Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1960—Committee and Final Stages. – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Tuesday, 12 Jul 1960

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, lines 7 to 10, to delete "Where a person who is in receipt of a pension takes up residence, after the commencement of this Act, in Northern Ireland, payment of the pension may, notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (a) of section 5 of the Act of 1911" and substitute "Where a person who takes up or has taken up residence in Northern Ireland was, immediately before the commencement of such residence, in receipt of a pension, payment of the pension may, notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (a) of section 5 of the Act of 1911 but subject to paragraph (b) of that section,".

The amendment is to cover the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition when the Bill was before the House on Thursday last.

Mr. Dillon

I appreciate the way in which the Minister has met this point. I think his amendment adequately covers it.

Mr. Dillon

Does Section 7 now confer on the Minister a discretion in cases of peculiar hardship to extend the time within which beneficaries may recover their pension when, through some oversight, they fail to recover? The class of case I have in mind is where a person deposited the children's allowance book with a third party to collect the children's allowance and credit it to his account.

Mr. MacEntee

This relates only to the old age pension.

Mr. Dillon

I see.

Mr. MacEntee

In lines 22 and 23, it says "paid on account of a pension".

Mr. Dillon

Is there anything analogous in respect of other benefits payable under the Social Welfare Act?

Mr. MacEntee

The widows——

Mr. Dillon

This is the point I want to raise. The book was deposited with a third party and collections were made legally. When the book ran out, the authorised third party simply never applied for the next book and the collection stopped. The beneficiary thought that the authorised person would have renewed the book and continued the collection and did not discover for 18 months the failure of the authorised third party to collect the children's allowance.

Mr. MacEntee

If we get into the question of children's allowances, which does not arise under this section, we shall get confused completely.

Mr. Dillon

I do not wish to raise anything irrelevant. This extends the time at the Minister's discretion where a person can claim back and renew within the limitation of six months?

Mr. MacEntee

No. The position at the moment is that within three months, the Minister may direct it be paid. We are extending that term to six months. We are prolonging the term within which the Minister may give a direction that the pension should be paid. That is all. At the moment under the 1911 Act, the period is three months. We are extending that to six months.

Mr. Corish

May I raise a question? I do not know what is meant by paragraph (b) of Section 5. Does it mean that where an old age pensioner goes to visit relatives on a holiday in England, he or she can be absent up to a period of six months?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Corish

That has got nothing to do with this?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

It is illness, sickness or inability to collect.

Mr. Corish

I was under the impression one could——

Mr. MacEntee

The pension was not payable if one left the State and went to reside elsewhere.

Mr. Corish

Even temporarily?

Mr. MacEntee

The period of six months is a little more than is generally connoted by the word "temporary".

Mr. Corish

Would this be the appropriate section on which to have that clear?

Mr. MacEntee

There is another section coming. There is the one, in fact, which we have just passed— Section 6. Under Section 6 a person may wait as long as five years.

Mr. Corish

That is only in Northern Ireland, of course.

Mr. MacEntee

That is true.

Mr. Dillon

At least we might find out what Section 7 means. The Minister should not get impatient. Perhaps we are not very good at the pick-up.

Mr. MacEntee

Section 7 says:

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of section 5 of the Act of 1911, in any case where the Minister, or an officer authorised in that behalf by special or general directions of the Minister, so thinks fit and so directs, a sum may be paid on account of a pension at any time within six months after the date on which it has become payable.

The operative words there are, first of all, "notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of section 5 of the Act of 1911" which limits the time within which the Minister may give a direction to three months. Under this section we are extending that period to six months.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister ought not to become impatient. I do not wish to be in any way discourteous. The Minister is fortified with a brief; I am not. What I want to know is: what is the subject matter of the direction contemplated? What is the Minister giving a direction about?

Mr. MacEntee

About the payment of an old age pension.

Mr. Dillon

I understand that a person becomes entitled to an old age pension if found qualified and ordinarily the Minister will notify him that he has been found to be entitled to an old age pension as of the date of the original application. That is usually two or three months earlier than the date the award was made. I never knew of any limitation on that. I seem to recollect that they got more than three months' arrears. Does this section give the Minister some power with regard to that?

Mr. Kennedy

It is there already.

Mr. Dillon

You can only get three months' arrears.

Mr. MacEntee

No, the pension must be collected within three months after the date on which it becomes payable.

