bill should be amended by Ministerial action as it cannot be amended by an amendment from a private Deputy, so that, in circumstances of that kind, consideration would be given to the matter and steps taken to remedy what I think, in that respect, is a very serious blemish on the Bill. The Minister, in attempting to defend the section as at present drawn, quoted the types of relief granted to widows and to unemployed persons. But the Minister must be aware of the fact that in the rural areas—and that does not just mean in the townland districts of the country, but also the small towns which are not urbanised—widows with two or three children, who have widows' pensions under the non-contributory scheme, get no food vouchers whatever and do not get allowances of the kind to which the Minister referred on the last occasion that, in fact, they are driven to subsist on the small amount which they receive under the non-contributory section of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, supplemented by such small sums as they receive in the form of home assistance.

I pointed out on previous occasions, and I want to do it again in the hope of enlisting the Minister's sympathy, that under this Bill it will be possible for relatively well-off people to get a children's allowance, while agricultural workers and other lowly-paid workers will get no allowance whatever, that they will be penalised, notwithstanding their low wages, owing to the incidence of the ages of their children. I have a letter here which is probably typical of many that other Deputies have received and which is typical of a number which I have received, and I ask the indulgence of the House to read it so as to express the point of view of the ordinary person in the country who is expecting to get benefit under this Bill, but who will get no benefit whatever. This woman, who is a widow, writes:—

"With reference to the Children's Allowances Bill, it seems very unfair that the rich and well-to-do people will get this allowance. I am a widow with two children, aged nine and ten years, trying to exist on 15/6 per week. My children are very under-nourished, also myself, so much so that I am very much rundown in health from want and worry. I am never able to pay for meat, as it is. It is very little that one can get for 15/6 per week for three people, much less buy firing and clothing, etc. Now butter has gone up by 4d. per lb. The rich will get some benefit under this Bill, but why should I not get some benefit for my poor, hungry, fatherless little children? Such treatment is very unfair. If something is not done I do not know what will become of us. Why are such poor people like us, through no fault of our own, deprived of getting any allowance under the Bill?"

This woman tells just the naked truth—that so far as this Bill is concerned, though she has got two children, aged nine and ten, and the total income is 15/6 per week—she will get nothing at all. And yet, under the Bill, it is possible for a person with £6, £7 or £8 per week to get a child's allowance if that person has a third child, whereas a woman with 15/6 and two children and no bread-winner gets nothing. The Minister may say that it will cost a certain amount of money to bring in people of that kind. I think the House will be prepared to face up to the responsibility of bringing in cases of that kind. Our sympathy in a matter of that kind is to make that person eligible even if somebody has to be deprived of an allowance at some other end of the scale. The Minister, however, makes no provision to cover cases of that kind in the Bill.

As I said previously, that is a serious blemish in the Bill, and the thought that that poor person will be taxed through the medium of tea and sugar, and in other ways, to provide a children's allowance for fairly well-to-do people, makes it unfair in operation and conception. I would again appeal to the Minister, notwithstanding the urgency with which he wants the Bill, to take it back to the Government and endeavour to ensure that it will be drawn in such a way as to make specific arrangements for people who are in receipt of low wages and whose economic plight at the present time is simply appalling.

Mr. Cogan

I think, with Deputy Norton, that the Minister should seriously consider withdrawing this section. I believe the Minister, whether it was in his hurry to get this Bill through during the present session or for some other reason, has fallen into a very grave error in regard to the manner in which this family allowance is being distributed. I feel that it would be fairer to every family, fairer to the people who require this allowance to a great extent, fairer to the poorer sections of the people and fairer even to the large families, if the allowance was reduced even to the extent of extending it to all children. I do not see any reason why an allowance of say 2/- per child should not be made to every member of a family, and even if it were necessary to take one year off the age limit in order to make that possible, I would still be prepared to recommend it.

We take the family to which Deputy Norton has referred, and if my suggestion were adopted, that family would be entitled to an allowance of 2/- for each child. That would be 4/-. The result of that reduction would be that the very large family, the family to which the Minister has referred, a family of 16 children, might possibly suffer some reduction as compared with the present allowance; but when we consider the question carefully we will see that in the case of an exceptionally large family it might be desired that there might be a slight reduction in the total amount paid. Because the family to which the Minister referred would, under the present arrangement, receive about 35/-, but under the suggestion I have made they would receive 30/-. They would lose a certain amount, but on the whole the distribution would be more equitable. I think, on consideration, that the Minister will see that the number of families in which there are one or two children under 16 and who have been led to believe that they would benefit, and who now feel themselves deprived of the allowance—that in these families there is going to be very grave dissatisfaction. That dissatisfaction in a large number of families is going to give this Bill a very bad send-off.

On another aspect of the question, the Minister was very emphatic against dividing the family or interfering with the unity of the family in connection with the allocation of the allowance to the father in preference to the mother. But here in cutting off two members of the family completely, he is also dividing the family. He is creating a division among the children in the family. Take, for example, a family in which there are only two children. The mother of that family in the first place will feel very dissatisfied because she is receiving no allowance. Then, again, when a third child arrives, the tendency will be to treat that child as the favourite, as a privileged person, and to treat the other children as outcasts. I do not think that is desirable, particularly as the Minister has shown such an emphatic desire for unity in the family.

Again, in sub-section (b) of this section, we have the position in which the father can claim and draw this allowance. I do not think that the Minister had sufficient grounds for being so emphatic in support of that arrangement. He told us that any other arrangement would be contrary to the unity of the family, to the headship of the family by the father, and he went slightly religious in demanding the upholding of the Christian family unity. But in this as in other matters, the Government's right hand does not seem to know what its left hand is doing. Does the Minister not realise that in the case of a serving soldier an allowance is deducted from the soldier's weekly wages by the State and paid over to the soldier's wife?

Mr. Lemass

Only if the soldier elects.

Mr. Cogan

There is, so far as I know, no option given to the soldier in that matter. The allowance is deducted from his wage. It is not, as in this case, a gift on the part of the State. Portion of his wage is deducted and paid over to his wife, and if the Minister were to carry this principle to its logical conclusion, he would refuse to allow any allowance to be paid by the State to any member of a family other than the father. If we are to have this principle accepted, that all moneys must pass through the hands of the father of a family, it is illogical and wrong, from the viewpoint of the Minister's conception of Christian principles, that married women should be paid wages if they are in the employment of the State. I wonder would the Minister dare to implement that principle in relation to married women employed in his Department? Again, if that principle is to be enforced, that all moneys paid into a family must, so far as lies in the power of the State, be paid to the head of the family, then also persons living with their parents should not be permitted to draw their wages but these wages should be paid to the father. I do not think the Minister was on the sure Christian ground which he seemed to claim when he asserted that it would be wrong to pay these allowances to the mother.

