It is provided that the "appointed day" means the day "appointed by the Minister by order under section 29 of this Act to be the appointed day for the purposes of this Act and different days may be appointed for different purposes of this Act." Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to explain in greater detail the reasons for the wording of the interpretation of the appointed day and the suggestion that different days may be appointed for different purposes of this Act. Does that mean that the regulations will be placed before the Oireachtas from time to time?
Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill, 1975: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
No, there is no significant reason for the wording. The Act will come into being on a day designated by the Minister after it has passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas. As the Deputy is aware, under the terms of the Bill the health boards are now taking responsibility for the administration of the supplementary welfare allowance and, it is necessary, for negotiations to be carried out with the health boards after the passing of the Bill to ensure its smooth introduction and to iron out any problems that may exist from the health boards' point of view. I can assure the Deputy that there is no sinister significance in the wording.
On the matter of "child dependant", does that include legitimate and illegitimate children? Yesterday on the Family Law Reform Bill we had a suggestion by the Minister for Justice that for the purpose of this legislation and that with which he was then dealing he may abandon the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children. We believe this distinction should end. Having regard to the fact that the law appears to discriminate against a human being who in the first instance had nothing to do with his or her social condition or arrival into a world under the rules and standards set by society, we strongly believe that the sooner this distinction is abandoned for the purposes of Acts of this nature, the better. The Minister for Justice did indicate his intention of bringing in an amendment to the Family Law Reform Bill which we had in Special Committee yesterday, and if the Minister's amendment goes far enough we will certainly support it, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be good enough to explain the meaning of the phrase "child dependant" as assigned to it by section 2 of the Bill.
The Deputy is anticipating somewhat one of his own amendments in this respect——
Yes. That is right.
——when he raises this point, but I assure the Deputy that my views on the word "illegitimate" and some of the ways in which it is used coincide with the sentiments he has expressed. However, I am at the moment dealing with legislation, legislation which must be capable of being enforced. Although I have no knowledge of what happened yesterday in regard to another Bill, not having been at the Special Committee, I am sure the Deputy will accept that the points he has raised would be more appropriate on the Bill which was discussed yesterday. The difficulty that arises here is that a health board, for very obvious reasons, would not be in a position to determine who the father of a child born out of wedlock was. It would place health boards in an impossible position if they were required by law to do that.
I fully accept the points made by the Deputy and I share very strongly the views he has expressed but I think he will accept that whatever difficulties arise in that area are more approppriate on another Bill and are not appropriate on this one.
Surely the child born out of wedlock would be the responsibility of some person and would be living with some people in whose care it would be? In that case the child would be a dependant.
There is no distinction whatsoever in regard to the payment in respect of the child.
Will the child be classed as a dependant?
Yes, certainly.
The present social climate regards the illegitimate child as nullius fillius, the child of nobody. The Parliamentary Secretary has now assured the House that the dependant child will receive the supplementary welfare entitlements regardless of his legitimacy or illegitimacy. Is that what we are to understand the Parliamentary Secretary as saying?
Undoubtedly. The only distinction which is made—this anticipates the Deputy's amendment— is that as far as liability or the possibility of recovery of any money that might be paid by the health boards is concerned it would not be possible for the health boards to be able to establish or attempt to establish who the father of a child born out of wedlock was. I can assure the Deputy that is the only distinction.
I appreciate draftsmen have a problem in relation to drafting and possibly they want to cut down on the amount of wording they put into a particular Bill. This is not a criticism. There should be at the back of a Bill when it becomes an Act a clearer definition of "home assistance" than saying that it means home assistance within the meaning of the Act of 1939. For instance, a person would have to have available to him the 1939 Act so that he would know what is available. We are not passing this Bill exclusively for the benefit of legislators and lawyers. We are passing it for the benefit of the very people who would not have readily available to them the Act of 1939. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary in his reformist and reforming mood might consider the possibility at some future time of including the definition of "home assistance" at the back of an Act. It may cause difficulty to some people and I do not think we should create obstacles where they need not be created.
When the Deputy refers to my reforming mood he implies that it is something which comes and goes. I can assure him it is a constant thing and not a passing phase. I understand it is extremely difficult in the drafting to spell out clearly and to define clearly just what is referred to in the reference the Deputy has made to the Act of 1939. As he is probably aware, I have on a number of occasions stated in the House that I thought the whole area of social welfare and the legislation covering it made it very difficult not only for Deputies and Members of the Upper House but also for people professionally engaged in the field of social welfare and voluntary organisations.
We have at the moment in the Department a consolidation Bill which is at a very advanced stage of preparation. I hope this will make it somewhat less difficult for people engaged in social welfare. I accept, as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, that while this Bill will be of some benefit it will be of tremendous benefit to people engaged full time in that area. We also endeavour, through the booklet which we issue, to explain in as simple terms as possible what people's entitlements are. There has been a very significant improvement in the presentation of this booklet and also where previously a period of up to five months elapsed between a change in the code and the publication of the booklet we have managed to overcome this and the booklet is now available very shortly after any major changes in the social welfare code. We are conscious of the need in the Department to inform the public as fully as possible what their rights and entitlements are. We endeavour to do it in a way that can best be understood by the ordinary man in the street. I accept that in the drafting of a Bill more technical and legalistic terms must of necessity be used.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The wording of this section is a matter of concern to this side of the House. It states:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet his needs and the needs of any adult or child dependant of his shall be entitled to supplementary welfare allowance.
