Sir, before you move section 2, I should like to move an amendment.
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1963—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
There can be no amendment at this stage. It is unfair to the Minister and the House that there should be an amendment.
I indicated in my speech on the Second Stage that I proposed on Committee Stage to move a verbal amendment which, I hoped, the Minister might accept and incorporate in the Bill. The Minister is being allowed to have the Committee Stage of the Bill by the indulgence of the House. Surely I am entitled to amend the Bill? I indicated I would do so.
I would point out to the Deputy that there are Standing Orders governing the acceptance of amendments at short notice. The Chair feels that, in fairness to the Minister, the amendment should be tabled in order to give the House an opportunity of examining it.
I must say the Chair takes me somewhat by surprise.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I indicated on Second Reading that I wanted to move a particular amendment and the Minister is fully aware of the amendment I intend to move.
No, I am not.
I certainly would not have agreed that the Committee Stage would be taken here and now if that meant I was to be deprived of making an amendment I think should be made to this Bill.
If the Deputy gave notice at a certain stage, I am surprised the amendment has not been tabled.
I did give notice. I have the amendment written out here.
It is an amendment that could not be incorporated at all in this Bill.
I have the amendment written out and this is the only Stage on which I can move it.
There is no amendment circulated and there is, therefore, nothing we can do.
Precisely an hour ago, I spoke on the Second Reading and I indicated then the amendment I intended to move. I do not know what facility could be available to me to circulate the amendment. This Bill has been put in Committee by the indulgence of the House and it certainly would not have been put in Committee by me if it meant that the amendment I intended to raise on Committee Stage could not be raised on that Stage. There should not be any ruling which deprives me of the right to move an amendment.
It is a matter for the House. If the House agrees——
Could we not discuss the amendment? It will not do anybody any harm.
I indicated to Deputy O'Higgins that I had sent out a circular on the last occasion to local authorities and I was prepared to send out a similar circular on this occasion. That should dispose of the matter.
That does not satisfy me. I think I am entitled to move this amendment. I take it I may move my amendment.
If the House has no objection, the Chair agrees that the amendment may be discussed now.
I move:
Before section 2 of the Bill to insert "that the benefits herein provided shall not of themselves affect any payment by way of home assistance or disablement allowance being received by any person."
The object of this amendment, which should, I think, command the sympathy of all sides of the House, is to safeguard the position of the poorest section of the people intended to be benefited by this measure.
If the Deputy will allow me? Could the Deputy say if the amendment he has in mind imposes a charge on the Exchequer?
No, Sir; it does not. The position at the moment is that, out of the funds available to local authorities, provision is being made to supplement in the case of very necessitous cases by way of home assistance whatever assistance they get under the social welfare code. A person in receipt of an old age pension, or some social welfare benefit, on examination as to means and so on, can obtain additional assistance if the home circumstances are such as to require a supplementary payment in the form of home assistance. It has happened before, and I fear it may happen again, that because the local authority is not subject to any direction from the Minister—it may entertain his advice or it may reject it— when a social welfare payment is increased, to the extent of that increase, there is a corresponding reduction in home assistance. I want to ensure that the intention expressed by the Minister here today, an intention desired by most Deputies, will in fact have effect. The Minister stated here that a reduction of home assistance on that account should not happen. We know it should not happen but it has, in fact, happened.
Not generally, no.
Where did it happen? Nobody has ever drawn my attention to the fact that it happened.
It has happened time and time again.
The Minister's circular has in most cases cleared the issue.
What can the Minister do about it? He can only use his good offices. Is that not so?
The Minister may only use his good offices, but this is a legislative assembly and we can do a great deal more. We can provide by legislation that no local authority will in fact reduce the amount of home assistance because of the increases incorporated in this Bill.
You cannot, in practice, do that.
I will give the Deputy an example of a legislative assembly doing it in practice, if he will just keep quiet for a moment. If this amendment is accepted, or the Minister indicates an amendment on these lines will be incorporated in the Bill, this will mean that, while the local authority, acting on the assistance side, may reconsider the mode and level of home assistance in particular cases— perhaps in the case of a person who had been unemployed or who was not able to work but who found employment or found that he was able to work—and review the grant of home assistance on grounds of that kind, they will not be allowed to review home assistance merely because an old age pension is increased from 32/6d. to 35/-. Under the law they are entitled to do that, and they do it under the law, irrespective of the admonitions, circulars, or suggestions to the contrary.