Mr. Corish

Yes. This extends it to six.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Corish

Then, may I pose my question again: a person need not draw the old age pension within the period of six months——

Mr. Kennedy

Is it not obvious that a person may fall sick and due to that fact not be able to draw the pension? Say the person was four miles from a post office and did not like to ask the neighbours to collect it. I have seen that happen. Then during the months December, January and February, that old person would not draw a pension and the Minister would have to direct that the payment should be made. Now the period is being extended to six months. That is altogether apart from the original claim.

Mr. Corish

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Now, I understand.

Mr. Kennedy

In the original claim, it often goes for perhaps a year.

Mr. Corish

Now they can apply up to six months.

Mr. Dillon

I submit with great respect that the original point I was trying to make is a legitimate point. The Minister is extending the period for which an old age pension can fall into arrears and still be recovered by the pensioner by his direction, if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances surround the case. Is there anything irrelevant when dealing with this Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to ask, if the Minister intends to do this in respect of old age pensions, would he not consider extending this power to other analogous payments? If it is right to meet the problem of an old age pensioner who does not collect his pension regularly for good reasons, then if there is a case of a person who is drawing a widow's pension, or a person who is drawing children's allowances, would it not be quite justifiable to extend the time generally for such people? Analogous circumstances can arise and I am prepared to concede that it is reasonable to fix a general time limit in respect of the encashment of old age pension orders, and children's allowances and other orders, and that after that date these orders will be deemed to be out of date. If special circumstances are brought to the attention of the Minister in regard to any of these social security payments, should he not have discretion to allow them to be revised and——

Mr. MacEntee

Surely it does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Why not? This is a Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

The Leader of the Opposition is not such a greenhorn as he pretends to be. If he turns to the interpretation section——

Mr. Dillon

Am I to be blamed if I miss the Minister's customary courtesy?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy may be enjoying himself but he is also wasting time. The operative word in Section 7 is "pension" and if he turns to Section 1 he will see that the word "pension" is defined as meaning a pension under the Acts which are further defined as the Old Age Pension Acts 1908 to 1960, and as I am a stickler for order and relevancy, I hate to hear the Deputy talking about children's allowances under this section.

Mr. Dillon

I seem to miss the Minister's customary courtesy.

Mr. Corish

There is special legislation for children's allowances.

Mr. Dillon

We may not agree about procedural matters but our experience and knowledge are strictly comparable, when I am dealing with a Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill——

An Ceann Comhairle

Children's allowances are not included.

Mr. Dillon

——which deals with, if you go back to Section 1, the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 and 1960, and the pensions under the Acts. I simply do not know what the Social Welfare Act, 1952, relates to but I do know that in the Bill we are dealing not only with old age pensions but unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and a variety of other matters relating to the Social Welfare Acts. The only point I am trying to raise is this: if in respect of old age pensions, which is one part of the general social welfare code, we have found by experience that it is desirable to extend the period in which the validity of old age pension warrants can be revised, would the Minister review the procedure in relation to payments made by him on foot of orders of this kind with a view to seeing whether it might not be desirable to extend a similar concession to other payments under the social security code? In addition to that, it is proposed to extend the payments under the old age pensions chapter of that code. I think it is a very relevant point and to tell the truth, I think the prudent approach of the Parliamentary Secretary would more closely approximate to my approach than the temperamental reaction of the Minister.

Mr. Corish

I should like to get something clear from the Minister and perhaps he can answer all these questions together. I have often asked this question and I must confess I do not know the right answer. An old age pensioner, a mother, for example, is invited to Britain for a holiday, as many of them are. If she goes and if her stay extends over three months, she will be in trouble over her weekly dockets. If she goes there and stays for six months and becomes ill for six months, as many of them do, has the Minister now power to allow payment to her in respect of the six months period when she was in Britain? If she goes now and returns within three months, I think she may collect her old age pension for the three months. Is it now proposed to allow her to collect it?

Mr. MacEntee

Not automatically, but if she can produce to the Minister facts which would indicate that there would be hardship, then the Minister may direct, as he normally does.

Mr. Corish

Or illness?

Mr. MacEntee

Or illness.

Mr. Corish

Does that include widow's non-contributory pensions?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Did the Social Welfare Act, 1952, contain any reference to children's allowances?

Mr. MacEntee

No. They are covered by a separate Act. I think it was the Act of 1944.

Mr. Corish

Children's allowances stand on their own.

Mr. Dillon

There was no change made in the rates?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Corish

It was a separate Bill.

Mr. Corish

I think I asked this question on the Second Stage. Does this section provide for the payment of part of the pension or some other assistance allowance to a relative?