I also raised a question in connection with boarded-out children. I think there is a flaw in the section in that respect, because so long as two children in each family are excluded from benefit, there will be a tendency to farm out children, or at any rate to make bogus claims in respect of children who may not actually be boarded out. Take the case of two families, in each of which there are two children. It would be possible for, say, Mrs. Kelly, to claim that Mrs. Murphy's two children were being boarded with her, and, as a result, that she has four children, and is entitled to benefit in respect of two. A mutual arrangement could be made between these two persons to divide the allowance. The section would, I think, be open to other abuses. In reply to a question by Deputy O'Higgins, the Minister mentioned that in the case of a person receiving as much as two guineas per week for the maintenance of a child, that person would be entitled to draw the allowance, and not the person paying the two guineas.

With regard to the provision that not more than one allowance shall be paid to families, I can see a difficulty arising where a widow dies and her children are transferred to her sister, or some other person, who is also drawing a family allowance. A week after these children are transferred, that person to whom the children have been transferred will apply to the local post office with allowance books in respect of her own children and also in respect of the children transferred to her, and if the postmaster wishes to observe the Act strictly, he must refuse one of these allowances. I can see a difficulty in that respect which the Minister should look into.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junior)

The Minister's announcement on the previous night that he intends to alter the section to provide that the qualification for payment of an allowance shall be based on residence rather than maintenance only aggravates the difficulty which I mentioned to him that night, and which has been lightly touched on now by Deputy Cogan. In the case of four children under 16 in one household, the family in the ordinary way is eligible for allowances of 5/-, but if for any reason that household becomes two households, each with two children, no allowance whatever is payable. The same would apply to almost any number of children you may take. If there are six children in a family, and two are transferred to another household, the total amount of allowances is automatically reduced by 5/- by reason of the provision by which the first two children are excluded. I think the Minister should give us some information as to what he intends to do to provide against that difficulty.

The converse is also true, as Deputy Cogan has mentioned, and it might be possible by a subterfuge to get an allowance which would not properly be payable. If there are two households, each with two children under 16, one child or two children could be transferred from one to the other and an allowance would be payable where formerly it was not payable. The Minister probably knows, and certainly every Dublin Deputy who is not a Minister knows very well, that the officers dealing with the allocation of tenancies in the housing department of the Dublin Corporation are meeting an ever-increasing difficulty in that respect. They have to be very much on their guard when they come to investigate the number in family of applicants for housing, against this borrowing of children, as these people term it. It is, as I say, an ever-increasing problem, and while, so far as housing is concerned, it is very hard to blame them because we can appreciate their desperate anxiety to get out of the rat-holes in which they live, if they were to resort to any such practice for the purpose of getting children's allowances, it would be a different matter. We would blame them then, but we shall have to blame ourselves very much more if we do not take steps to see that that temptation is not put in their way, and if we do not provide in the Bill some means —it will be very complicated, and I am not making any suggestion with regard to it; that is a matter for draftsmen—of ensuring that the temptation to transfer children from one household to another for the purpose of getting extra allowances will not exist.

Mr. Hogan

The points I want to raise may appear trivial in relation to some of the other matters which have been touched on, but they seem to me to be of some importance. I think that, in later years, this section will have to be redrafted and the Minister will have to come to the House to remedy some of the pitfalls which are in it at present. I should like to refer the Minister to paragraph (b) of Section 3 which more or less indicates a means test, under which people are to be penalised, not for having means, but for not having means. Let us take sub-section (4), and read it in conjunction with paragraph (b) of Section 3. Paragraph (b) says:—

"A child shall be a qualified child on the qualifying date in relation to a payment period for a region if, but only if, on the said qualifying date, the child was alive, and was ordinarily resident in the State, and was not detained in a reformatory or an industrial school, and was not permanently resident in any institution, the costs of his maintenance wherein are wholly defrayed by the governing body of that institution or are wholly or partly defrayed out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas or out of the funds of a local authority."

Now, that seems to me to be a very unjust provision, because you will find that in the operation of this Act a man with a wage of 30/- or £2 a week, who may find it necessary to send his child to the county hospital because that child is permanently incapacitated as a result, let us say, of infantile paralysis, pulmonary consumption, or some such disease, will not be entitled to an allowance in the case of that child, just because he cannot afford to pay, whereas a man with £200, £300, or even £1,000 a year, whose child is suffering from a similar disease, and who is sent to the same institution, will be entitled to the allowance simply because he can afford to pay for the maintenance of his child in that institution. In other words, the man with £300 or £400 a year will receive the 2/6 allowance in respect of his child, whereas the man with 30/- or £2 a week will not receive it. That seems to me to be totally unjust. Anybody who knows anything about conditions in Ireland will know that anybody who has to keep one of his children in an institution, and who cannot afford to pay for the maintenance of that child in the institution, is more in need of the 2/6 per week in respect of that child than the head of a household who can afford to pay for the maintenance of his child in the institution. Surely, that is a means test, and, surely, it is a means test that is going to act very adversely against the people whom we wish to help under this Bill? Does not the Minister realise that as a result of this, a child in a sanatorium might be brought out of the sanatorium in order to qualify for this half-a-crown a week, with all the terrible results that might accrue from that? There is no good in telling me that the head of the family would be getting the payment twice over. He would not, because, whether he was being paid from the funds of local authorities or national funds, his case would have to be submitted to a means test. We are told by the Minister that there is no means test in this case, but it is obvious that there must be a means test applied in such cases as I have referred to, and I think that that is quite wrong.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer again, even at the risk of appearing stupid by reiterating it; that is the case of a man—a citizen of this country—who, being out of this country, marries an alien, is killed in, let us say, an air raid, or who dies from disease: does that alien woman, because of her marriage, become a citizen of this State, and, if so, does she qualify for a children's allowance on her coming to this country? I put that question to the Minister before, and I am putting it to him again now. These may seem to be small points, but I suggest that, in the accumulation, they will be big points when it comes to the question of the administration of this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

I am not quite clear as to the point Deputy Norton was trying to make with regard to this matter of a means test. The Government, in preparing this Bill, decided to have no means test applied. We decided not to introduce a means test—and for three main reasons. The first of these reasons was the desire to eliminate anything in connection with these children's allowances that would be suggestive of charity. It was decided to ensure that the payment of this allowance to any family should not be regarded, under any circumstances, as a badge of poverty. We felt that if the financial arrangements would justify it, this allowance should be regarded as an allowance to which every family in the State should be entitled, irrespective of their position in society.

