When the debate was adjourned, I was outlining the inevitability of delays in many cases and the efforts we were making to eliminate them as far as possible and I was seeking to point out that we need the co-operation of the applicant as much as that of the officials on the administrative side to achieve this. The local old age pensions sub-committee is a sub-committee which I have always held should be there. I had particular regard for their position in so far as they may act as a buffer between the officials and the applicants and I was always slow to advocate their abolition but if I feel, as I do in some cases, that they do not meet sufficiently frequently and by that means delay some applicants' claims for pensions, then I will take a serious look at the question of retaining them unless they pull up their socks and do a better job of work for us. Like any other Deputy, I get personal complaints from my constituency. I make inquiries and find that the claim has not yet gone before the old age pensions sub-committee or if it has they have not yet met to clear it. If they act as a delaying agency, then they are not performing their function as I would like them to. I would be very slow to abolish them.
I always felt they did act as a buffer between the officials and claimants but there is a vast difference between the manner in which they perform their duty as from one sub-committee to another. I was a member of a sub-committee for many years. We met on the last Saturday of every month religiously and disposed of all the claims before us in a manner which was in accordance with our best interpretation of the regulations. Some committees do not meet sufficiently frequently and they hold a few claims waiting until they have a number, seemingly not appreciating that delays may be occurring for which we eventually have to take the blame. This is a matter to which I must give some serious consideration in the time immediately ahead as part of any effort we make to cut out any avoidable delays.
Many Deputies made favourable reference to the prescribed relatives scheme which has now been extended to males. Some Deputies made the comment which is frequently made with regard to old people detained in homes. I have had informal discussions with the Minister for Health time and again regarding this matter. It is natural that one should ask, if it is costing £17 or £20 to keep an old person in a home, would there not be some relatives who might be prepared to take the old person out and look after him for, perhaps, half that figure or something less. This is a matter for the Department of Health rather than Social Welfare but it concerns all of us and is of considerable interest and worth pursuing. I would point out though to Deputies who seem to think that this would be a simple thing to do that it is not quite so simple because if a scheme of this type operated between Health and Social Welfare one can visualise everybody eventually seeking to claim for this type of benefit by simply going into a home for a week and then being claimed out by relatives. These are obstacles which it may be possible to overcome. Any deep examination of our welfare system must have regard to this as something for consideration in the immediate future.
I am trying to cover the points raised without mentioning Deputies specifically. Most Deputies advocated the lowering of the qualifying age for old age pensions. We have done that in relation to contributory pensions. The retirement pension is now payable in full at the age of 65 for persons qualified to receive it. It is inevitable that we will be faced with reducing the age on the non-contributory side too. Sometimes it is pointed out that there has been no reduction in the qualifying age for old age pensions since they were first introduced. It is forgotten that the average expectation of life has been considerably extended since 1908. When we bring the pension age to 65 I would say it will be equivalent to paying it at 55 when pensions first came into being. I have not got the exact figure but there has been a marked advance in life expectancy due to the better medical facilities available now. Nevertheless, it is true that Norway was the last country in Western Europe paying pensions at 70 and they recently reduced the age to 67 or 68. We have now reduced it so far as contributory pensions are concerned and we will inevitably be faced with bringing down the age in the near future to a lower qualifying age than that which it is at present.
Deputy Begley referred to applicants being held up when a transfer of land is involved. I thought we were reasonably generous in this. We usually accept proof from the solicitor putting through the grant of administration that it is being done and we do not as a rule have to wait for deeds to be produced. There is not any real delay in this respect on our part.
Deputy O'Connell asked why these payments were not made immediately, why August and October? As the House knows, the dates used to be October and January. We have brought the dates forward considerably and it is not possible to do any better if we are to make provision for the work that has to be done in the way of preparing new schemes, preparing and printing new books, having new insurance stamps prepared and all the necessary preparatory work which must be carried out before payments can be made. This is an administrative problem for my Department. It is a gigantic one. Every year all the books have to be re-printed. There has to be a complete set of instructions, a complete new set of regulations. The entire work has to be repeated every year for the thousands and thousands of cases involved. It is a very big job when one is dealing with several hundred thousand cases. It would not be possible to have it in operation next day with any degree of efficiency. Deputy O'Connell again made reference to our approach to the scheme of deserted wives allowances and appealed for a more humane approach which, he said, I promised all along. We have been as liberal and as humane—to use his own word—as one could possibly be in this respect. We are dealing here with a rather sensitive and difficult area where one must not be prepared to take qualification for granted; proof must be produced. The officials of the Department have been dealing with this matter admirably and the complaints reaching me are practically nil.
