asked the Minister for Social Welfare if in fact shelter accorded by relatives or friends to old age pensioners is reckoned by his Department as means and regarded as a reason to disqualify old age pensioners from receiving the 5/- per week increase.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Increased Old Age Pensions.
33.
Among the items set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as constituting means is the yearly value of any advantage accruing from the personal use or enjoyment of property. It is not possible to answer the Deputy's question categorically; each case must be decided on its own relevant facts.
Is the Minister not aware that his Department have refused to grant the additional 5/- a week to non-contributory and widows' pensioners who are in receipt of nothing in the house except a bed? Those who own vested council cottages are also being deprived of the 5/- because they are supposed to have an income of 1/-per week. Would the Minister explain how a bed or a vested cottage is an income?
I have been answering these questions day after day. In every scheme where a limit operates you are bound to have marginal cases in which our investigating officers are guided by the statutory regulations laid down. They submit their decision to us in accordance with the guidelines clearly defined for them. If means are shown, they have not the right to grant a pension. The person concerned has a right of appeal and the deciding officer may then decide.
You promised it to all in Kerry.
People could keep on getting up here pointing out that there was an income of one shilling or two shillings but there must be borderline cases in every scheme.
Surely the Minister will agree there is nothing marginal in somebody with the use of a bed being charged 1/- per week for the purpose of preventing him from getting 5/- on the old age pension?
The Deputy is obviously speaking about specific cases of which I have no knowledge.
Does the Minister want me to return to him all the cases I have, which state that the person is in receipt of an income of 1/- a week, representing a bed, and is he going to look into them specifically? If he wants me to do that I will.
When the Minister says a claimant has a right of appeal, surely the Minister is aware that a number of these claimants do not know of their entitlement? They may be written to, but they do not know what is happening. These are old people. Surely there is a better way of dealing with them rather than waiting for them.
It is stated in the notices they get.
Surely the Minister knows there are constituents of his who do not know what is in these notices.
This is an argument. Question No. 34.
This method of assessing means did not start yesterday. It has been in operation down through the years.
34.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will describe the system employed in assessing the means of old age pensioners for the purpose of determining their entitlement to the recent 5/- per week increase.
The means of all claimants to old age non-contributory pensions are investigated by social welfare officers and the claims are referred to the respective local pension committees for decision. The items which constitute means are set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, 1952.
The increase of 5/- a week effective from 1st November, 1966, was granted to pensioners whose means, as assessed in the manner described, were Nil. No special assessment was carried out; the pensioners entitled to the increase were determined following an examination of the files relating to all current cases. Where an application was subsequently received from a pensioner claiming to be entitled to the increase the file was re-examined and unless it was clear that the pensioner was not so entitled, the case was referred to the social welfare officer for re-investigation and reference to the local pension committee in accordance with standard procedure.
Could the Minister say what percentage of the recipients of non-contributory pensions were investigated for means?
I do not know off-hand.
The Minister will understand that many of these people had means assessed to them two or three years ago, that their means have now changed and were they all individually notified that they have this right to re-investigation?
If they do not know it, they cannot be reading the newspapers.
These people never see a paper.
And some of them are blind pensioners.
Practically everyone of them has written about it.
(Interruptions.)
Is it not manifestly anti-social, particularly in rural Ireland, that where the young people keep their mother or father in the house—and no more than that—that the aged parent should be denied the 5/- simply because the children, the son and daughter-in-law, allow them the use of the hag—the bed in the kitchen? Is it not manifestly wrong? The Minister himself comes from Donegal and does he not himself know it is causing bitter resentment? It actually suggests that we are encouraging the daughter-in-law and the son to put their parents out, which we certainly are. None of us wants that. Why can the Minister not amend the regulations and see that that situation is remedied?
The Deputy is making a very good speech.
I do not think the Minister intends this. I know we do not intend it.
And it has no relevance to the question.
Why not amend the regulation and say that the use of a bed in the house is not means?
The Deputy has touched on what is the trouble in this case, the system of assessing means. That system has been in operation for years and has not been changed except in that some amelioration has been brought about time and time again at Budget time. To get up and ask why such a person has not got the increase because she is assesed as having means——
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 35.
When was there amelioration?
You have only to look back on our record to realise, as do the public, the improvements that have taken place. If it is possible to improve things as much in the next ten years as in the past, we shall have got rid of most of our troubles.
Will the Minister please answer Question No. 35?