The second reason for this was the desire to avoid an inquisition into the affairs of every family, which the institution of a means test would necessitate. If we are to have a means test, then that necessitates an examination of the means or income of every family in the State. It would mean that the means or income of every family in the State must be investigated officially and determined accordingly. It is obvious that the operation of a means test would involve that. We, however, desire to avoid that, because everybody recognises that such an inquisition would be a source of irritation to the people concerned. Now, I had assumed that the decision of the Government to avoid the imposition of a means test would have got general approval in the Dáil, but if I interpret Deputy Norton's speech correctly, it seems that he does not approve of that decision, and that he would prefer to have a means test imposed in order to ensure that the well-off people would not be entitled to get this allowance. I am rather surprised at his attitude in that connection, since it is the idea of the Bill to make this allowance available to everybody, without any means test being applied.

Mr. Corish

That was not the purport of Deputy Norton's remarks.

Mr. Keyes

Deputy Norton did not say that.

Mr. Lemass

Well, if that was not the purport of Deputy Norton's remarks, then I do not know what they meant.

Mr. Keyes

It would appear to me that the Minister did not use his intelligence in interpreting Deputy Norton's remarks.

Mr. Lemass

Well, at any rate, the use of intelligence by Deputy Norton in this House is not usual. The fact that this Bill does not provide a means test does not mean that every family in the community is going to benefit equally under the Bill, assuming that their circumstances are equal. I have already informed the Dáil that, in connection with this Bill, it would be necessary, in one way or another, to amend the income-tax code, and I pointed out that in the case of some income-tax payers it might mean that they would lose more than they would gain under the Bill. In the case of other income-tax payers, it is quite true that they will gain something in consequence of the enactment of this measure, but in so far as most people in the income-tax paying class are concerned, they do not benefit. Whatever certain of these people may gain in the one way, they will lose in the other, and, therefore, it seems to me to be pointless for Deputy Norton to speak of the case of an agricultural labourer with 30/- or £2 a week, and compare that with the case of a man with an income of £1,000 a year. It seemed to me that that was the point Deputy Norton was making, but if, however, it was not his point to urge the payment of a children's allowance only to people in the lower means scale, then it must be that there was a fundamental difference to be found in the case of the families of agricultural labourers as compared with the families of other people. The Deputy gave illustrations. He did not compare families according to different sizes or ages. He compared dissimilar families in such a manner as to suggest that the families of well-off people would get children's allowances while the families of agricultural labourers would be penalised. To use his own words, he said, in effect, that under this Bill, it will be possible for relatively well-off people to get a children's allowance while agricultural workers and other lowly-paid workers will be penalised, notwithstanding their low wages, and will get no allowance whatever, owing to the incidence of the ages of their children. That is not true, and everybody here knows that it is not true. We are providing allowances for the children of all families, irrespective of means. We provide that the better-off family will not benefit to the same extent as the less well-off families by means of the reduction of benefits under the income-tax code, but in so far as Deputy Norton appeared to argue that, because of a difference in the age structure of the family of an agricultural labourer and that of the family of a wealthy person or any other class in the community, there was a discrimination, he was completely wrong.

In fact, the reverse is so. An examination of the census statistics will show that in the rural areas there is a higher proportion of children under 16 compared with urban areas. It is also true that of children over 16 a much higher proportion are occupied in rural areas than urban areas. Deputy Norton seems to suggest that the remedy is to raise the maximum age. There is less cause for doing that in rural than in urban areas. If, however, I am assured by the Labour Party that Deputy Norton was not arguing in favour of a means test, I find it hard to know what he was getting at. If what he says is in this Bill or in some section, that no one else has seen, and that it is apparent to him that an agricultural or some other class of worker will get less under similar circumstances than any other class, then he is completely wrong.

Mr. O'Leary

If I was an agricultural labourer, I want to point out——

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Minister gives way.

Mr. Lemass

Very well.

Mr. O'Leary

If I have three children, one girl aged 16 and two others under 16, I would not get any benefit under the Bill, while people who do not need benefit are catered for.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy was an agricultural labourer, or a multimillionaire, it does not make any difference. If he had three children, only two of whom are under 16, he would not get children's allowance. It is not because a man is an agricultural labourer that he does not get benefit, but because he does not qualify in respect of the number of children.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Is it the drafting is wrong?

Mr. Lemass

No. One reason why there is no means test in the Bill is because the imposition of a means test would not enable the allowance payable to be increased within the same sum. As I pointed out on the Second Reading, if we had a means test to exclude the better-off people from the benefit of children's allowances, we would have to set up an organisation to carry out an investigation of the means of families, of such a size and costing so much money that it would be cheaper to pay the allowance to everyone without investigation, and make the reduction in the income-tax allowance to which I referred.

If we did as Deputy O'Leary suggested, established a means test, and set up such an organisation, we could not increase the allowance, because the total cost would be so great that nobody would get more, except the larger number of civil servants that would be employed administering it. We want to keep down the cost of administration. We want to extend to the maximum the proportion of the total sum that will be paid to families and not in administrative costs, so we devised this scheme of operating. It is completely wrong to say that a well-off family in the income-tax category is going to benefit by this Bill to the same extent as families in other categories. It is completely wrong to say that they will benefit to a greater extent. They will not benefit at all. It is quite true that a person with only two children under 16 will get nothing. This Bill sets out to assist large families. I tried to make that point clear every time I spoke. It is true that the widow with two children, to whom Deputy Norton referred and whose letter he read, does not benefit under unemployment assistance, under unemployment insurance or a whole lot of other social services, because she does not qualify, and because these various measures were enacted to assist persons of another class. In this Bill we are setting out to assist people with large families—not small families —and we propose to take from the taxpayers this year a large sum of money in order to augment the incomes of larger families. Deputies must know that it is not designed to help small families.