Within the context of the EEC a nonnational could arrive in this country. I must say the Department of Justice are pretty rigid in relation to who comes in or does not come in to the country. If some such person found himself or herself penniless does this Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill provide for him or her and his or her children? This is something the Parliamentary Secretary might elaborate on.
The Deputy poses a fairly hypothetical question. I do not envisage that we will have many people coming to our shores who will be absolutely penniless on arrival. They certainly would not be after establishing their capabilities of maintaining themselves, having some job or relatives already in the country, but in the event of such a situation arising these people could be helped under the present Bill.
Is there any social welfare code which covers the situation?
In the context of the EEC there are arrangements where benefits——
Within the EEC, I mean. There are regulations whereby if we go abroad to one of the member States we are covered?
Yes.
This would be a matter of reciprocity.
Yes. They carry the benefits with them to this country but in that event it would be unlikely they would have to have recourse to supplementary benefit allowances.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some definition of the word "needs" in section 2. It states:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet his needs....
Who defines the needs of a person? We all have different standards and levels and our income is never sufficient to meet our needs. Perhaps this is defined elsewhere in the Bill but on examination by a health board officer a person can easily satisfy that officer that his income is insufficient to meet his needs. Suppose a widow has a widow's pension of £8 or £9 a week and she can point out that the price of commodities going into her shopping basket are up 10 or 20 per cent on the previous week, her income is then falling short of her needs. Is it determined in that way?
The Deputy spoke of the increase in the cost of a shopping basket in relation to the widow's pension. We have been very fortunate in that we have been able not only to maintain benefits against inflation so far as pensions are concerned but we have been able to go over and above that over the past two-and-a-half years. The Bill not only provides for weekly payments but also allows discretion on the part of the health board. It gets away from the old poor law approach that was in the Home Assistance Act where a person had no rights whatever and it was solely at the discretion of the home assistance officer whether he got any financial assistance and the amount, if any. The amount could vary from week to week, from case to case or from area to area. One of the most objectionable features of the Act which this Bill replaces is that identical cases in exactly the same financial circumstances and responsibilities could, and in fact, did receive different amounts. This Bill sets out a minimum amount to which a person is entitled by right. Over and above that the health board can use discretion.
The Deputy asked how we defined needs. There could be a fire in a home where furniture would be destroyed, blankets and bedding and so on. That is a definite need and could require one lump sum payment. That can be done under the Bill. The Deputy also spoke of people with different standards of living. There could be a woman living in a local authority house at a rent of £2 per week; her husband dies suddenly and she cannot pay the £2. You could have another widow paying £8 a week rent. Their needs, just for shelter, are different and these things must be taken into consideration in defining a person's needs in any particular circumstances.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt more with the benefits than with the definition of "needs". In the case of the old Act it was at the discretion of the investigating officer, the home assistance officer— is it not true that under this Bill the investigation will be carried out by the same person and to determine what criteria the different health boards will use to ensure uniformity is one of the reasons why I want to know how "needs" will be defined? Section 2 speaks of "every person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet his needs and the needs of any adult or child dependant...". The Eastern Health Board officers may decide that a person's income is insufficient to met his needs—this provides for supplementary payments— and no person is today receiving welfare benefit no matter how generous we think it is who would not find it possible to establish that it is insufficient to meet his needs. What criteria will the different home assistance officers now use?
It is not true that it was absolutely at their discretion in the past: they had criteria which were used and these were limited by the amounts the local authority said they could pay and a person got the full amount or, if he had a certain income, the yardstick was used to decide what amount he was entitled to and what his actual wants were. They used the same system as is provided in the Bill in regard to paying a lump sum in cases where persons met with some tragedy or event which deprived them of means which they previously had —a fire or a death in the family or a long illness. There was provision to meet these matters just as in this Bill. Surely the health officers will be given some more definite yardstick than "whose means are insufficient to meet his needs" to define needs and ensure uniformity in the administration of the Act by the different health boards. Otherwise you would perhaps have the North Western Health Board paying more in Leitrim under the Act than the Eastern Health Board may be paying. Will all boards have the same criteria in defining needs? No effort is made to set down what "needs" are.
The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that even in the investigation of means for old age pensions a good deal of reform is necessary. The same test is being applied now as when small farmers were only receiving £10 or £15 for cattle even though store cattle are now making £150. The investigation officer is using his own method of investigation and this means that many people are deprived of assistance.
I do not think there is any definition of "needs" in the Bill. It is open-ended and every person whose means are insufficient can qualify. If we are to ensure that there will be some criteria for the home assistance officers to apply with uniformity so that the same payments and qualifications apply in all health board areas we will have to decide on a definition of "needs". This Bill will become an enormous burden on local authorities who are over-burdened at present with rising rates. The Minister is being generous at the expense of the local authorities. How will the Parliamentary Secretary apply this provision to ensure uniformity so that everybody will not qualify for a supplementary allowance? It appears that everybody can show that their income is insuffient to meet their needs.
