Vol. 234 No. 8
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will amend the old age pension regulations to take into account increased burial costs having regard to the hardship imposed by existing means tests which reduce the pension payable to any person with savings; and, if not, why.
30.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether it is proposed to abolish or mitigate the means test in regard to the 5/- provided for old age pensioners without means.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 29 and 30 together.
No alterations in the method of assessing means for old age pension purposes, other than indicated by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement, are contemplated.
Surely the Minister recognises the deplorable social consequences of introducing a second means test into the old age pension code as was done two or three years ago when 5/- was granted to pensioners who are stated to have no other means whatever? Would it be a very costly operation to eliminate this new segregation, and, if not, would the Minister not consider, in consultation with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, the abolition of this thoroughly undesirable imposition?
The whole principle of this nil means proposal introduced by my predecessor was to meet the demand in respect of old age pensioners who have no means. It has been so frequently pointed out that there is a great difference in the categories of old age pensioners who are in receipt of benefit, that those who are living alone with no means are much worse off than those who are fortunate enough to have their families around them, who are living with reasonably well-off relatives, and so forth. My predecessor introduced the nil means category to which he gave 5/- in order to meet that demand and to get to the much worse off section of old age pensioners.
Does the Minister not understand that an old age pensioner who lives in a cottage which he has tried to purchase over the years is deprived of this 5/-? Surely it was never intended to deprive a person like that of the increase?
Without reflecting on the good intentions of the Minister's predecessor, has it not become manifest that the thing has not worked out, and that a situation is arising in which an old age pensioner, because he is entitled to sleep in the hag of his own family's kitchen, is deemed to have means? The thing may have had excellent intentions, but in practice, has it not worked out all wrong? In the light of that would the Minister not consider saying now: "We desire to overcome the problem. Our effort has not been a success, and at an early date we will remove this new category which we created and which has not served the purpose for which it was originally designed."
Will the Minister try to get these appeals officers to decide cases as quickly as possible, because, as far as I know, there are some appeals cases going on for six or 12 months?
That is a separate question.
Some cases are going on up to 12 months, and people do not know where they stand.
Does the Minister realise that the extra means test has put an increased amount of work on the social welfare officers, who find it very difficult to do what Deputy Spring suggests, that is, to dispose of appeals as quickly as possible? Would the Minister say how much it would cost in money terms if all old age pensioners were to be included in this 5/-increase?
The Minister manifestly agrees with it, but he is afraid to say so.
(Cavan): Does the Minister agree that the old age pensioner living alone, who has no means other than, say, £30 in the bank to provide for funeral expenses, is deemed to have means within this miserable means test, and is deprived of the 5/-?
The whole question involved here is the recognition of the worse-off section of old age pensioners, those who have no means, and I can very easily see that the line had to be drawn somewhere.
Not at 1/- a week.
If we decided to ignore the first £5 of savings or valuation, then we would be asked why did we not give the 5/- to those with £5 10s. There are bound to be marginal cases as long as we have a means test at all. However, it was good to recognise the type of person who has no means, whose position is very different from those who are fortunate enough to have their relatives living with them.
All of them do not live with their relatives.
If we were to abolish the means test, it would cost a considerable amount of money, and I have frequently said in defence of the means test that I prefer to give the worse-off section of old age pensioners extra money rather than abolish the means test. We must have the line drawn somewhere. Deputy Fitzpatrick asked a question about £30 in savings. He knows well the figure we take is £25. On Deputy Ryan's question as to whether we should raise that in view of the increased cost of burial expenses, I should like to consider it some time. We ignore the first £25; we assess the next £225 at one-twentieth of its capital value, and in excess of £400, at one-tenth. This is the means test as it is.
(Cavan): Does the Minister disregard the first £125?
As long as there is a means test, you can always argue about the marginal cases.
We are not arguing about the means test.
I cannot allow any further supplementary questions on this Question. Question No. 31.
Does the Minister agree that old age pensioners in receipt of this allowance should——
I am calling Question No. 31.
I should like to say that the important thing is that we increased them each year.
And the loaf is going up another 2d.
I will not allow any further questions. This is developing into a debate.
The Minister is anxious to tell the House.
It is a proper question.
Deputies will have an opportunity of raising these questions on the Financial Resolution before the House.