Mr. O'Leary

They are nobody's children.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is wrong there. We are helping small families if the bread-winner is unemployed, and we also help them if he is in bad health. Under the Widows and Orphans Act a widow with two children is receiving assistance from public funds. Deputies may say that that is not enough, but if they are to be helped to a greater extent that must be done by an amendment of the Widows and Orphans Act. Under this Bill we set out to deal with a different category of persons, with those whose necessitous circumstances are due entirely to the large families that they have to maintain. That is also the answer to Deputy Cogan who said "Give 2/- to every child".

If we were to do that we would double the cost of this Bill. To give 2/- to every child would involve an extra £2,000,000 over and above the £2,250,000 that we have to raise for this Bill. I think it is impracticable — Deputy Larkin does not agree—in normal circumstances to contemplate the provision of £4,000,000 for this service. Deputies must remember that every £1,000,000 we add to the cost of these services decreases our ability to extend the provisions we make for necessitous persons in other services. I know that Deputies in the Labour Party talk of pensions of £1 at 60 for old age pensioners, that they would double unemployment assistance, double benefits under the National Health Insurance Act and ignore the cost, but a Government that has to recommend to the Dáil taxation to the maximum amount cannot ignore that in the same way. In so far as the amount that the taxpayers of this country can provide for social services is limited, every increase we effect in the cost of these services limits our power to extend other services, some of which are dealing with want of a more urgent kind than that for whose mitigation this Bill is designed. I do not think we should give children's allowances for all children. I think if we do so we are departing from the primary purpose of the Bill, and doing something which in our circumstances is difficult to justify. The money we are going to give out is not going to come from a secret hoard under Government Buildings. Time and again I have had to point out to Deputies that the money is going to come from all the people in this country. We are going to take this money from individuals clearly and definitely. They will pay out that money in one form of taxation or another into the funds from which these benefits will come. I think we are justified in going to the citizens of this country and asking them to pay £2,250,000 extra taxation in order to minimise the want created by such an economic system as ours among families above the average size.

But there is no good in going to a taxpayer and asking him to take money out of one pocket and to put it into another. Not merely would he gain nothing, but he would lose the cost involved in transferring it and no gain to the community would result. If we are going to augment the income of all families, it is the heads of these families who will provide the money for doing it. We are justified in helping to minimise the causes of want against which we have no provision, the want created in large families by the inability of the average wage to meet the requirements of large families. That is what we are proposing to do, and that is all. Deputies may criticise that, so far as their opinions go, but do not criticise the Bill because it is not doing something which it does not set out to do. We are not setting out to deal with any problem except the problem created by large families.

Deputy Cogan raised the question of the payment of the allowances to mothers. The law places on the father the obligation to maintain his family. If that law requires amendment, let it be amended in so far as Deputies think it necessary to provide that a definite proportion of the family income should go to the mother. If there are fathers who do not provide adequate support for their families, that problem is surely not confined to the type of families to benefit under this Bill. It is a more general problem, and you are not dealing with that problem by providing for the payment to the mother of a particular allowance contemplated in this Bill. This allowance is payable to augment the family income. If Deputies want to regulate the family income, let them propose a measure of general application. Do not try to do it piecemeal by an amendment of this Bill, do not confine your reforming activities to the families assisted by this Bill and ignore the others. Personally, I promise that at every stage of it it will have my most vigorous resistance. I think the less we interfere with the management of individual families, the better it would be for the community as a whole.

Deputies have referred to the possibility of bogus applications. That possibility is recognised and some people will get away with bogus applications for a while. That is one of the reasons why we have drafted the Bill to provide for regulations. We realise that these regulations may have to be tightened up and revised as successful evasions come to light. Like Deputies who spoke, we have visualised various types of fraud. We must try to frame the regulations so as to eliminate the possibility of these frauds being successfully continued. If, in the course of the working of the Act, we find something that is not covered, we will amend the regulations. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the Dáil. He is responsible for its efficient and effective administration, and if Deputies can show that the wrong people are getting the allowance or are not getting it, then they are entitled to call the Minister to account here.

Deputy Hogan raised the question of the provision which debars from calculation for the purposes of allowance children who are permanently in institutions, towards the cost of whose maintenance the parents make no contribution. I think that is perfectly fair. It does not apply to a child in hospital—it applies to those permanently in institutions.

Mr. Hogan

I quoted two cases which the Minister can examine for himself, a child recovering after an attack of infantile paralysis or of tuberculosis. These children are excluded.

Mr. Lemass

But if the family makes no contribution whatever towards maintenance, there is no case for recouping the family for the child's maintenance. The only type of case we are proposing to eliminate is where there is no contribution of any kind from the family to the child's maintenance. I do not see justification for taxing people to give that family an allowance for a child in respect of whom no contribution is paid. That is the only type of case excluded. The Deputy used the words "wholly or partly". It is only in cases of children in permanent institutions, the cost of whom is wholly defrayed from public funds.

Mr. Lynch

"Wholly or partly" is the expression used in the Bill in sub-section (3) (b), Clause 4.

Mr. Lemass

"Wholly defrayed by the governing body."

Mr. Lynch

Look at sub-section (3) (b), Clause 4, page 5, line 17.

Mr. Lemass

"Where the cost is wholly defrayed by the governing body of that institution or are wholly or partly defrayed out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas ..."

Mr. Hogan

"... or out of the funds of a local authority." Look at line 21 and line 22.

Mr. Lemass

I have told the Deputy what the position is.

Mr. Hogan

Let me read for the Minister line 10, paragraph (b), on page 5:—

"A child shall be a qualified child on the qualifying date in relation to a payment period for a region if, but only if, on the said qualifying date the child——"

And now paragraph (4):—

"was not permanently resident in any institution, the costs of his maintenance wherein are wholly defrayed by the governing body of that institution or are wholly or partly defrayed out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas or out of the funds of a local authority."

I think that is plain English.

Mr. Lemass

I will have the question examined. The intention is that there will be no children's allowance paid where a family make no contribution at all to the maintenance of a child. That may mean some elaboration of the section. It is drafted there from the point of view of the institution. If you consider the question from the point of view of a family, it will be easily understood—it is only where a family make no contribution that no allowance will be paid. Deputy Hogan raised another question——

Mr. Hogan

The alien woman.