It is funny to hear the Deputy talking about the terrible burden this is going to place on the ratepayers especially when he was a former Minister for Social Welfare. Under the Home Assistance Act, which this Bill is replacing, the rates paid 100 per cent but under the terms of this Bill the Exchequer will pay 60 per cent of the additional cost——
The State will pay 60 per cent of the cost over the current year's expenditure.
Which freezes it. The Deputy is trying to imply that this will be a terrible imposition on the rates and has got in remarks about the rates being overburdened but this Bill will restore dignity to people who were stripped of dignity.
How?
The Home Assistance Act was the most disgraceful piece of legislation that ever passed through this House. It was based on an Act of 1847 and it retained, in full, the poor law mentality that existed at that time. It ensured that people who sought assistance under it were demeaned and degraded. Having studied that Act, I came to the conclusion that it was designed to do that. This is 1975 and it took us until now to restore dignity to those people whose only crime was that in our society they had not the basic necessities of life. I find it difficult to take this business of Deputies telling the House of the terrible imposition this will impose on the rates. This Bill will be interpreted as a wider term than the necessities of life. It will do so in such a way that people who need financial help can get it and still retain the right to their dignity as members of our society.
The Parliamentary Secretary is talking a lot of nonsense. Under this Bill the same officers will go into the same houses and ask the same questions in probing the means of the people. Only those who are destitute will suffer the humiliation of a means test which will be with us and the Minister has done nothing to change that. Home assistance officers were decent fellows who went about their business as quietly as possible, but they must continue their investigations under this Bill. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not implying that the assistance will be given out without an investigation. The home assistance officer who now comes under the jurisdiction of the health boards instead of the local authorities will investigate means. They were considered to be the most useful persons to retain because they have local knowledge. They can do a fire brigade service in that they can investigate a case today and pay an allowance the same day to a person who has suffered unusual hardship.
What change has been made from the previous system? Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying, as he has said about the dole in other places, that the Government are now giving the people this as a right? Does the home assistance officer now tell people that they will be given the assistance as a present and that they will get it because it is their right? Who will be entitled to this assistance? If the local school teacher who has 15 children needs a new carpet for his living room floor, will he be entitled? I am aware that a committee are probing into the poverty level and that they have not established anything in that respect as yet and until we receive a report from that committee we must rely on the home assistance officers.
We are seeking to have the payments forwarded through the post because we are anxious to take away any stigma that may be attached to such assistance. I cannot see the difference between this and the administration of the other Act. I cannot see how the allowance will be paid without an investigation being made or the person applying. If that is considered to be affecting the dignity of a person, then unfortunately it must remain and an investigation must take place.
In Limerick different criteria may be used when assessing home assistance from that used in Donegal or Roscommon. There seemed to be a lack of uniformity in county councils, not in the upper limits of the amounts paid, which were not very generous, but in the assessment of needs. A person in Limerick might get the full amount while a person in Donegal with the same means might not.
What criteria will be used under section 2 which deals with a person whose income is insufficient to meet his needs? Will the home assistance officers be sent on a course and told to administer this Act in another way? Will there be regulations dealing with income? Will there be differences in applying it from one area to another? What allowance will be made for free residence, as in unemployment assistance? The home assistance officers are experienced in administering the Home Assistance Act as it is. These officers are also used by other Departments, such as Defence, to assess the means of applicants for special allowances granted to persons who hold medals under the Anglo-Irish troubles of 1916-22, and so on.
The Minister said that the stigma will be removed by this Bill. How? Will there be a new way of assessing means? Will it be unnecessary for the investigating officer to call? By what means will he arrive at his decision that a person is in need of the supplementary allowance? This could be easily understood if we got an explanation of a person's needs. In cases of extreme poverty this is very easy, but in marginal cases it can be extremely difficult. The Act provides that a person, if he is eligible and is not getting home assistance or other social welfare benefits, must apply for them. By way of supplementary payments this Bill will give him the extra money he needs. I find it difficult to understand how this Act will be administered. How will it be applied uniformly throughout the country? Some discretion must be given to the investigating officers because it is impossible to have rules to cover every contingency.
I wonder did the Deputy read the whole Bill? Is he aware of what is contained in it when he makes the charge that there is no real change? Under the Home Assistance Act the Deputy said the rate paid to a man in Donegal and to a man in exactly the same circumstances in Limerick is different. That is true, but it is also true that the rate paid can and has been different within the same operational area. People going to the same authority in the same circumstances have got different rates of payment. Some people have been paid and others have been refused. The Deputy does not seem to think the change in this Bill which gives people a minimum rate by right is very important, but this change coincides precisely with the rate payable to unemployment assistance recipients. The Deputy does not seem to think it is important that there would be a standard rate throughout the country, not a different rate, that it is not a different way of assessing needs, that it is not left entirely to the discretion of a particular officer or authority, that by law, with the passage of this Bill, these people will have rights to a minimum amount, their means will be assessed on a uniform basis, irrespective of the part of the country in which they live and, more important, that in any area, whether it be Donegal, Cork, Dublin or Limerick, two people in the same circumstances will be assured that they will be treated equally and can assert their rights. It does not seem to register much with the Deputy, but under this Bill there is the right of appeal against rejection. This might not appear to be of much importance in the Deputy's mind judging by his comments, but it is of tremendous importance to the person who will be seeking assistance under this Bill.