The question was asked also by Deputy O'Connell, whether, now that we are taking power to have the dependant's allowance paid separately in cases where the breadwinner may not be fulfilling his responsibility to the dependants, this could be brought into the reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom in cases where the breadwinner is drawing his allowance in England and not contributing to the family at home. I would only point out that on our accession to the EEC these matters of reciprocity and common payments in the various countries can easily be worked out as part of the whole welfare scheme. Deputies are aware that contributions paid in various countries can be aggregated for the purpose of qualifying for benefits and the benefits are payable in whatever member State an applicant may be living at a particular time. With regard to reciprocity in the matter of the payments to which Deputy O'Connell referred, the procedure will be simplified by our entry to the EEC.
On the question of persons taking care of their old folk losing their title to unemployment benefit or other insurance benefit, this matter has been raised by a number of Deputies, sometimes privately with me and, in other cases, in the debate in the House. We are looking into this matter. Deputy O'Connell advocated that contributions could be paid in respect of the years spent in taking care of the old folk. I would remind him that it would be sufficient to give them credit for contributions in order to maintain the validity of the contributions they have already made or to maintain the continuity of their right to payment, so that if there is a long lapse represented by the time in which they were engaged in taking care of the old folk, when the old folk have passed on and the persons concerned are again available for employment and apply for benefits, the continuity of their benefits will not be broken by reason of their not having continued as contributors over a long period.
In cases where persons have not had their contributions brought up to date, in the case of companies going into liquidation, this is a matter we have dealt with already. Some Deputies did not seem to remember that that was already done. We took power last year to make provision for cases where persons would otherwise have lost their title to benefit as a result of the firm or company where they worked not bringing the contributions up to date. We would exercise that power only when we are certain that there is no possibility of recovering the contributions from the employer.
Deputy Fitzpatrick made an appeal on behalf of old people going abroad and losing their non-contributory pensions. This is a problem which confronts me frequently in my constituency. I know all about it. Many of our emigrants who marry and settle down abroad bring their parents out for a holiday. This does not involve any problem in so far as the pensioners are entitled to be absent for 13 weeks and still draw the pension in respect of that period. There is discretion as far as the Minister is concerned where, for good reason, the pensioner is unable to return within the 13 weeks. If it is due to sickness or some other good reason, it is possible to extend the period. It is a matter requiring the greatest possible vigilance because it is not unknown to the officers of the Department or, indeed, to Deputies, that many people are inclined to shuttle back and forth and only come to draw their pensions. In these cases residence is not established and it is not permissible under the regulations. The 13 weeks give ample scope if the matter is approached in the proper manner.
Appeals have been made for the extension to disabled persons of the benefits available to certain old age pensioners by way of free electricity, television licences and travel. When I suggest bringing in a new scheme on a limited scale it is invariably pointed out to me, and rightly so, that once a scheme is introduced there is an immediate demand for its extension to other sections. When we introduced free travel for a particular section there were demands from all other sections for its extension to them. One cannot yield to every demand that is made. I can assure those who made the case for certain disabled persons, particularly wheelchair cases, that it is one of the many things we have under consideration from time to time. As I have already said, there are priorities and one has to take cases in the order in which they are regarded as of the greatest importance.
I may be overlooking some of the questions raised by Deputies. If so, I am not doing it intentionally. The same points were raised by many Deputies. I would only like to say in a general way that the suggested improvements that have been recommended and the anomalies that have been pointed out are frequently brought to our attention. As Deputies must be aware, advantage is taken of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill every year to tidy up matters that have been shown over the previous year or longer to need attention. Very often, some of these things can be done without legislation. In any event, we do take the opportunity when the Bill comes before the House to write into it provisions that have been shown to be necessary.
The reduction of the qualifying age for old age pensions to 65 years of age would, at the best estimate we have, cost about £13 million. It is a huge sum——