Mr. Lemass

He also raised the question of the non-national who marries a national. I looked up that matter since he mentioned it, and the position is that a person not of Irish nationality does not acquire citizenship here under our Nationality Act unless he or she applies for it.

Mr. Hogan

That is what I thought.

Mr. Lemass

That applies equally to the case of a man or woman. Up to the passage of the Nationality Act, the law was different, but on the principle of equality of rights as between men and women, the same principle was established for both under that Act. The position is, therefore, that a person not of Irish nationality with a family not of Irish nationality coming into this country cannot qualify for allowances without two years' residence. We are only going to tax our people for our own citizens. We are not going to provide children's allowances for the citizens of other countries. If a family comes to take up permanent residence, there is an obligation on us to give them the same facilities as our own nationals, but a person coming for a temporary stay on the qualifying date would not be entitled to draw these children's allowances. It is only people of our own nationality or persons of other nationality permanently resident and established here who are entitled to these allowances, subject to their satisfying the condition that they must have been two years here before the date.

Mr. Hogan

Will the Minister consider the position I put to him? We have 100,000 of our nationals in England. We have some people in foreign armies. These people will marry non-national girls in these countries. Some of them will get killed on active service or in air raids. There will be families, but because of the marriage of a non-national woman to a national, the children will not be entitled to allowances. The natural thing for these people to do is for the woman to come back to the father's people taking with her the three or four children. They come back here, yet because she is a non-national, that woman bringing back the children of an Irish citizen will not be qualified.

Mr. Lemass

That is quite right. Why should we undertake the obligations of another country?

Mr. Hogan

But they are the children of an Irish national?

Mr. Lemass

Surely the obligation is on another country?

Mr. Hogan

They are forced by circumstances to emigrate in search of employment they cannot get here. Our citizens marry non-nationals, and they bring back practically an Irish family and they get no consideration, only to be thrown on the rates. I think that is a big flaw in the Bill, and I think the Minister knows it in his heart.

Mr. Lemass

We are only going to limit the liability for paying this taxation to our own citizens and the money will be for our own citizens. The Deputy asks us to look for power to put into the Bill a clause which puts upon us the obligation to pay for children who are not our own, immediately they arrive in the country.

Mr. Hogan

But surely out of 100,000, we do not consider ten or 20 aliens?

Mr. Lemass

Put down that amendment and we can talk about it.

Mr. Hogan

I could not do that because it would increase the cost. Again, I would put it to the Minister that some of these people will get married in England and surely they are Irish citizens, even if they live in England. They desire to return. They do not discard their Irish nationality; they are entitled to come back and they come back with Irish families.

Mr. Lemass

If the father comes back he will be entitled to the allowance.

Mr. Hogan

But he cannot come back if he is killed. If he dies and his wife comes back with his children they are to get no consideration. I think it is unjust.

Mr. Lemass

I think we should confine the liability of our people to our own citizens. Other people can look after their citizens.

Mr. Hogan

But they are children of Irish nationals?

Mr. Lemass

How far back will you go?

A Deputy

When the war is over they will all be back.

Mr. Benson

I raised a point on the Second Reading of the Bill to which the Minister replied but he did not reply to another point. This matter arises not on this Bill but on the Finance Bill which will come up in May, and I do not know if I am entitled to go into it now. The Minister, I take it, is in favour of large families but, apparently, from what it is intended to have done under the Finance Bill, he is only in favour of large families if they are in the lower income grade. In the higher income grades he is definitely going to penalise persons with large families and the larger the family the bigger the penalty. Under the proposed amendment of the income-tax code, the parents of the large families are going to suffer. Admittedly, the loss is not very big—£1 per child—but this Bill is introduced in order to benefit the parents of large families, as when you get up to a certain figure you are not left as you were but are worse off than before this Bill came in. Not only are the men and women who are not married at all going to provide increased taxation but the parent with a large family is going to pay it and, in addition to that, he is going to lose per child because the reduction under the income-tax code will exceed the amount received for children's allowances. Against all that, he has to go to the trouble of making claims for allowances, and to get weekly payments which, under the present circumstances, he gets by way of allowance without trouble.

Mr. Lemass

The intention was that the adjustment of the income-tax code would recover the exact amount of the allowance, but the Deputy will appreciate that it is not possible to do it with mathematical precision. The reduction, by £20, of the allowance in respect of children under the income-tax code will, in the case of persons paying the full rate of tax, at the present rate, mean £7 10s. per child, whereas the children's allowance will be £6 10s. That situation will change if the rate of tax is changed and it is, perhaps, better to have the round figure of £20 rather than a sum involving shillings and pence, which might become a nightmare for income-tax payers.

Mr. Benson

Is it reasonable that the parent of a large family, who happens to pay the higher income-tax rates, should pay more than another person earning the same money but having a smaller family? His disability is going to be greater. That does not seem reasonable to me. The larger the family the greater the liability, because you are losing £1 per child, and the more children you have the more pounds you lose; the person on the same income level, but with a smaller family will not suffer the same disability.

Mr. Lemass

The larger the family the less tax you pay.

Mr. Benson

The less tax you pay because your expenses are greater. I am arguing that what is proposed to be done is that the larger the family, the greater actually is your penalty in comparison with somebody having the same income and a smaller family.

Mr. Hughes

Is not what Deputy Benson states true, that the larger the family the greater the penalty—that where there is a large family, a man is penalised to the extent of £1 per child? It may be that because of the income-tax code he gets concessions, but if this Bill did not come into operation he would have another £1 per child. The Minister says that it would not be well to make calculations on the basis of shillings and pence. If there is to be a fine adjustment, why not give the benefit to the man's family?

Mr. Lemass

The person paying income-tax at the half rate will gain £3 10s. a child.

Mr. Hughes

What is the amount that will be recouped by the State so far as the adjustment of the income-tax code is concerned?

Mr. Lemass

Roughly, £100,000.

Mr. Cogan

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the case of a person who has a genuinely boarded-out child—a person paying for the maintenance of a child to another person. Under the section it is the person actually maintaining the child who is indicated.

Mr. Lemass

We are going to change that. It will be "residence with", with proof of maintenance, unless the contrary is shown. "Residence with" will have to be the main qualification.