The question arises as to who will administer it. It is the same people who are administering the Home Assistance Act, the assistance officers, the vast majority of whom administered that Act, which could be described as inhuman, to the best of their ability and with the greatest possible consideration they were allowed——
Agreed. I said that.
The Deputy may not agree when I have finished making the point. They tried to conform to the law in the best possible way. I know some of them found it extremely difficult to administer the Act because they found it so objectionable, and as individuals they made representations to me to change the system. It was by good luck that we got people of the calibre of the home assistance officers, because under that Act the qualifications for home assistance officers contained a vague reference to a generally satisfactory level of education. We cannot continue to rely on luck to ensure that the people who administer this measure will be of the same calibre. Therefore, by means of a working party made up of home assistance officer representatives and officials of the Department of Health, we are trying to devise a means by which officers will receive training when joining the service. We hope this will improve the standard of the service to the people who seek assistance.
Hear, hear.
The Deputy has said he does not see any major change in this Bill. I assure him that if he had to approach a home assistance officer for assistance under the present Act and he was fortunate enough to get a very good type of officer, with the best will in the world operating within the confines of the Home Assistance Act, the Deputy would find himself stripped of his dignity, every shred of it. I do not think this will obtain when this Bill comes into operation. Therefore, I regard the passage of this Bill as a major contribution towards reform of our approach to home assistance and to social welfare in general.
I do not want to be too repetitive and hold the section up. The Parliamentary Secretary went some distance towards satisfying my curiosity as to how the Bill will improve the system. I agree we have had an excellent staff of home assistance officers. However, I would point out that the applications coming to the officers involved severe investigation, and that is exactly what this section provides for. The officer must go into a person's house and ask a set of questions. There is no other approach. It is the same approach as we had in the Act and just because this will be another Act does not mean a departure from the fundamental system of investigating a person's means to see whether he is below a particular line of income. That is the provision we are making here and I hope the courtesy with which home assistance officers approached applicants in the past will continue and that they will not now as established civil servants adopt a certain brazenness. Sometimes investigations are carried out by social welfare officers who give the impression that they are there to take something from a person instead of the reverse. I have said this many times publicly.
There is no question of doubt that the investigation of a person's means involves interrogation and the proper approach rests with the individuals who make such investigations. The officer must ascertain every iota of information about the person, his rights in property, whether he is renting a house or owns it, whether he has the right to free lodgings. It is a thorough investigation and it will not be any different under this Bill.
I should like to know will everybody who is in receipt of welfare payments be entitled to have increased costs, higher prices, taken into consideration. If a man has £15 a week now and it was considered sufficient to meet his needs in October, will he in January next, when prices have gone up by 5 per cent or 10 per cent, have the right to apply to the health authorities under this Act pointing out that his income has been eroded as a result of hugh price increases, and will he have the right to a supplementary allowance in respect of this? Will that be sufficient reason to enable him to qualify for a supplementary allowance?
What I am concerned with are marginal cases. These will be the difficult ones. I have in mind the type of case which in the past was covered by home assistance because a person did not qualify for any other benefit. The situation at present is that if a person exhausts his benefit under the insurance code, he is advised to apply for home assistance. There is no difficulty in a case like that but the difficulties will arise in determining entitlement. How is a person to prove that his income is insufficient to meet his needs? What criteria will be applied by the investigation office in reaching decisions as to what are a person's needs over and above his income? The section is open-ended in this respect and means that the Bill can be applied at any level at any time. However, the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that there will be set guidelines. I take it that there will be uniformity in this respect and that these rules will be passed to the health boards who, in turn, will pass them to their investigation officers. Without such guidelines the people entrusted with these investigations and, consequently, with the responsibility of deciding the disbursement of huge sums of money, would be left to act on their own discretion. I am not totally satisfied with any effort the Parliamentary Secretary has made so far in relation to defining what are to be the upper limits. Regarding the guidelines, it is very important that the people seeking benefit understand what they are entitled to.
The Department issue a booklet each year setting out the various entitlements. No doubt in their next issue they will indicate the guidelines for this supplementary benefit. However, the pertinent question at the moment is what criteria will be used in deciding the gap between a person's income and his needs. If, for instance, a person can establish the fact that he could use a lot more money than he is receiving, will he qualify in part for this extra money?
Deputy Brennan has covered a number of items but one point that seemed peculiar to me was his contention that within the terms of this Bill home assistance officers would consider themselves as having become established civil servants of the Department of Social Welfare and that, consequently, they would behave in an abrasive and intimidating manner. I find that very difficult to accept. While there may always be exceptions, in the main it has not been my experience of civil servants that by reasons of their being established, they lose their natural humanity and sympathy towards people who find themselves in financial difficulties.
