asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he proposes to abolish the right of residence as a disqualification for the receipt of the 5/- supplement to the old age pensions and blind pensions.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pension Qualification.
107.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply I gave to a question by Deputy Cosgrave on this subject on 21st June last, Vol. 229, No. 7, Col. 858.
I have not the faintest notion of what the contents of the reply are, but I seem to remember the Minister saying at about that time that he had under review the grotesque injustice of depriving old age pensioners of the 5/- increase on no better grounds than that they enjoyed a place in which to rest their heads. I think he expressed the view at the time that he regarded the arrangement as inequitable and that he proposed to have it reviewed. Does he still hold that view?
I shall read quickly for the Deputy the reply I gave to Deputy Cosgrave's question:
While I have no power to disregard any item of means, not excluded by statute, I have had an instruction issued to social welfare officers which should eliminate to a considerable degree the dissatisfaction arising from the assessment in some instances of means from residence with relatives and from the use of what I might describe as substandard dwellings.
The case has been made that old people living in hovels have been deprived of the 5/-. I gave instructions to investigating officers to ignore such people.
Is the Minister aware that there are old age pensioners who are deemed to have a partial right of residence under the intestacy of their partners who have been denied the 5/-?
That could be.
Has the situation not become so grossly anomalous that it would be administratively simpler if all these ridiculous tests as to residence were scrapped?
I think it would involve legislation because the provision laid down for the means tests originally has not been amended. Therefore, the right of enjoyment of free residence must be regarded——
Abolish it.
It is difficult to draw the line. Sometimes it involves more than the simple right to residence.
(Cavan): Is it a fact that an elderly itinerant was refused the 5/- on the ground that he had free lodgings in his tent at the side of the road?
I would not say so.
It would depend very often on the attitude of the investigating officer.