Mr. Benson

May I take it that before the Finance Bill is introduced the Minister will consult with the Minister for Finance on the point I have raised?

Mr. Lemass

I think I made it clear that I was not trying to commit the Minister for Finance to the proposal. The aim is that the income-tax paying class will not gain, that the amount they get by way of children's allowances will be compensated by a reduction of the allowances for children under the income-tax code. I suggest that will be done by reducing the allowances for children by £20 a year. While the income-tax is 7/6 in the £, it means that a person paying a full rate of tax will lose a little, and the person paying the half-rate will gain. The reduction in the allowance for the person paying the full rate of tax to avoid any loss would be something like £17 10s. 0d., or some odd amount which would be particularly objectionable in the income-tax code.

Mr. Norton

Is the contemplated reduction applicable to the third child?

Mr. Lemass

It is only in respect of children qualified for the allowance that the amendment of the income-tax code will be made.

Section 3 agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 9, to Section 4, in the name of Deputy Davin, is not being moved, apparently.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. Hogan

Has the Minister considered the point that has been made, whether it would be desirable that the two sets of officers should be under the control of the one Department—that is, the investigating officers and the deciding officers? Is that a desirable arrangement?

Mr. Lemass

The section states that they will be appointed by the Minister. It may be assumed that the officers who will be appointed will be officers who are already discharging similar functions under other Acts.

Mr. Hogan

Under other Acts of this kind?

Mr. Lemass

I should say that the deciding officers under the Widows and Orphans Pensions Act, for example, will also be deciding officers under this measure. I would not like to say definitely that they will be the same individuals until the dimensions of the problem are investigated, but I think it may be taken that where possible they will be the same individuals who hold similar appointments under other Acts.

Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 agreed to

SECTION 11.

Mr. Norton

My amendment reads:—

In sub-section (1), page 7, lines 48 and 49, to delete the words "or, in case such person is dead, the personal representative of such person".

I put down this amendment because, to use the vernacular, it seems to be a bit thick to get after the legal personal representative of a person who may, through some accident or other, have received in error a children's allowance during the lifetime of the person who should be the recipient. If the State, through an error, happens to pay the allowance in circumstances under which——

Mr. Lemass

This is only where there is fraud established. This sub-section relates only to a case where there is fraud established.

Mr. Norton

It is not clear.

Mr. Lemass

Section 9 (4) (b) relates to the revision of an award where there has been an error.

Mr. Norton

It is not clear under Section 11 that that is the only circumstance under which the Minister could recover. It seems to me that under Section 11, if the Department made an error in the calculation of the allowance or the duration of the allowance, the Minister might, if the recipient died, take steps to recover the amount overpaid from the legal personal representative. That seems to me an unnecessarily petty power for the Department to claim. I think if the State pays money in such circumstances, pays it by obvious error or through some unavoidable mistake, it had better cut its losses and be cheerful about the thing. To take power to pursue the legal personal representatives seems to me something that is very petty and something that in actual operation will probably cost much more money than you would ever get in that way. However, if the Minister assures me that it is only intended in cases of fraud I am satisfied.

Mr. Lemass

That is the intention. In fact we have framed the Bill to ensure that there will in fact be no recovery of money got in error or amounts got through misstatements of facts without fraudulent intent. In such cases the revised reward will only operate from the date on which the decision is given. It is intended to have power to recover in cases where fraud is established. There is no means test in the Bill and it is clear we should have this power because we will be dealing with people who would have no difficulty in paying if fraud were established.

Mr. Norton

If it were intended to get money back where money was paid in error, well and good, but I do not want to see some unfortunate recipient die and the widow find that some soulless individual is looking for 2/6 or a few shillings that was paid in error after the bread-winner has died. I take it, it is only intended to exercise this power in cases of established fraud.

Sir John Esmonde

To whose satisfaction is fraud to be established?

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has power to recover, as a civil debt due to him.

Sir John Esmonde

Who is to decide whether fraud has been established?

Mr. Lemass

It is to be decided in the court.

Amendment not moved.

Section put and agreed to.

Sections 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Dr. O'Higgins

I move:—

After paragraph (a) (iii), line 9, page 9, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

(iv) the payment of home assistance.

I think the meaning of this amendment is very, very plain. In this particular section the following are excluded from being reckoned as a means for purposes of children's allowance: old age pensions, unemployment assistance and widows' and orphans' pensions. I suggest that we add to that payments made by way of home assistance. I do not know whether the Minister will have any objection to that or not. The Minister has outlined in this debate that the Bill is designed to help large families. I expect that when the Minister says that the Bill is designed to help large families he does not exclude the large families of the most destitute people. I think it is beyond question that the poorest people are the people who have to maintain families on home help—the poorest of all. If the Bill does not specifically exclude allowances made under this particular section the home help supervisor is bound by the terms of his appointment to take into account every source of income going into the household. If old age pensions were not excluded they would be taken into account if there were anybody in the house getting the old age pension. If this particular amendment is not accepted it will mean that the lot of people dependent on home help will not be worsened by the Bill, but it will not be improved to the extent of ½d. per week. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the kind of guiding headline that directs the home help supervisor and his assistant in issuing home help. Every source of income going into the house is reckoned up. In the case of most boards of health there is a kind of capitation rate aimed at. Sufficient is given out of the rates through the medium of home help to reach that capitation rate. If there is an allowance of 5/- per week coming into a family for two children, then as far as I am familiar with the regulations and practice the amount of home help must be reduced by 5/-. I do not think that that is the intention of the Minister or the intention of the Bill, but as the Bill stands at the moment unquestionably if some provision is not made in this section to exempt home-help inspectors from reckoning up children's allowances as means they would be bound to do so, and the amount of home help going into the house will be reduced commensurately with the amount of the children's allowance.

Mr. Lemass

I think the fact is completely contrary to what the Deputy said. My only objection to the amendment is that it means nothing. There is no means test in the administration of home assistance but there is a test of need. The section says that the income from children's allowances shall not be reckoned as means for the Old Age Pensions Act, the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act because under these Acts there is a limit of means beyond which payments are not permissible irrespective of the need or even though in some cases a family may need the money. It is not a means test in the case of the home assistance authority, but there is a test of need. The obligation on the local authority as I understand it is to provide for the person who, by his own industry or other lawful reason, is incapable of providing the necessaries of life for himself and for his dependents.