The Deputy still does not seem to understand the purpose for which the Bill is designed. He claims that it will involve a means test, that people availing of the present system of home assistance will continue to get benefit anyway. That is not necessarily so and the Deputy, by reason of his having been Minister for Social Welfare for a considerable time, knows this better than any other Member of the House. If during his term of office he found so many abrasive civil servants in the Department he should have taken some action to deal with the situation.
I did act.
Not that I am aware of.
I shall enlighten the Parliamentary Secretary if he so wishes.
He has made the general charge that civil servants in the Department are abrasive.
I made no such charge.
The Deputy's assertion that those in receipt of home assistance would continue to be paid anyway does not hold because in such cases a person may be paid £2 in one week while somebody in exactly the same circumstances might receive £3, £4 or £6. On the other hand, they might receive the assistance this week only to be told next week they are not getting it. Different criteria are applied from one area to another in regard to the establishing of means. As I have said repeatedly, the Act was designed, apparently, to degrade and to that extent it has succeeded.
Deputy Brennan raised the question as to whether a widow, on finding that prices had increased in her shop from one week to the next, could apply for extra benefit to compensate for the increases. This is another of the hypothetical questions raised by the Deputy but if he has been following developments in this area during the past two and a half years he will realise that so far as prices are concerned—these are statistical facts— they have gone up approximately 48 per cent and the lowest percentage increase in social welfare has been 97 per cent and the figure has gone up to an increase of 360 per cent in children's allowances. I do not think, therefore, the hypothetical case posed by Deputy Brennan is likely to arise under this Administration.
Deputy Brennan asked what are needs. How do you define needs? The nearest I can go to defining needs is by saying means fall short of legitimate requirements. Those are needs. Circumstances differ and there is flexibility in this Bill to cater for circumstances over and above the floor put in as a right. If a woman loses her husband suddenly and she is living in accommodation at a rent of £2 per week and she no longer has that £2 per week, obviously her need is £2 per week to keep the roof over her head. In another case the rent might be £10 a week and in that case the woman would have to be given £10 per week to keep the roof over her head. That is what I mean by needs. A fire could occur and destroy the contents of a home. The need there might be for just one payment to replace what had been lost in the fire. Thas is as close that I can come to defining for Deputy Brennan what need is.
I do not wish to deal interminably with this. In the Parliamentary Secretary's definition of needs is it the upper limit that will operate?
Means are calculated under section 12. If that is what the Deputy is seeking, he will find it in section 12.
Then the position is no different from what it has been. That is the point I have been making. The Parliamentary Secretary in order to make this Bill appear as white as possible has got to blacken the Home Assistance Act as much as possible. Let us be honest. The Home Assistance Act was legislation passed at a time when there was a rather different approach from that obtaining now. Investigators went out and asked questions. Sections 12 and 20 merely set out the approach. Section 12 does not define upper limits. What I am trying to elicit is whether this will apply to many people over and above the category to whom home assistance applies at the moment? Does the Parliamentary Secretary envisage a huge number of people being taken in? He said that 60 per cent was payable by the Exchequer. The amount county councils are contributing this year—perhaps it is a bad year—to home assistance is high because of inflation. A greater number will qualify.
County councils will still be responsible for any payments up to the amount they pay this year and 40 per cent on to what the increase will be over and above that according to the provisions of this Bill. It is, therefore, most important to know at what level the means test will operate in defining needs. Will it apply to all social welfare recipients if they can show their legitimate needs are not met by their present income? If we wish to apply it in that way, we can do so. The provision is here in this Bill. There is no limit. It will be a matter of a set of rules or regulations to be applied by investigation officers who will have sole discretion. An investigation officer can tell the health authority Pat Murphy has an income of £6 a week below his legitimate requirements to meet his needs and recommend that he should get £6 a week. Pat Murphy will be able to appeal if he thinks he should get the upper limit in the proposed amendment of £7.75 and have his case reinvestigated. Can a non-contributory old age pensioner who believes his income is insufficient to meet his needs apply for this and will the investigation in his case stand? In other words, will there be liaison between the two sets of investigating officers? One set will go out from the health boards and the other from the Department of Social Welfare. Will there be uniformity as between the two sets? Will they have some definition of what means are? How far will these supplementary payments extend? To what extent will ratepayers have to meet the Bill for supplementary payments calculated on the incomes of people or will such supplementary payments be restricted to people who have suddenly fallen on bad times and whose needs are easily accessible because one knows the house was burned down or something like that or they were deprived of the breadwinner as a result of an accident? Here the Home Assistance Act operates and always did operate, however much we may denigrate the provisions and the operation of it.
That is easy to understand. There is no difficulty of definition there. We want to get some idea of the extent to which these payments will apply in future. They could be very generous. They could spread over a huge area, or they could be very restricted and confined to a small number of people only, such as those who benefit at present. They could extend out to a huge variety of persons. The local authorities will be anxious to get this information. Everybody will be anxious to know the extent to which the Bill will be generous. This will depend on the extent to which the net will be spread in relation to the gap between income and need. I could not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be in a position to give us an exact estimate of the extent to which people will benefit. Is it intended to spread the benefit over a wide area?