Mr. MacEntee

No. I would be very strongly opposed indeed to that. This pension inures to the inmate of a mental institution and the resident medical superintendent can, if he likes, for the purpose of providing comforts, appropriate part of the 10/- out of the amount normally payable to the mental hospital authority or as the law now stands, the health authority.

Mr. Corish

The health authority can appropriate some part of it. Is that right?

Mr. MacEntee

An amount not exceeding 10/-.

Mr. Corish

Suppose the patient cannot handle the money?

Mr. MacEntee

It is not payable at all.

Mr. Corish

Might I say again—and I am sure it is relevant since we are dealing with the 1952 Social Welfare Act—in a case where sickness benefits are paid to an inmate of a mental hospital, there should be provision for the payment of part of the money to a relative.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not a very happy situation in general. There is not any assurance in a case where a benefit exceeds 10/- ——

Mr. Corish

The Minister is leaving it to the discretion of the R.M.S. Surely the majority of relatives are good and surely if they got that money, they would bring comforts to the patients which they would not ordinarily get. Perhaps the Minister could have the power to do that by regulation if he thought it desirable, as in some cases it will be at the discretion of the R.M.S.

Mr. MacEntee

I doubt if I could deal with that situation by regulation. After all, we are legislating on this matter and no power is given to the Minister for Social Welfare to vary the terms of subsection (2) of this section. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the administrative end of this matter much better than I do.

Mr. Dillon

Might I put this point? I agree with the principle of this section, but what I am concerned to ensure is that the purpose of the section will be faithfully served. Subsection (2) provides that the Resident Physician and Governor may "in his absolute discretion, pay to the person for his own use such portion (not exceeding ten shillings per week) of the pension as he considers proper in the particular circumstances, if, in his opinion, the person is capable of making proper use of the portion so paid".

We are dealing with a very difficult and delicate situation. We must bear in mind that in a mental hospital there are a good many patients and it is not in the power of the R.M.S. to give his personal attention to the use made of every 10/- allowance that may be available under this section of the Bill. Suppose the R.M.S. forms the conclusion that the person concerned is not himself capable of making proper use of the 10/-, is the section wide enough to allow the R.M.S. to use the 10/- for the benefit of the patient by purchasing tobacco, sweets, or some other comforts which a patient might like to have?

I envisage a situation possibly arising where the R.M.S. might feel that a particular patient would derive benefit from tobacco, sweets, or something like that, but if he gets the 10/- he might lose it, or burn it or light his pipe with it or do with it as children might do. At the same time, the R.M.S. might feel that he would like to buy some comforts with the 10/- but that the terms of the section so restricted him that he was not free to hand the 10/- to any patient who was not himself capable of making proper use of it. Perhaps the Minister would look into it. Is it practical to leave it to the discretion of the R.M.S. to use the 10/- on behalf of the patient or must we confine it to such persons only as the R.M.S. believes are "capable of making proper use of the portion so paid"?

Mr. MacEntee

The position is, of course, that many patients in mental hospitals are rational within certain limits and can be trusted to spend the 10/- usefully or carefully in canteens, perhaps, which most hospitals now have. There are others, of course, who would be quite incapable of making any rational use of any money given to them. Therefore, it is necessary to give this discretion to the Resident Physician and Governor, or the R.M.S., as he is generally known. So far as the purchase of tobacco is concerned I think that is already part of the ration provided for patients in mental hospitals and, therefore, the question of buying tobacco does not arise.

The question is whether a person whom the resident physician judges not to be capable of using money rationally would be capable of enjoying anything—in the sense in which that term is generally used—which he might buy for the cash which the Resident Physician might allot him. The section is a highly experimental one and I think we should let it stand and see how it works out. I am sure, in practice, where a patient is likely to benefit by the expenditure of 10/-, the Resident Physician will find a way and will not be cabined and confined by the exact text of the section.

Mr. Corish

I think we should show appreciation of the Minister for the inclusions he has made in this legislation. In recent years, when an increase was given to such people as we are providing for now, just that was given and that alone, but even though the Minister is to be applauded for introducing changes, his mind should be flexible on many of these proposals. This one is a case in point. The Minister himself has said that this is an experimental section, and we all appreciate that it is and must be experimental, but I still think he ought to make provision for the payment of some of this money to some relative who would be recommended and trusted by the R.M.S.