That person may have means, and the local authority take into account the extent to which he is capable of providing the necessaries of life, and they supplement that capacity by their contribution. There is no obligation on the local authority to exclude these and there is no Act prohibiting them from paying home assistance if the means are found to reach a certain point, or compelling them to pay home assistance if the means do not reach a certain point. The obligation of the local authority is to take into account the need of the applicant. A similar section to the amendment was inserted in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, but in fact it made no difference in the administration of home assistance. It could not. I do not know why that amendment was inserted except that the Minister after a good deal of argument gave way to the point of view that if it could not do any good it could not do any harm. If Deputies want to press this amendment I want them clearly to understand that it is not going to make the slightest difference to the Bill or to the administration of home assistance.

Dr. O'Higgins

I take it the Minister is speaking with greater authority than the rest of us in dealing with this Bill, but I am also entitled to assume that when he is talking about the administration of home assistance, he has less experience than many. It is not a case of what the law is. It is a case of what the precedent is and of what the practice is.

Mr. Lemass

The point I want to make is that it is the law that matters. Even if we were to insert the proposed amendment in the section, the local authority could still adjust its help to the needs of the family. We may tell them to leave out of account the amount received by way of children's allowances, but we cannot ensure that they will do that because their help is related to the needs, and not to the means, of a family.

Dr. O'Higgins

We can ensure it. A home help supervisor may be working in a particular area. His board, with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government, has laid down what they consider a reasonable weekly capitation rate for a human being, whether adult or child. The Minister says that there is a difference between a means test and a need test. There is, to some extent, but there is a point at which they both mean the same thing. There is an obligation on the supervising officer to reckon all sources of income to a household. If it reaches a certain capitation figure, he can make up the deficiency of 1/- per head per week out of home help funds and then, let us say, the figure arranged between the Minister and the board of health is reached.

Let us take the case of a family which is receiving 3/- per week by way of home help. They are 3/- a week below the standard weekly income, and there are two children qualified under this Bill. An extra 5/- a week goes into that house. The income of the house passes above the old standard figure, and the home help must be reduced accordingly. That is the practice.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy wants to continue the payment of home help at the old rate?

Dr. O'Higgins

When the home help supervisor is reckoning the means of a household, I want, by law, to prevent him from reckoning children's allowances.

Mr. Lemass

The Government has no power to compel the local authority to pay home help in any particular case.

Dr. O'Higgins

I am not going to argue whether they have power to compel a local authority to do so or not, but no power to compel will be required if it is laid down in this Bill that these allowances are not to be reckoned as income for the purpose of home help.

Mr. Lemass

I have no objection to the insertion in the Bill of the sub-section which appears in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act—Deputy Norton's amendment is taken from that Act—but it cannot possibly make any difference.

Mr. Norton

The Minister is not speaking with experience of the administration of home help when he says that the insertion of that provision did not make any difference in the case of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. When the Act came into operation, certain people were receiving home help. They then became entitled to a certain amount in respect of widows' and orphans' pensions. Let us assume that a widow receiving 5/- in home help got a non-contributory pension of 5/-, which made 10/- a week. In many cases, the moment the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act came into operation, the home help officer came along and said: "You had 5/- a week heretofore; you are now getting 5/- from the State. I propose to discontinue the 5/- you are receiving as home help." I, personally, and many members of the Kildare County Council, fought successfully to have the home help continued, after the 5/- pension was paid, because of the provision in the Act to which the Minister has referred.

Mr. Lemass

It may have been a guide.

Mr. Norton

One might as well ask some home-help officers for a blood transfusion as ask them for home help. It is extremely difficult to get such help from them and, now that their position is fortified by county managers responsible to nobody, the situation will get worse. What I want to ensure is that, if a poor woman receiving home help for herself and a couple of children, obtains benefit under this Bill, the home help officer will not come along and say that, because she is getting 5/- from the State, she must lose the 5/- which she was receiving from the local authority. I want to put that woman in a position to say to the home-help officer that he cannot interfere with the home help because of the receipt of children's allowances inasmuch as the Legislature was desirous of raising her standard of living to a higher level than she would enjoy if the home-help officer were allowed free play in respect of his financial powers. I want to give these people as much as we can and I do not want to have children's allowances calculable when measuring the need for home help.

Mr. Lemass

If it will ease the minds of Deputies, I am prepared to accept Deputy Norton's amendment, but I want to make clear that it will not affect the position of the local authority in the slightest. There is no law by which the local authorities can be compelled to pay any definite sum. We are not putting such an obligation on them by the enactment of this provision. Their obligation is to relieve need and, in determining what constitutes need, they are entitled to proceed upon whatever basis they think fit.

Mr. Norton

Would not the Minister desire that the local authority should not use the State allowances under this Bill to force down the amount of home assistance at present paid, especially when there is no means test under the Bill? Otherwise, we may talk for days and nights about helping large families to provide for themselves. If local authorities are to be allowed, in the case of a woman who has been in receipt of 10/- home help and who gets 5/- by way of children's allowances, to take 5/- from her and leave her still in receipt of 10/-, this Bill will not be of much service to her. If the local authority is paying 10/- to a woman to maintain herself and a couple of children, and if the purpose of this Bill is to increase the income of large families, the Minister ought to say definitely that, so far as the Government is concerned, that woman should still continue to receive the 10/- plus the 5/- she will receive under this measure. If the local authority is allowed to deduct from its payments the amount received by way of children's allowances, the families affected will be no better off than they were and you may pass a thousand Bills of this class without improving their position. I thought that the Minister would be anxious to see that, when the State paid allowances under this measure, the local authority would be required to discharge whatever liability it had prior to its enactment.

Mr. Hughes

So far as the law is concerned, I agree with the Minister that the obligation of the local authority is to relieve need and that they have to decide whether or not destitution exists. I do not think that you can compel local authorities, by the insertion of this amendment, to do what they do not desire to do but it is desirable that it should be inserted because it will indicate to those authorities the mind of the Legislature.

Mr. Lemass

I have no objection to accepting the amendment provided Deputies understand what the effect will be.

Mr. Hughes

I agree with the Minister that we cannot compel local authorities to do as suggested.

Mr. Lemass

I should be prepared to accept Deputy Norton's amendment which is in the form prepared by the Parliamentary draftsman.