It is intended to meet the legitimate needs.
This is where we are stuck. Will the legitimate needs be different from what they were in the past?
Under the Bill, legitimate needs will not be confined to the bare necessaries of life.
That is interesting. In other words it will go far beyond the scope of what it was in the past.
I would hope so, yes.
It will spread over a huge area? It will take in a great many people who are already getting social welfare benefits?
The Bill specifically states that the fact that they are receiving social welfare benefits would not necessarily preclude them from benefiting under this Bill.
We would not spend so long on this section——
It is in the Bill.
It can be extended to everybody who has a social welfare payment and the Parliamentary Secretary says he hopes it will.
I did not say I hoped it would. I said that, in the case of legitimate need, it will apply.
I am not too happy about it. This is an important section.
I should like to comment on one statement made by Deputy Brennan. He inquired from the Parliamentary Secretary whether a person who failed to qualify for a non-contributory pension would qualify for the supplementary welfare allowance. I was surprised to hear Deputy Brennan ask that question. As stated in the section, this is supplementary to some other benefit.
Not necessarily. It could be of benefit to people who get no other payment. That is not its sole purpose. The Parliamentary Secretary has not read the Bill.
The Deputy specified an old age pensioner.
I mean the Parliamentary Secretary who is speaking.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has not read the Bill. He does not know what he is talking about.
For the Deputy's information, the Bill is part of a substantial package of measures approved by this House since the National Coalition Government took office.
That is clap-trap. It does not explain anything. That is only baloney.
The Labour Party have lost their identity.
That is politics. Tell us about the Bill.
We were having a sensible and reasonable discussion until the Parliamentary Secretary came on the scene.
The Parliamentary Secretary.
It is well known throughout the State who have lost their identity. That is in reply to the interjection by Deputy Andrews.
That is a brilliant retort. The Parliamentary Secretary can dine out on it for years.
I am dealing with the question posed by Deputy Brennan.
He did not pose any question.
He did. He asked if an applicant for an old age pension was unsuccessful, could he have a separate investigation by the local authority investigator to ascertain whether he would qualify for benefit under this section. In my view, the answer is no. That would be overlapping and it would be wasteful expenditure. If, on the first investigation, he was deemed not to be entitled to an old age pension, taking into account the easement of the means test which has been brought about during the past two and a half years, and which is now very much weighted in favour of the applicant as against what it was when Deputy Brennan was Minister——
There is very little difference. I had to send out four letters of regret to people yesterday telling them they had failed to get an old age pension and they are small, poor farmers. Tell us about section 2.
Deputy Brennan is not being realistic. Neither is he being factual in asserting that there has been little or no change in the means test applicable to non-contributory pensions as against the time when he was Minister. Everybody knows it has been changed beyond recognition. It would be wasting the time of this House to mention the changes. Is it not clear——
What are the changes?
When the Deputy was in office, a man and his wife who owned their own home and had no income——
They got the pension. We know that. What about the income?
They lost five shillings. When the Deputy was in office, if a man had more than £25 he did not qualify for the maximum rate of pension. Now he can have £3,000, or very close to it, and qualify for the maximum.
Income?
Capital.
I asked about income.
He can have £6 income. A married person could have £12 income and qualify for the full pension.
A full pension with £12 income?
Yes. As well as that, in the case of married applicants the allowance for the spouse is included irrespective of age. That has been changed beyond recognition. The Deputy is well aware of the many pleas I made to him personally to change the age limit, and so on, and he took no action. The answer to the Deputy's question whether this would apply to applicants whose claims for old age pensions were unsuccessful is no, in my opinion. If an applicant is unable to qualify for a non-contributory pension, having regard to the easement of the means test within the past two and a half years, in my view he would not qualify for this allowance.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
On the one hand subsection (1) of section 3 seems to be quite definitive in its statement of intent:
Any person who is receiving full-time instruction by day at any university, college, school or other educational establishment shall not be entitled to supplementary welfare allowance.
If one jumps from subsection (1) to subsection (3), one finds that, under exceptional circumstances, subsection (1) does not apply. We are concerned as to whether or not it is necessary to enshrine in our legislation a section of this nature because, on the one hand, the statement itself in subsection (1) seems to be discriminatory. It would appear to discriminate against indigent people who may be in receipt of university, college, school or other educational facilities.
If the intention of this Bill is to be carried out in an equitable fashion, one wonders why there is a need for section 3. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will present a very reasonable answer, or one which he considers to be reasonable. We would be interested to know what are his views on the section. No doubt there is a good reason according to him and his advisers why the section should be there.
If one is talking about free education, in the real sense of the word, it would appear that subsection (1) of section 3 would attempt to exclude such people. Then at subsection (3) of section 3 the point is made that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), the Parliamentary Secretary, in exceptional circumstances, will allow the granting of a supplementary welfare allowance to those people mentioned at subsection (1). Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would elucidate the section itself.