Can there be any objection to providing in this Bill that that may not happen? That is what I am concerned to ensure. If we provide a section in this Bill ensuring that there is a legal prohibition on any of the increases here proposed being regarded as a ground for reviewing home assistance, I think we meet the case. It certainly has been my experience that this kind of thing has happened in many cases. There is an example. It has happened in regard to other increases, increases which are perhaps outside our scope and which I mention only as an example. I refer to the special allowances under the Army pensions code. At the moment they are affected by any social welfare increases and that kind of example is availed of by local authorities in operating home assistance. I mentioned in my amendment disability allowances which are payable under the Health Acts.
Perhaps the Deputy could explain how I could deal with that?
No. I say that I mentioned it in the amendment, but it should be removed.
Why remove it? Is it not just as important?
I cannot move it in the terms of this Bill.
It places a charge on the Exchequer, is that why? And you voted against any extra moneys.
It is a good example at the moment——
One good example of hypocrisy.
Really, Sir, I feel that something should be done about Deputy Leneghan. It is really absurd that Deputies should be humiliated time and time again by mud being squirted by this Deputy. It lowers the standard of this Parliament.
It could not be——
Deputy Leneghan should cease these interruptions. Deputy O'Higgins is in possession.
I take it that I am entitled to speak without being abused by Deputy Leneghan?
And that I will have the protection of the Chair.
—— and every other Deputy. Could the Chair have a copy of the amendment? It is usual to supply one.
I have not got secretarial assistance available to me in this House. I try to carry on as an individual Deputy.
The amendment has already been amended by the Deputy, without anybody knowing what the amendment is, or what the amendment to the amendment is. The amendment still seems to be in the process of manufacture.
It is very well for the Minister to speak. He has civil servants beside him. He is a cantankerous, embittered Minister sitting there trying to ensure that a proposal will not be put forward. I cannot dictate an amendment to a secretary or typist while I am speaking. I am doing my utmost to help the Minister.
The Deputy said before that he had the amendment ready.
I said nothing of the sort. I have been sitting here since a quarter to three and I have not left the House. I raised the matter on Second Reading and it was not possible to get an amendment typed or circulated. If the Minister will agree to recess the House for ten minutes, I will get it done. Does the Minister agree to that?
I do not mind. I do not want the House recessed.
I suggest that the House rises for ten minutes and I will have it typed out.
It was the Chair that raised that point.
I propose that the House rises for ten minutes.
I am not accepting the Deputy's proposal.
May I take it that neither the Chair nor anybody else will suggest that I could circulate the amendment and I may go on to move it?
I want that with full indulgence from the Chair and not like extracting a cork from a bottle.
What kind of performance is this?
(Interruptions.)
The Chair has been very fair to Deputy O'Higgins and allowed him to discuss an amendment which is not in the possession of the Chair. It is usual for the Chair to examine amendments before they are agreed to.
May I repeat and remind the Chair that we on this side of the House are allowing the Committee Stage of a Bill, the Second Reading of which was passed to-day and it was not possible to circulate amendments before the Bill passed its Second Reading. In those circumstances, I am moving an amendment, the contents of which I indicated on Second Reading. I have been through this before and I should be allowed to proceed.
I was referring to the example of the disability allowance. It is an example of a payment which is made on the health side of local authority activities. It is payable to a person in necessitous circumstances but by reason of an increase in the disability allowance, home assistance is automatically reduced by the amount. Unfortunately, that example is there. It is applied by local authorities, despite the fact that, to my knowledge, both the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health have urged local authorities not to do it. In spite of circulars to that effect, it is being done.
I mentioned that as an example of what may happen under these proposed increases, if there is not a prohibition preventing local authorities from reducing the amount of home assistance. If that is not there, the danger is they will feel entitled, as they are under law, to reduce what they regard as a compensatory payment. Accordingly I propose that before Section 2, there should be incorporated a new section in the terms I have handed to the Chair. "That the payments hereby proposed shall not of themselves be regarded as grounds for reducing the amount of home assistance payable to any person." I recommend that amendment to the House.
I second the amendment and reserve the right to speak.
I do not know that there have been any cases in which what Deputy O'Higgins says happened has happened. We have, from time to time, sent circulars to local authorities pointing out to them that such reductions should not be made. I have no reason to believe that those circulars have not been complied with and I have no reason to believe that similar requests will not be complied with in the future. I do not think that there has been any need shown to compel the local authorities in this respect. We have every reason to believe that the Department's wishes have been carried out in the past and that they will be carried out in the future.