Dr. O'Higgins

Then I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment by Deputy Norton was agreed to:—

12. To add a new sub-section as follows:—

In granting relief otherwise than in an institution to a person in receipt of or entitled to receive a children's allowance under this Act, a public assistance authority shall not take into consideration any such children's allowance payable except so far as such children's allowance exceeds 5/- per week.

Question proposed: "That Section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I should like to learn from the Minister whether it is the intention to assess the income of 2/6 per week for children to income-tax.

Mr. Lemass

It is not intended to do so but that is not a matter which arises under this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 13:—

To add at the end of the section the following words: "provided that a delay in payment of the children's allowance has not been occasioned by a dispute as to the person entitled to draw same".

I put down this amendment to meet cases which may possibly arise in respect of any dispute that could arise as regards the person entitled to get the payment of the children's allowance. Various instances have been mentioned here as to the right of the person to get it. Now in the event of the death, say, of the father—or the mother, if she is getting it—and some question arose as to who is entitled to draw, possibly before that would be resolved a longer period than three months would elapse.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think the amendment is necessary. The wording of the section is that "a sum shall not be paid on account of a children's allowance if payment of the sum is not obtained within three months after the date on which it has become payable". It, of course, becomes payable when entitlement is established. If there is a dispute as to entitlement it does not become payable until the dispute is settled. If there is a dispute subsequently as to entitlement it will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 9, which sets out the procedure to be followed, either by those responsible for the administration of the Act if they want to question the entitlement of a person in consequence of new facts that have come to light, or by the persons themselves if they want to have an adjustment made by reason of the fact that they did not get the full amount that they were entitled to. That is all provided for there, and the machinery is set out providing the dates as from which, and the circumstances in which, an increase or a decrease in the allowances would be paid. If, as a result of a re-examination of title, it is decided that they should get more, then they will get that additional amount retrospective to the date on which it is determined in their favour. If it is determined that they will get less, then they will get less from the date on which the decision is communicated to them. The operation of the section is entirely in favour of the recipient. If he is entitled to more, he gets it retrospectively, and if it is less he gets it for the future.

It is clear, therefore, that the Deputy's amendment does not apply in so far as the three months' provision is concerned. It only begins to run when all questions of dispute have been settled and entitlement is established. If there are other questions which arise subsequent to the determination of the amount, then they are settled in accordance with Section 9.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister permit me to bring in this type of case? This Bill will be brought into operation next year. There will be claims for allowances under the Act. I think it will be necessary to establish, for instance, on the part of a father that he is in fact married.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Norton

And that the children are his own, surely.

Mr. Lemass

No. The children need not necessarily be his own. The circumstances often arise where a parent dies and the child may go to live with his grandmother. Proof of maintenance is "residence with".

Mr. Norton

Do I understand that it will not be necessary for any applicant for benefit under the Act to produce either a birth or a marriage certificate?

Mr. Lemass

A birth certificate, yes.

Mr. Norton

There may be considerable difficulty in getting a birth certificate due to the way in which the child may have been registered at the time of birth. That is a frequent difficulty. It was experienced under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. If there was some delay in a case of that kind in getting a certificate, but subsequently the certificate was produced, would the delay occasioned through such circumstances militate against the payment of the children's allowances from the date upon which the person would normally have been entitled to the allowance if a certificate had been forthcoming in the first instance?

Mr. Lemass

From the date on which the claim was made—not necessarily the date on which they would be entitled to the allowance.

Mr. Norton

Supposing a person makes a claim for an allowance and it is necessary to produce evidence of birth——

Mr. Lemass

I will read the section:—

(b) where by virtue of the revised award or decision a children's allowance will cease to be payable or be reduced, it shall take effect

(i) if made or given owing to the original award or the original decision having been made or given by reason of any statement or representation (whether written or oral) which was to the knowledge of the person making it false or misleading in a material respect, as from the date on which the original award or the original decision took effect.

Mr. Norton

I am thinking of the commencement of the operation of the Act. It begins next year. Claims are made and it will be necessary to produce birth certificates in respect of the children. Some difficulty in producing these birth certificates may be experienced, because of some defect in registration, or because the child was not registered. It takes a good while to get a matter like that cleared up. Is it contemplated in Section 9, linked with Section 18, that if it takes four months to establish the claim and to produce the necessary evidence, that Section 18 will operate then? In other words, that a sum shall not be paid on account of a children's allowance if it is not obtained within three months after the date on which it has become payable.

Mr. Lemass

It may happen that somebody may not claim at all in respect of children who would otherwise qualify. We cannot cover all cases. It may happen that somebody even after the enactment of this Bill will not have their attention drawn to it. We do provide this—that if a person claims either a child's allowance, or a children's allowance at a higher rate than he or she was actually awarded, then the payment of that allowance, or the payment of the allowance at the higher rate, will be made retrospective to the date on which the application for the revision of the amount was made, or the date from which the original decision upon the person's application was first given if it provides for an increased amount.

If as a result of inquiries by the Department it appears that a lower amount should be paid, the reduction will not be retrospective. It applies only to the future. There will be no repayment of an amount paid in excess in the past, We cannot, however, deal with persons until they claim under the Bill. It is only when they claim the children's allowance that the machinery begins to operate in respect of it. If a person claims a children's allowance, and subsequently gets paid at a lower rate than he or she was entitled to, that person can, on the production of new facts, establish his right to a higher allowance and get a higher allowance as from the date of the original award.

Mr. Norton

And there will be no three months' limitation?

Mr. Lemass

No. That is merely designed so that people when they get their book of vouchers will not hold them for months or years without cashing them. It is considered that the family who does not bother cashing the vouchers in three months will not be in very great need of them, and that the average family for whom the allowance is needed will, in fact, cash the allowances more frequently than that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

This Bill, so far as it has gone is a permissive Bill—it is open to a person to apply or not to apply for a children's allowance. Consequently, a person claiming income-tax or surtax is not bound to apply. Is it intended to bring in any clause to make it mandatory in respect of any section of the people or the people generally?

Mr. Lemass

To apply?

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. W.T. Cosgrave

Well, it remains a permissive measure.

Mr. Lemass

It may be possible—I cannot say definitely without examining it—to provide for payment otherwise than by means of vouchers where the case is made for payment in that manner, but generally, the intention is to have a uniform method of payment.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Report Stage ordered to be taken on Thursday, 16th December.