Let me follow the line of Deputy Andrews in this matter, not to offer any criticism of the section but merely to extract some information on it. Could the Parliamentary Secretary spell out clearly the difference between subsections (1) and (3)? In the case of a person on strike we had this type of difficulty even last year. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, very often when such things occur a public representative goes around from one office to another inquiring how such a person on strike can be aided. Under subsection (1) of section 3 he is debarred but, under subsection (3) of section 3 he is eligible.
Is it possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to spell out things more definitely so that even the most uninformed public representative will be able to help such a person? I am merely asking the Parliamentary Secretary to spell out the difference between subsections (1) and (3) of section 3 because there is a difference.
Deputy Andrews made a point about students. As one can see from the Bill, there is no age limit for qualification for supplementary welfare allowance in the Bill but a student would normally be the responsibility of his parents or one or other of them. In the event of their qualifying for the allowance, the fact that he was a dependant would be taken into consideration in the granting of the allowance. There can be exceptions to that in so far as a student, in his own right, may be entitled to supplementary allowance by virtue of the fact that he may be the head of a household. Indeed, there may be people dependent on him or he could be an orphan with no parent who would be receiving an allowance in respect of him. The question Deputy Moore raised referred to people who may be involved in an industrial dispute. Is that correct?
I referred to the fact that some ambiguity had been eliminated in that respect. But it is reintroduced in section 3 with regard to a university student and so on. What I am seeking is a definite decision saying that this man is entitled to benefit or he is not.
As the Deputy will appreciate, it depends on the person's means and liabilities as to what he would be entitled to or otherwise. A person directly involved in an industrial dispute would himself not qualify for payment under this Bill but his dependants, his wife and children would qualify.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give a figure: say, if one's income exceeded £X?
If the Deputy has read the Bill, he will see that, for the first time, a uniform, standard rate will be paid as of right. Also, the right of appeal by an applicant is embodied in the Bill. Those are two major advances on the present system, under the Home Assistance Act, which we hope to abolish. Over and above that minimum payment, there are also provided discretionary powers taking into consideration all the circumstances. Therefore, except in regard to the basic entitlement under the terms of the Bill, it would not be possible to give the Deputy a figure. It would vary from case to case as far as the discretionary element was concerned.
This would appear to be a gratuitous reference to those in receipt of full-time instruction. Why must the Parliamentary Secretary highlight this group of people and place them here in a rather gratuitous situation? I do not make this point by way of carping criticism, quite the contrary.
If one is to operate the standards laid down in what is a good Act, on the grounds of equity, is there any real need to highlight the group of people I have mentioned? On the one hand, they are excluded in subsection (1) of section 3 and, on the other hand, included in subsection (3) of that section. The loophole in this section is symptomatic of the whole Act because, if one turns to section 15 there are exclusions to that also. The Parliamentary Secretary has explained up to a point the matters raised by myself and Deputy Moore. Perhaps he would be good enough to give a definite answer as to why the section is inserted at all? There may be a good reason for doing so but he does not appear to have dealt with that point.
My concern was brought about vis-à-vis a student. There is no age limit on students. One can be a student at 50, 40, 30, 20, 18 or 10. I accept that one can be the head of a household in or about the region of the upper limits. A person of 18 years could be the head of a household or he could be an orphan. I am concerned about all these people. I would appreciate if the Parliamentary Secretary would deal specifically with whether it is gratuitous to include such people in the legislation. Perhaps he would tell us if there is any great need for the section itself. I accept that there may be a positive reason for having the section.
The section is there in order to ensure that no injustice is done to the people for whom Deputy Andrews has expressed concern. As I explained, normally a student would be included as a dependant of an applicant for supplementary allowance. The fact that he was a dependant of his mother, father or guardian would be taken into consideration in determining entitlement and, if there was anything over the basic payment, would be included in any discretionary payment that might be made. The section is there to ensure that while this is done dual claims will not be made in respect of the one person. There is a saving clause to ensure that people who may be students and who do not fall into that category, who are heads of households and have dependants, who are orphans or who are relying only on their own resources, would be eligible to make application under the terms of the Bill. It is there to ensure that people who would have legitimate recourse to the allowance would not be debarred from doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Andrews has been ruled out of order.
With regard to the ruling out of order of my amendment, as I see it the amendment has a lot of merit——
The amendment has been ruled out of order and the Deputy may not discuss it.
I appreciate that as a private Member I cannot move an amendment of this nature but a member of the Government could do so, having regard to his ministerial authority. The Parliamentary Secretary has a higher status than I——
We cannot discuss that.
I was wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider moving my amendment? It is a first-class amendment.
I do not see why not.
We cannot discuss an amendment which has been ruled out of order.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to refer to subsection (3) of this section which may be used to supplement payment to mentally handicapped or other partially handicapped people who might find themselves in employment. If I am interpreting the subsection correctly, it could be used to encourage disabled persons to find employment. Their output might not be up to standard and their employers might not find it possible to give them full remuneration and in such a case the Bill might be used to close that gap. If their output is not up to the standard of normal persons employers do not like employing them and paying them a lesser wage. This section could be used in the case of such handicapped people who are only getting a partial wage and could bring that wage to the normal standard. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give us his views on this matter.