I do not think it is right to ask the House to coerce the local authorities in this respect when there is no case made and no evidence produced to show that such coercion is necessary. In fact, the granting of home assistance is based on an examination of the need of the applicant for it. According to Deputy O'Higgins, the net results of the taxation provisions in the Budget and the increases in social welfare will be to create a disimprovement in the situation of these social welfare recipients. If that is so, then so far from there being a reduction in home assistance, there is more likely to be an increase.
Of course, Deputy O'Higgins knows that he is wrong and is now trying to argue the other way and to argue that these increases in social welfare will automatically give rise to decreases in home assistance, unless we do something about it here. I believe the local authorities will act responsibly and before I would agree to doing something like this, I would require to be convinced that local authorities behave in an unreasonable way. At the moment, I am not so convinced.
Would the Minister examine it between now and the time the Bill goes to the Seanad?
Yes, I will examine it, if I get evidence.
While it may be true that some local authorities are inclined to reduce home assistance, I find that has not been the practice. After all, local authorities made provisions some months ago to pay home assistance cases. The number of cases is very static and the amount has already been decided upon. I do not think there will be any general cutting by the local authorities which might produce a saving in the amount allocated. As far as I know, Deputy O'Higgins was present when the representatives and managers indicated recently it was not the practice in respect of other matters.
The distribution of home assistance is subject to means test. At the beginning of the year, local authorities make provision for it by way of a round sum which will be available for distribution. The means are reviewed periodically. If the circumstances of a person should change the means may be increased or lowered. To suggest that such a review does not continually take place is not to face up to the situation as it exists.
The Minister says that the increases which are going to be paid should not be nullified by a diminution of assistance and that on previous occasions he has had that information conveyed to the local authorities. I am sure that a continuation of that view is needed. The weakness in that type of legislation is in connection with those officers who must keep within regulations laid down for them in the assessment of means. Would the Minister include, in any regulations, a guide for the officers who make these assessments in regard to means tests. That is very necessary.
I have often been unable to understand how the assessment of the means of an applicant is made. Take a person who lives on a cottage plot. He might be assessed with a notional income in regard to the occupancy of that plot although it might be absolutely unproductive. The Minister should ensure that what is being done by this legislation will not be negatived by any other operation which would tend to reduce it.
The Minister says he will examine the matter between now and the time the Bill goes to the Seanad. Ordinarily, I would raise it on Report Stage.
I am expecting some evidence from the Deputy that the position is as he says it is, namely, that the local authorities have not been complying with the request issued to them.
Surely the Minister has that information?
My information is that they are. I have no information that they are not except what I heard here today. If the Deputy will give me indications of instances where the circular I issued has not been complied with, then I shall proceed—
I suggest the Minister should make inquiries.
I shall, but I do not think it will be possible to do so between now and the meeting of the Seanad.
When will that be?
Next week.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister tell me the position when the means exceed £52 10s., £65 10s., and so on? They are contained in the Table here. Are notional sums of money included as perquisites? I have mentioned occupancy of a cottage plot. Does that carry a notional value? Take an old person living with a relative. Is there a notional value of so much per night? I think it is one shilling a week in respect of the occupancy of the room. Generally people in the category needing this type of assistance find, when their means are investigated, that, for some reason which they cannot understand, values have been assigned to perquisites which they enjoy and which they believe is their right.
A person with £52 10s. a year has a full pension. However, anything over that amount reduces it. Therefore, small items such as I have mentioned might tend to put these people over the figure of £52 10s. What I want to hear from the Minister is what is the yardstick by which the means of the individual are calculated in this case. If a person has a weekly income, one can understand it; if a person has a cash payment, one can understand it; but if a person has a cottage and a plot, are we attaching to them a notional value? If an elderly person is living with relatives or a son or daughter, and enjoys a room in the home, are we putting against them a notional value in regard to income?
With regard to a cottage plot or any little land, the assessment is a factual one on the income extracted from the land. If there is no income, the assessment is small. The letting value of the land is taken into account and it is very small. In the case of a person living with and maintained by a relative, there is a small notional assessment. It would only have a marginal effect on the old age pension. It is only about £3 or £4.
Is that in respect of the relative?
It is only one shilling a week for free lodging and maintenance. It is assessed as if it were the income of the applicant.
Would I be correct in assuming that the cash value of a small plot of land is taken as a letting value of £5 a year?