35.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason why a person (name supplied) was refused the 5/-weekly widow's pension increase; if he is aware of the circumstances of the family; and if he will now grant the increase.
The 5/- a week increase in pensions provided for in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1966, applies to pensioners with no means. As the widow referred to in the question is the owner of the house in which she resides, she cannot be regarded as having no means and, accordingly, she does not qualify for the increase, and I have no power to give it to her. She is in receipt of a pension of 46/- a week which is the rate appropriate to a widow who has not a qualified child and who has means which do not exceed £26 5s a year.
The pensioner was advised on 30th January, 1967, of a right of appeal against the decision of the deciding officer that she was not entitled to the increase of 5/- per week as she was not entirely without means. She has not so far appealed against the decision. There is a limit of 21 days within which such an appeal should be lodged but in all the circumstances, I am prepared to authorise an acceptance of an appeal even at this stage.
I can assure the Minister that I have been in contact with his office on the telephone and I have written to his office also, but that is not the point. The point is that I have been informed by the Minister's Department that this woman owns the house. I will not offend the woman's feelings by describing her home as I have seen it but this is anything but a house and she does not own it. The rates on it are 19/8d per year. It is a disgrace and a scandal that people in this age should be allowed to live in such conditions, let alone be deprived of the 5/- a week. I would ask the Minister to make a personal investigation of this case and I shall pay his personal expenses to visit Raphoe and entertain him in my own home if he comes to see this house.
He was entertained in Kerry and made promises there, and they did not get them fulfilled yet.
I assume this woman has not got even the maximum pension?
She has 46/- a week, which is the rate appropriate to a widow who has no dependants and who is in receipt of some means below £26 5s a year.
Has she any other means besides the house?
No other means.
I have pointed out to the Minister that she does not own the house. She took possession of it by squatter's right 12 years ago when nobody else would go into it. The woman is so poor that she scarcely knows her rights. The Minister claims she has means because she lives in this hovel——
This was the case made by the investigating officer concerned.
Sack that man. If I were the Minister, I would not let him come back to the office. It is a disgrace. I would welcome the Minister to Donegal but I defy him to go and see this "house" and so describe it.
The officer described the position fairly and it is open to appeal.
The man is draft if he described this as a house. He is not fit to hold down his job.
The Deputy will resume his seat.
The Minister says she is living in a house. She is not living in a house but in something little better than a tent. He says she has 5/-a week means. This is a disgrace. I have the greatest respect for the Minister for Social Welfare but if the Minister tolerates an inspector in his office putting in such reports, then he is not fit for the office.
Deputy Harte must conduct himself.
It is very hard when you get replies like that.
The Deputy must try.
I do not think it is fair to try to score off an official——
I am not scoring off an official. I am trying to get justice for the applicant.
——who is doing his duty honestly.
She is legally entitled to get this 5/- and she is deprived of it. I think I am entitled to make this case.
There is no other way.
As the Deputy says, there is no other way.
Will the Minister please answer Question No. 36?
It is a scandal.
The case was not closed. It was open to appeal, but an appeal was not lodged.
The woman is so poor that she does not know her rights and your officials are taking advantage of it.
I have asked Deputy Harte to conduct himself and he is not doing it.
It is very difficult.
The Deputy is very well able to conduct himself. That is no excuse.
(Interruptions.)
I would take all these things into consideration if an appeal had been lodged.
I know the Minister is a very reasonable man and I would welcome him to my home and I would show him what his officer has described as a house.
Might I ask the Minister a short question? Is it not the usual practice that if a Deputy makes a complaint to a Department on a matter like that, it is normally accepted as being an appeal on behalf of the applicant concerned. Why was that not done in this case?
Deputies' representations are usually taken as an appeal, depending on whether they come in before a decision is taken or after.
That should not arise. This woman is living in dire conditions and you are depriving her of the 5/-a week she is legally entitled to.
Deputy Harte is forcing me to do something I do not want to do.
If it was brought to the Minister's attention that injustice was being done, is it not his responsibility to do everything in his power to remedy the situation?
I answered the question exactly on the lines the Deputy has in mind. I think I answered most reasonably and outlined the course to be taken and said that I would extend the time for an appeal to be made now. What is the point of repeating these questions?
Will the Minister not accept my invitation to come to Donegal and see for himself?
Will the Minister please answer Question No. 36?
The Minister would be afraid to walk inside the door because it is a dangerous building. It is a crying shame, a scandal and a monument to broken promises to poor people.