In my Second Stage speech I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if the increase for the dependent relative is available in respect of an adult dependant of any person drawing a non-contributory pension, provided that person comes within the means test.
Social Welfare (No. 2) Bill, 1974: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I have already commented on the amount being made available for increases in children's allowances. Notwithstanding what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the increases are exceptionally small. I doubt if any other facet of the social welfare code is as important as that of children's allowances in present circumstances. I have already referred to the phenomenal increase in the cost of living, and in that context it is vital that in future these allowances would be kept in line with increases in living costs. I am afraid that the increases provided here will not be of any help in assisting parents to clothe and feed their children in present day conditions.
It is difficult to accept the Deputy's opposition to these increases. As I pointed out to the Deputy earlier, the increase per child in the two budgets has been: first child, 360 per cent, second child, 120 per cent, third and subsequent children, 80 per cent. It is hard to reconcile the Deputy's comments with the fact that in a period of ten years his Government increased children's allowances on only four occasions. It is difficult to reconcile the two.
If the Government believed last year that it was necessary, because of prevailing circumstances, to increase the children's allowances to the extent they increased them, it should be evident that when prices have risen extremely rapidly since then, the very small amount of 30p per month cannot be regarded as sufficient increase this year.
The reason it was necessary to increase them so substantially last year was due to the long neglect by the Deputy's own party, but as they were brought up to an acceptable level in last year's budget, it was not necessary to increase them so substantially this year.
I do not think we can accept what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about last year. It is only a few months back, since the budget, that milk, butter, baby foods, footwear, clothing, have increased. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary cannot talk about last year. We are talking about only a matter of a few months.
This year's budget has very substantially increased benefits right across the board.
By 30p a month, 7½p a week.
I told the Deputy the percentage. Very substantial increases were given right across the whole spectrum of social welfare in a year in which there was a very substantial concession made on personal tax and no increase in taxation whatsoever. If the level of the children's allowance now is so bad in the Deputy's opinion, although it has increased for the first child by 360 per cent in the last two budgets, what must it have been under Fianna Fáil administration?
They would have been far better off.
The Deputy had better be careful about that, because people might find him out.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
The prescribed relative allowance was a major step forward in our development of the social welfare code. It was introduced by Fianna Fáil. For many years we had been exploring the possibility of keeping our senior citizens at home rather than obliging them, through necessity, to go into institutions. This new allowance was something which went a considerable distance to help in this respect. Changes have been made since it was introduced and there is another change being made now, which we welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the age 58 was chosen?
We had to start somewhere, the Deputy will appreciate.
I appreciate that.
There is no significance in the age as far as women are concerned. It is experimental, if you like.
It is ten years below the qualifying age for pension.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
I have already stated that I welcome these allowances which are being paid to the wives of prisoners. It is unjust that the family should suffer for the misdeeds of the breadwinner. I did suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, as he had stated in reply to a question that he would reduce the time limit in relation to the deserted wife's allowance from six months to three, perhaps he would consider doing likewise in respect of this allowance, particularly as I pointed out that, while there may be some problems in relation to the deserted wife in respect of whether the husband had, in fact, gone or could be found, or whether it would be possible that he would pay maintenance, once the prisoner goes to prison, the wife is, to all intents and purposes, deserted. I thought that perhaps in this situation the Parliamentary Secretary might consider reducing the time limit.
The Deputy said that according to a reply to a question today the qualifying period for deserted wives had been adjusted downward. I think it is normal to watch a new scheme. I can assure the Deputy this scheme will be kept under review and it is not outside the realm of possibility that some downward adments in the qualifying period will be made in the light of whatever experience we have with the new scheme.
Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, where a prisoner was doing a term of three to four years, on release would he still receive social welfare benefit?
No. It is not a question of his being paid benefit.
In other words, he would lose all his entitlement to social welfare benefit after three years of a prison sentence.
His wife would get it in the meantime.
I know his wife would get it, but on his release it would cease where the wife was concerned. Then what is the position? Are they back to home assistance?
Not necessarily. Would he not qualify for unemployment assistance if he could not qualify for unemployment benefit? Of course, the ideal situation would be that the man would find employment.
Yes. I do not want to labour this point, but this matter needs very careful consideration. When a person is released from jail he needs help more than ever then to start life anew with his family, but he is going around begging for home assistance. Even though he is within the walls of a jail he is doing a certain amount of manual work. Is it possible that his benefit could be maintained in consideration of the fact that he is doing manual work within the prison?
There is no need for this man to look for home assistance. When he is released after a period of imprisonment he can sign the register, and if he is not entitled to unemployment benefit he will be entitled to unemployment assistance. There is no need for him to seek home assistance as such.
I would be satisfied if the Parliamentary Secretary would give this matter consideration.