I know of dozens of couples in this country today where the husband has the old age pension of, say, 28/6d. a week but, as the wife is 68 years of age, she has nothing. She has no regular income but she may have 10/- or £1 from the local authority by way of home assistance, so that between the old age pension and the extra £1, they have £2 8s. 6d. per week. If the husband is committed to a mental hospital, his 28/6d. per week goes with him and his wife is left with £1. Public assistance authorities are not inclined to step up their assistance payments, and in such cases, therefore, it means there is a very serious loss of income for the partner left. For that reason the Minister should take power in this section to allow the R.M.S., at his discretion, to make some payment to a near dependant. If the Minister so wishes, he can specify husband or wife.

Mr. Kennedy

I have advised the Minister against accepting what the Deputy recommends. Over the past 20 years, the whole approach to mental treatment has undergone a revolutionary change. The hospital gates are now open and patients have the hope of being cured. Even old age pensioners have a hope of being rehabilliated, and giving them the old age pension helps to give them the power of thinking for themselves.

Mr. Corish

Agreed.

Mr. Kennedy

This business of having them go in under the national health scheme and having so much retained for the institution and so much handed over to a relative for the patient is something that has been much abused. The relatives, perhaps, may be third or fourth cousins, and their first consideration is certainly not the patient. The provision in this Bill leaves it to the discretion of the R.M.S. whether or not to give the 10/- to the patient.

When we talk of the R.M.S., we must include the staff of efficient specialists under him who deal with various aspects of mental health and who have a personal approach to the patient. If I might use the term as it is used in charitable institutions, the patient becomes a child of the particular doctor dealing with him. Whether it is a question of sending the patient out to a football match, to a circus or for a walk around the town, that doctor is the best judge of what is in the patient's interest. Therefore, I would advise the Minister to adhere to this principle in the Bill and let those who know what is best for the patient deal with this matter of the provision of money.

Mr. Corish

Did the Parliamentary Secretary listen to me at all?

Mr. Kennedy

I did.

Mr. Corish

I asked only what happens to the wife of 68 years of age without any means when her husband, who has 28/6d. a week, goes into a mental institution. I did not question at all the ability of those who treat mental patients. I do not want to deal with the question of treatment. I asked only that the R.M.S. be given a discretion to give part of the old age pension to a wife left at home who has nothing except, perhaps, 10/- or a £1 from the home assistance authority. I see one ray of light. The R.M.S. may give 10/- to the old age pensioner who, in turn, will pass it on to the husband or wife, as the case may be.

Mr. Kennedy

There are two aspects of this. First, you must consider the welfare of the healthy person outside the institution, the husband or the wife, and then the curing of the person inside the institution. Provision will have to be made through either the local authority or the State to see after the welfare of the dependant outside. Until that approach is made, I do not think the provisions of the Bill should be interfered with.

Mr. Dillon

In this case I think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are right and Deputy Corish mistaken; but I think Deputy Corish put his finger on a very urgent matter that has often caused me many sleepless nights, both when he himself was Minister for Social Welfare and in the days of his predecessors in our Government and in the Fianna Fáil Government. Deputy Corish says that where a widow or a wife is left with only 20/- a week, local authorities are disinclined to step up their rate of assistance. I wonder would the Minister for Social Welfare avail of the opportunity to state am I wrong in, believing that there is a statutory obligation on the public health authority in every area to protect every citizen of this State from destitution and to step in with home assistance to bridge the gap between whatever income that individual has and what may be necessary to provide a very modest standard of comfort for that person? I believe that to be the law——

Mr. Corish

It is the law.

Mr. Dillon

——and if it is not the law, it ought to be the law. If it is the law, I do not understand how any of us can say that if an afflicted person has to be removed to a mental hospital and leaves after him a wife who has only £1 a week, the local authority is slow to raise the allowance. Nobody can maintain that an elderly woman with £1 a week has a sufficiency to keep body and soul together. I understand the local authority has a statutory obligation to go into the case of that aged person with 20/- a week and to determine in a humanitarian manner what supplement is requisite to protect her from destitution and to provide that sum forthwith through the means of home assistance.

If that is not being done—and I have said this on more than one occasion to Ministers for Social Welfare and not particularly to the present Minister —surely the Minister for Social Welfare has an obligation, if nobody else takes the initiative, to constitute himself the champion of any destitute person anywhere in Ireland and to say: "The law makes provision and fixes responsibility and if those on whom responsibility is fixed by law do not do their duty, it is my duty as Minister to take such steps as may be requisite to compel them to do so." Is that not the situation at present?

