asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for a delay of six months in replacing a widow's pension book belonging to a person (name supplied) in County Donegal.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Widows' Pensions.
26.
Payment of widow's non-contributory pension to the person concerned was suspended in May, 1974, as she had refused to sign an authority requesting the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare to disclose details of United States social security benefit in payment to her. She did subsequently give the necessary authority which was duly sent to the United States Department concerned. As, however, a reply had still not been received by October, 1974, her widow's pension was then provisionally restored to her with effect from the date of suspension. Her case will be reviewed when a reply to Department's inquiries has been received.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary ensure that in such cases in future, instead of a widow being kept waiting for almost nine months, the provisional widow's pension could be granted from the beginning?
The Deputy's question is, to say the least, misleading when he suggests that the lady was waiting for a period of nine months. In fact, responsibility for any delay must lie with the lady herself. This case has been going on for some considerable time. The pension was given to the lady on the understanding that she would disclose if and when she received benefit from the United States. The lady did, in fact, receive benefit from the United States and only after some considerable time was it disclosed, not by the lady herself. This gave rise to further inquiries and on two occasions the lady refused to authorise the relevant Department in the United States to confirm or deny that she was in receipt of benefit from them. That, I regret to say caused suspension of payment to the lady. Payment has been restored to her provisionally. I must refute the suggestion in the Deputy's question that the Department was at fault.
27.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider paying an additional amount to widows for children between 18 and 21 years who are apprentices.
Increases of widows' pensions are paid in respect of all qualified children up to age 18, and in respect of children who are in full-time attendance by day at any university, college, school or other educational establishment up to age 21, as such children are normally still dependent on the widow. This consideration does not necessarily apply in the case of apprentices between the ages of 18 and 21 who are independent wage earners rather than dependants, and in the absence of evidence that their exclusion is a source of hardship I have at present no proposals for the introduction of the legislation which would be necessary to permit payment of an increase in such cases.
The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that the concession is available where the child is in full-time education. Would he agree that apprenticeship is equivalent to full-time education?
I definitely agree that there is an element of education in an apprenticeship period but we have ascertained from AnCO that apprentices in the age categories mentioned by the Deputy—18 to 21 years—are earning amounts between £18 and £24 per week. So, they could not be described as being in the same category with regard to dependency as a person of that age who is in full-time education in a school, college or university. They are wage-earners and, in some cases, reasonably substantial wage-earners.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that while that may be so in the case of certain apprentices being trained or retrained by AnCO, generally speaking, the income of apprentices is very low and does not provide any particular assistance to a widow? In such circumstances, would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it would be a boost to education on the technical side if he were to make this concession available in relation to apprentices?
No. I may have led the Deputy into a misunderstanding. My reply related not to persons being trained by AnCO but to apprentices generally in which the wages quoted —£18 to £24 a week—applied. With trade union organisation and the proper regulation of apprentices, apprentices are not now as they used to be described when I was an apprentice, the lowest form of animal life. They are paid reasonably well and, as I stated in the reply, they could not accurately be described as dependants.