I do not know what the assessment is but it would be very small in that case. It would operate only to put a person out of one of these categories and into another. It would not operate to deprive a person entirely of a pension.
It puts him from one category into another. It deprives him of 5/- a week and that would continue over his lifetime. I think the Minister should try to do something in respect of that situation. Those who live in such circumstances are the weakest section of the community. You often find them living alone with a cottage plot which is producing nothing and which has no letting value because it is probably worn out. If you fix a notional value, you are inflicting on them a hardship which the Minister or anybody else in this House does not wish. I would ask the Minister to examine the circumstances of people who live in such dwellings and see that they will not lose 5/- a week or £5 a year for the rent of such plots.
I should like to make special reference to the case of elderly people living with relatives. I agree that the assessment cannot operate to do more than move them from one category to another but nothing is more exasperating for old people than to see a neighbour apparently in identical circumstances, in receipt of a differential. It is extremely difficult to explain it to them and I think it would be the feeling of most Deputies that they prefer to see old people living with relatives rather than living alone. In all my experiences, one of the most pitiable is old people living alone with the ultimate end that they have to be removed to the county home because they can no longer look after themselves.
Where they live with children or with their relative, you have the happy situation that the old persons not only feel they are at home but feel they are an asset to the home and the family where they live. I would suggest to the Minister that he might examine the question of providing that where an old person lives with the family, no notional charge will be made on the ground that, so far as we are concerned, all of us would prefer in every case where it is possible old people should be looked after by their own families.
I know it can be said that a miserable 5/- a week should not deter a dutiful family from looking after an old person. That is true, but it is a source of considerable irritation to an old person to find that he is getting 5/a week less than another old person living alone next door. These are the kind of details that make the difference between peace and contentment among old people and the circumstances which give rise to misunderstanding and annoyance. By the time we have all reached our seventh decade, we will not be as susceptible to pure reason as we are in the greenery of our youth.
I think that social welfare officers investigating cases such as those mentioned by Deputy Jones should be very liberal and I think the general experience is that they are. The value they would place on a cottage plot would be very small indeed. With regard to the question of its being worn-out land, that fact would be taken into consideration. I feel sure that the effect of having a cottage plot would be very small indeed.
Deputy Dillon made an eloquent plea for people living with relatives. On the other hand, the case was made on Second Reading that a person living alone is in a much worse position. Surely the actual value to the person who is sheltered and maintained by his relatives is more than one shilling a week? Surely it is a very notional value that is placed on it. That is the only differential made in the old age pension in the case of persons living alone and persons living with relatives. I feel a case can be made that the person living alone should be entitled to a much higher old age pension than the person who is lucky enough to have a son or daughter to look after him. In any case, this does not arise in a great number of cases. The fact is of all the non-contributory old age pensioners in the country, something over 91 per cent. are in receipt of the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension.
In the case of a thrifty old person who has a small nest-egg in the bank, is there a notional value placed on the income from that small amount of money on deposit, or is it calculated on the actual receipts by way of interest from the bank?
That was raised during Second Reading and I overlooked replying to it. There is a method laid down for assessing capital as means in these cases. In fact, this Bill makes a substantial change in that method in the case of widows and orphans, but not in the case of old age pensioners. In the case of old age pensioners, and as used to be the case with widows and orphans, the first £25 is ignored, the next £375 is assessed at five per cent and the remainder at ten per cent. That is a notional annual value for the capital possessed by the applicant.
At first it seemed to me that that was a rather harsh way to assess it, but it is not really. In fact, a person over the age of 70 can purchase an annuity which will give him a greater return than the amount assessed according to that method. I agree that in the case of a younger person, such as a widow, that argument does not apply. For that reason, in this Bill I have made a change in the method of assessing capital in that case, but the same justification is not there in the case of old age pensioners.
I agree that a person who has been thrifty all his life and saves some money naturally feels aggrieved if he sees a neighbour who was the opposite during his lifetime able to get an old age pension. I must say there is something wrong with a system which appears to place a premium on improvidence. I do not see how that problem can be solved. The principle of a means test in regard to social assistance payments is sound—that any money available should be utilised to benefit those who have nothing and to raise their standard of living.