Mr. MacEntee

Not quite.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister agree with me it ought to be?

Mr. MacEntee

That is a question I shall not answer extempore. The situation is this. Where the person is unable by his or her own efforts to secure the necessaries of life, then the local assistance authority has the obligation of preserving him or her from destitution, but do not forget the qualifying phrase “Where persons are unable by their own efforts to provide for themselves.” Then, and only then, does the obligation fall on the public assistance authority.

With regard to the case which Deputy Corish has raised, the first thing we have got to bear in mind is that the old age pension attaches to the pensioner.

Mr. Dillon

So does his wife.

Mr. MacEntee

In quite a different way. The pension is not provided for her: it is provided for him and for him solely.

Mr. Dillon

Oh! This is revolutionary doctrine.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not. As the law stands——

Mr. Dillon

If she has an income, he loses his pension.

Mr. MacEntee

Wait a moment. If she has an income which is sufficient, according to the statute, to provide for the two of them, then he will lose his pension; but only then.

Mr. Dillon

The pension does not attach to him.

Mr. MacEntee

It does attach to him because he is the only person who fulfils the condition. The next thing is this, and it is, perhaps, a change 50 years overdue. As the law stands at present, if an old age pensioner becomes a patient in a mental hospital, he loses his pension. He forfeits it; and if he is released from the hospital, he has to apply for it again and prove qualification.

The change I am making is that he will carry that pension with him into the mental hospital and if he should be released within a period, he carries his pension out of the hospital so that he does not forfeit it at any time and does not have to go through the procedure of making a fresh application for it. The pension is attached to the old age pensioner. If an old age pensioner goes into a county home or a home for the aged and infirm, he carries the pension with him and it is appropriated by the authorities of that home to maintain him and not to maintain any person whom he may have left outside, because the assumption in law is—and I think it is a valid one—that the person he has left outside has not been dependent on him. The old age pension is given in relief of a person in necessity and not to help him to discharge any obligation that may attach to him personally beyond that of keeping himself alive.

When a person goes into a mental hospital as a patient, I am putting him in precisely the same position as he would be in if he were going into a county home or into a charitable home for the aged. Just as in the case of the county home, the pension which he carries into the hospital with him is appropriated to help maintain him there. I think that is fair to him and to the community of which he is a member—that what is given to him should be used for his maintenance and not for the maintenance of any other person.

That is the principle which is in this section and the principle upon which I hope the House will permit me to stand. The concessions it is proposed to give to him are, in fact, the same concessions as are made to a person who enters a county home, that he carries with him the full amount of the old age pension, 28/6d. It will not be appropriated entirely by the county home or by the local authority or by the authority which manages the charitable institution of which he is an inmate but he will have first claim on the old age pension to an extent not exceeding 10/-.

I think there is nothing more equitable than that and I do not think that I should be required to defend this section against criticism such as we have heard. We are going very far in this section. It will impose on the Exchequer a burden which has been estimated at something over £100,000 and I think that is very generous indeed.

Mr. Corish

I do not want to criticise—nor do we criticise—the Minister for what he is doing. I began my speech on this section by congratulating the Minister on the very welcome change he is making and I merely asked him to go a little further. He has given us the law as far as old age pensions are concerned and says that the pension is attached to the pensioner. That may be true legally, but, as Deputy Dillon says, the Minister has a responsibility toward the old people and so have the local authorities. In my opinion, the local authorities do not discharge their obligation towards old people but I do not want to pursue that on this section as I do not think it is absolutely relevant.

I should like to disillusion the Minister so far as old age pension allowances are concerned. The local authority does not consider that the pensions are attached solely to the individual. My experience is that some local authorities believe the £1 per week per individual is sufficient on which to live and in the case of a couple if one has 28/6d. per week as an, old age pension, invariably the local authority will say: "Another 11/6d. will bring that up to £2; now you have £1 each per week." I have no quarrel with the Minister on that. I realise the obligation that has been placed on local authorities to look after poor persons but I say they do not do it. I believe it is the local representatives, the people who were elected in, the past week or two, who do not face up to their responsibilities and who should do so. That is a responsibility they have had for the past 21 years, a responsibility given to them, possibly by the Minister, in the Public Assistance Act, of 1939. The Minister has made an improvement and while I am sorry that he will not go any further and allow the R.M.S. to consider a near dependant outside I shall not pursue the matter.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 12 Jul 1960

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1960—Committee and Final Stages.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Jul 1960