asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will introduce legislation to amend the scheme under which an allowance is paid to certain incapacitated persons in respect of relatives who care for them so that the allowance may be paid in respect of male and female relatives.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
18.
Legislation on the lines suggested is not contemplated.
19.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will amend the provisions under which an insured woman who marries is disqualified from maternity benefit, disability benefit, unemployment benefit and treatment benefit until 26 employment contributions have been paid in respect of insurable employment after her marriage, as this means in effect that she receives no recognition for payments made prior to marriage.
The benefits available under the Social Welfare Acts are intended for persons who are ordinarily in employment which is insurable under those Acts. I do not consider it unreasonable to require in the case of a married woman that she establishes she is ordinarily in employment as an insured worker by asking her to obtain 26 employment contributions since her marriage in order to requalify for benefits. As soon as she obtains these contributions her pre-marriage contributions become reckonable for the benefits mentioned in the question. Furthermore, a woman who marries receives a marriage grant by virtue of the contributions paid by her up to her marriage and her pre-marriage contributions remain reckonable for pension purposes.
The Deputy is not, therefore, correct in his assumption that a married woman receives no recognition for insurance contributions paid prior to marriage. No change in the position is contemplated.
Could the Minister say why it is necessary for a woman on marriage to have to requalify by six months work for the benefits she has earned by her pre-marriage contributions? The marriage benefit does not in most cases compensate for the contributions made or extinguish the State's or the community's liability to the woman concerned. Would the Minister not agree the position needs urgent review?
I do not. Until a few years ago the position was that married women's benefits by way of unemployment benefits ceased when she got married. The case was frequently made that many married women went back to work and should therefore be given the benefit of their previous contributions. It was agreed to do that but in order to prove that she did intend taking up work after her marriage it was made necessary for her to have 26 contributions before she would qualify. It is a reasonable means of establishing the bona fides of a woman who states she intends going back to work.
Where a woman has through years of contributions earned her right to maternity benefits, which is something that tends to follow marriage, would the Minister not agree that to extinguish the right to maternity benefits because people get married is a curious approach to the whole problem?
She is entitled to maternity benefits. I mentioned that in my reply. The Deputy is wrong in assuming she is not entitled to maternity benefits.
What about disability and unemployment benefits?
She must have 26 stamps.
Even for the disability benefit?
Yes. She has pension rights and maternity grants.
20.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will make some pension provision for people who retire at age 65 and who are not qualified by an average of 48 contributions a year over the preceding ten years.
Persons who retire at age 65 and who have not a yearly average of 48 contributions paid or credited in the prescribed period can qualify for retirement pension at a reduced rate if the yearly average number of contributions paid or credited in that period is not less than 26.
21.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will make provision for the payment of pensions, free travel, electricity and radio/TV licences to people who take up employment after age 55 in the case of women, and after age 60 in the case of men, provided they have made a minimum of 240 contributions.
Eligibility for free travel, free electricity allowance and free Radio/TV licences depends in turn upon eligibility for old age pention, contributory or non-contributory. Any change in the qualifying conditions for old age pension would require legislation. The introduction of such amending legislation is not contemplated. I would remind the Deputy that a woman who enters insurance after age 55 but before age 60 may qualify for an old age (contributory) pension.
If it is possible to qualify for an old age pension with 240 contributions, why therefore should the requirement here be 480?
I do not think the Deputy is taking credited contributions and the average into account.
Would the Minister not agree that somebody who reaches the age of 70 can qualify for an old age pension on certain conditions, including having a yearly average of not less than 24 contributions and having entered insurance before age 60, which means that someone with 240 contributions between the age of 60 and 70 can qualify. Why then should the requirement here be 480?
I do not think the Deputy is reading correctly the qualifying requirements for pension at reduced or full rates.
Am I wrong in stating that someone who has entered insurance before age 60, who has paid 156 contributions and has a yearly average of not less than 24, which between the age of 60 and 70 would be a total of 240 contributions, is entitled to an old age pension—is that not correct?
They qualify for a reduced rate for less contributions.
He does not qualify for a reduced rate of transport or TV licence. He qualifies for nothing. Why should there be this discrimination?
It is necessary to qualify for an old age pension in order to qualify for free travel or a free TV licence.
Can an old age pensioner with a British war pension qualify for free travel, free electricity supply or free TV licence?
That is a separate question.
Yes, if he is over 70.
22.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether persons who have been voluntary contributors under the Social Welfare Acts but who were not entitled to some benefits under those Acts e.g. dental and optical benefit, and who will now come under the £1,600 income ceiling will be entitled to these benefits immediately or whether they have to qualify, if over 21 years of age, on the basis of 156 new contributions plus 26 contributions for the current year.
To become a voluntary contributor a person, who ceases to be compulsorily insured under the Social Welfare Acts, requires to have paid not less than 156 employment contributions. If, therefore, because of the raising of the income limit, a voluntary contributor again becomes compulsorily insured he will be granted credited employment contributions, so that an immediate title to all the short-term benefits, including dental and optical benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, will be established. This, of course, will not apply to persons paying special rate contributions and whose insurance gives cover for widows' and orphans' pensions and occupational injuries benefit only.
23.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will amend the provisions under which persons over 21 years of age may lose entitlement to dental and optical benefits until such time as 156 contributions (three years) have been paid plus 26 contributions in the year in which application for benefit is made.
Originally the same contribution conditions, requiring 156 employment contributions paid and 26 employment contributions paid or credited in the governing contribution year, applied to all claimants to dental and optical benefit under the Social Welfare Acts. As a concession to insured persons in the 16 to 21 years age group amending regulations provide as from 1960, that insured persons in that age group require only to have 26 employment contributions paid to qualify for these benefits.
A further amendment of the existing regulations is not contemplated.
Could the Minister explain the equity of a situation where somebody may enter employment at 20 years six months, and with 26 contributions can become entitled, but as soon as he reaches 21 he loses his entitlement? Should there not be some provision to bridge that gap?
Like the question of married women in employment, it was necessary for all persons to have 156 contributions paid to qualify, and 26 in the year immediately preceding application; the case was made in this House that, owing to conservancy dentistry becoming so important at an early age, the requirements to qualify under 21 should be reduced so that those under 21 could avail of conservancy dentistry and, for that reason, it was reduced to a mere 26 contributions. This is a tremendous step in the right direction. The original qualifications remain for persons over 21.
I understand that, but would the Minister not agree that it is irrational to withdraw it for 2½ years after age 21? If somebody qualifies before age 21 he should not lose the benefit of these contributions after 21 until such time as he builds up to the 126. Could the Minister not introduce an amendment to fill that gap?
I do not know. They have these benefits under 21 and they have the opportunity of availing of the scheme. They do this. We do not have complaints. They are well aware of the regulations and they take advantage of the benefits before they reach 21.
Does the Minister not agree that people's eyes and teeth may call for treatment between the age of 21 and 22½?
They have a better chance of having the 126 contributions paid after that age.