The only solution I can see for it is that it may be possible to do something at a later stage under the contributory old age pension scheme. If it could be arranged that a thrifty person could become a voluntary subscriber for a contributory old age pension, that argument would not exist in the future. He could not say: "Because I am thrifty, I cannot get an old age pension, while my neighbour who was not thrifty can." The reply to that would be that the best thing he could have done was to become a voluntary contributor to the social insurance scheme. However, that is a very big question to be examined. It is the only solution I see to the problem. Certainly the method by which capital is assessed for old age pension purposes is a defendable one.
Would the Minister consider this case as being in a special category? Elderly people like to put aside a certain sum of money to provide for their deaths. They do not put it into a trust but generally leave it in the local bank with an instruction that it is to be used for the funeral expenses. They do not wish to put a burden on those who will be struggling after them. Could the Minister devise some method by which such small sums of money generally amounting to £300 or £400, could be dealt with?
That amounts to a suggestion that a greater amount than £25 be ignored in the calculation of capital as means. As I said, I can see practically unlimited scope for improvement of the various social welfare schemes. That is one of the things I shall bear in mind in the future. All these things cost money to implement.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I mentioned already the difficulty of widows on non-contributory pensions if they are under the age of 48. If they have no children, they are not entitled to a pension. In rural Ireland, a woman of that age finds it hard to get employment of the right type to enable her to remain in the country. There is not the same scope for domestic employment as was available previously. Even in agricultural Ireland, with the growth in mechanisation, there is not the opportunity for these people there used to be in the dairying areas in milking. That was a common employment for these people in which they earned a living of a kind. I know there has to be some age limit, but these are a class of people who do not find moving easy at that age. They generally have to leave the country to get employment of the right type. Could the Minister deal with their case?
Last year, I made an improvement in this respect. Prior to this, when a child of a widow reached the age of 16, her widow's non-contributory pension ceased entirely, not only the portion in respect of the child but her own until she reached the age of 48. In last year's Social Welfare Bill, that was changed so that in those circumstances now the widow would retain the pension. What Deputy Jones suggests is to go a step further on that road. That is a step I should like to take and hope to take in the future, again when money becomes available.
Has the Minister laid down any general rule applicable in the cases of women whose husbands have disappeared? Is there any agreed period which the Department will take, corresponding to the 20 years which I think the High Court recognises as the period after which it is in order legally to presume the death of the person who has disappeared?
I am not familiar with the High Court provision. Does the Deputy say the High Court presumes he is dead, if he has not been heard of for 20 years?
I think so.
Surely you must establish something more than that? There is no specific time in the Department but if investigations disclose that reasonable efforts have been made to trace the husband and it is reasonable to assume he is dead, the widow's pension can be granted. Only last week, I came across a case of a lady who applied in 1954 for a widow's pension in respect of a husband who had disappeared in 1928. After some considerable time and investigation, in 1960 the claim was granted. A fortnight ago, the husband, from an address 15 miles away, applied for an old age pension. These things happen, but they show that when there is a reasonable assumption that the husband is dead, widows' pensions can be, and have been, granted and will continue to be granted. The Department merely investigates to see if it is reasonable to assume that the man is dead.
I would urge the Minister not to be dismayed by the revelation of the propinquity of the deceased gentleman. These abberations will occur and I would regard the Minister's decision to pay the pension in this case as not any reflection on him but a credit to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
Will the first child qualify up to the age of 16?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill".
Does this mean that people now working in colleges or convents and such educational establishments or even in the homes we have in the country for handicapped children who get a certain amount of schooling, will be excluded?
No; on the contrary, they will be insured for all benefits.
Would that include a female agricultural worker?
No. This deals only with the definition of domestic services. It was held in the courts that service in respect of a religious community was regarded as domestic service. It was always the intention of the Department to provide that women working in institutions would not be covered by the term "domestic servant" and this is to make sure that where they are working in such circumstances such as attending on boarders in a school, they will be insured for all benefits, including unemployment benefit.
Which puts them on the same basis as hotel or guesthouse employees?
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".
Does this mean that when these teachers in domestic colleges reach a level over £800, they may, at their option, contribute, if ladies, for the benefit of the widows' pension? Is that the intention?
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 to 16, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill".
Will these younger people who are insurable now be paid from 18 years of age? Will they get the full rate from that age?
Yes. I do not know if the Deputy is aware that this refers to wet-time only?
Yes. Will they get the full rate?
Yes.
There are three rates, skilled, unskilled and juvenile and this is to enable people of 18 to be qualified as unskilled rather than juvenile?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 18 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
It is wonderful how cooperation lubricates the work of this House and how acrimony checks it.
You should certainly appreciate that.