I should be only too glad to do anything that will help to ease a man back to society after an experience of three or four years of imprisonment.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Does this refer to the reduction of the age limit?
Yes.
I welcome the reduction of the age limit. It is not, of course, new. We introduced retirement pensions at 65 years of age. As I pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Stage, there has arisen a considerable number of anomalies. I recognise the difficulty in trying to legislate to overcome those problems. I mentioned the case of a widow who has a non-contributory pension and has also got a certain element of disability benefit. When the old age pension age limit was 70 she carried on with the old age pension and with the disability benefit but as it was reduced the length of time she had the disability benefit shortened. In other words, at 69 she was entitled to the pension but not to the disability benefit. After July when a widow reaches 68 she will be entitled to the old age pension only and not to disability benefit. I also mentioned a similar type situation where an old age pensioner on a contributory pension has the pension for himself and his wife and the wife in her own right could have unemployment benefit. The unemployment benefit aspect would lapse when she would reach the old age pension age. When I was dealing with the first of these cases last year I felt that the woman was actually losing out. To be frank, I do not know how the problem can be solved. However, the anomalies are there.
Undoubtedly it would cause some reduction in a small number of cases. We are examining the situation to see if we can rectify it. The Deputy will agree that the vast majority of people will benefit by the reduction in the pension age and we could not postpone that reduction. I appreciate the Deputy's point.
I am glad the Minister for Social Welfare is here now because some time ago I tabled a question asking the Minister for Social Welfare if he could allow people in retirement pension to take up part-time employment so as to subsidise their income. I feel that the retiring age of 68 is a little early for some people and that they should be allowed to take up part-time employment without losing their retirement pension. At the time the Minister told me he was examining the matter. I would like to know whether any decision has been made.
With the easement of the means test a person can earn up to £5 per week and still be in receipt of a non-contributory old age pension.
Yes, but there is the question of insurance. I believe they should be insured for occupational injuries only. They would have to be at least insured against accidents. I believe they should be allowed to take up part-time employment.
If they have a contributory old age pension they can work.
I am talking about a retirement pension.
If a man is on retirement pension he is finished work. Is the Deputy suggesting he should be allowed to work and draw his pension at the same time?
I believe he should be allowed to take up part-time employment to subsidise his income without losing his right to retirement pension.
There is an answer to this but we cannot find it.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the matter of health benefit and the voluntary contributions which I mentioned. I made the case that before the £1,600 a year income limit was abolished a person who was a voluntary contributor had rights in relation to health. He appears now not to have them when he is compulsorily insured because of the fact that he is insured for specific things if he is over the £2,250 limit. Perhaps that could be looked into.
Yes. That is not a question for the Minister for Social Welfare. It is a question for the Minister for Health. I have made inquiries and as far as I am aware he has not lost anything by the change.
Many people think they have.
They have not, in fact, lost anything by the change.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill".
I should like again to request in our particular circumstances that the money contributed by the Exchequer to the social welfare fund should not be reduced further at least for some time because of its effect on the contributions. I appreciate that other member countries of the EEC have a much lower percentage Exchequer contribution. Nevertheless, I believe that in our particular circumstances we should hold it at the present level.
It would not be possible to give an undertaking as requested by the Deputy. It is very appealing not to raise the price of anything but it is not always possible. The circumstances here are that compared with other EEC countries the Exchequer contribution here is way out of proportion.
I am aware of this but I was comparing our industrial development with that of those countries.
Not all of them would be that far ahead for us. Even in countries which would compare with us in that respect the contribution from the State is much lower than it is here.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I think I could have more relevantly raised the question of the voluntary contribution here. However, I have already raised it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill".
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what the particular reason was for continuing to pay half benefit to widows and deserted wives rather than paying them full benefit. I requested him to have a survey taken to see if widows would prefer paying the employee's contribution and getting half the benefit or paying the full contribution and getting all the benefit when they were either ill or unemployed.
I think the Deputy must accept that widows have become fairly vocal people in recent years. They were relieved of all responsibility for their share of the contribution towards a stamp and this was taken up by the Government, while still allowing them to draw their full pension and half of whatever benefits they might become entitled to. This was in accordance with the Commission on the Status of Women. We would have heard from them by now if the present situation was not reasonably satisfactory.
Perhaps they did not think of the alternative.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 17 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."
When the Pay-Related Benefit Act was brought in it was intended that there should be extensions to it and I am glad to see that this particular improvement is made in the Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary was disturbed by the type of speech I made. He appeared to think that I had gone off my usual line. The fact is that I am convinced that to take a realistic view of the value of the benefits we must concern ourselves with the inflationary situation in which we live. We must also concern ourselves, in regard to the amount of the increases, with the money available from the EEC. While I admit that may not be palatable nevertheless it is factual and I thought it was my duty to put the case before the House in the manner in which I did.
Question put and agreed to.