My intention was to protect the under-privileged by way of a statement of the law by giving permanent effect to subsection (3) and to ensure that regulations under subsection (2) would provide for the granting of supplementary welfare allowances on a permanent basis to people mentioned in subsection (3). That seems to be a reasonable proposition.
I appreciate my amendment has been ruled out of order and, consequently, I cannot refer to it specifically. On Report Stage would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the possibility of putting down an amendment to make a permanent statement of law of the position in relation to subsection (3)? As Deputy Brennan said, if we are interpreting the section correctly the supplementary welfare allowance will be an addition to whatever moneys the person will receive in respect of his employment. For that reason alone it is a first-class section and we support it wholeheartedly. All we wish to do is to ensure that permanent effect be given to the intention envisaged in subsection (3).
It is not my intention to enter into a discussion with the Chair because the Chair is only interpreting the Rules of the House as he sees them but, in the circumstances, I cannot understand why my amendment was ruled out of order. If it is done on the basis that it was creating a charge on the Exchequer that is very well but the Chair has not mentioned that——
That is the reason.
I am glad to hear that but I fail to see how it can be the reason. I appreciate that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not make the decision and I do not wish to embarrass him. It does not make sense to me that it is considered my amendment would make a charge on the Exchequer. All I am trying to do is to ensure that there is a permanent protection for people in receipt of supplementary welfare allowances where they are in permanent, full-time employment.
On a point of order, the position I am being placed in is that a number of amendments have been disallowed. I have no function whatever in that. It is entirely a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.
I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary.
The situation would appear to be developing that amendments that are disallowed and are not legitimately before the House for discussion are being discussed and political points made. It is an impossible position to be placed in, because I have no right to reply and I would have no right to refute statements which were not factual. Therefore, with respect, either the amendments are allowed and we all discuss them or they are not allowed and no one discusses them.
May I submit that if the amendment is ruled out of order it does not preclude the proposer of that amendment from discussing the matter which prompted him to put down the amendment?
The amendments have been ruled out of order. I did not think the Deputy would require an explanation of this because, as the Chair has indicated, they involve a potential charge on revenue. However, as the Deputy is on the section, he has been allowed to refer to the matter, but he is not being allowed to move the amendment nor can there be a discussion on it as such.
I did not want to take the Parliamentary Secretary short. We are politicians and proud of being politicians. I do not like the way the Parliamentary Secretary uses the word "politics". We on this side of the House are not trying to make politics out of our amendments. Let us talk about the Bill in a reasonable fashion. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to introduce that tone and tenor into the debate, that is entirely a matter for himself. We have been endeavouring to keep this Bill at the proper level of debate.
The Chair wants to make it clear that the question of the ruling out of amendments is not open to discussion in the House.
I think we are agreed on all sides of the House that subsection (3) is an excellent provision and we subscribe to it fully. Therefore one can well appreciate Deputy Andrews's anxiety to give it a permanent basis, and that is all he is asking the Parliamentary Secretary to do. While the rules of procedure say we cannot do this, there is nothing to stop the Parliamentary Secretary from agreeing to adopt the spirit of the amendment and to introduce it at some later Stage of the Bill.
The Deputy may not refer to amendments which have been ruled out of order.
We cannot deny the fact that we are aware of the amendment; it is in print here. As Deputy Andrews has said, we are trying to discuss the merits of this Bill—there are some good things in it certainly— in the broadest possible way so that it will be effective legislation. Under subsection (3) there is a big problem raised in that parents feel that while they are alive they can help, with the aid of the State to look after their handicapped children but that when they die there will not be proper provision for the children or that the law might change. Deputy Andrews's anxiety is to bring some comfort to these people by ensuring that on our Statute Book will go this permanent measure. Again I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give us even some hope that he might amend this at a later Stage of the Bill.
As Deputies on the far side of the House have indicated, it is a very important section and one which will do a tremendous amount of good. We all know there are disabled persons who are capable, as far as time is concerned, of taking on employment, but their output can be severely restricted in many cases, depending on the extent of the disablement.
Under subsection (3) it will lie within the powers of the health boards to take into account the shortfall in what they would normally expect to earn if they did not suffer from this disablement and what they would earn if they were full-time engaged in a remunerative occupation. I think it is a very important advance in this area, and I appreciate that Deputies have seen that and been so ready to acknowledge it. With regard to payment and the duration of payment under the terms of the Bill payment will continue as long as the need arises and if that is permanent there will continue to be permanent payment, and the terms of the Bill as it now stands do not debar people from receiving this allowance on a permanent basis.
This is an important section and I would not let it pass without probing a little further. A subsection to section 4 does what might be provided in an entire Bill to assist the mentally and physically handicapped and other persons in obtaining employment, and it is something the Rehabilitation Institute would be very much interested in at present. A separate Bill might be needed in order to fully set out the conditions under which payment may be paid. The Rehabilitation Institute personnel would be interested in trying to find employment, and if they could negotiate what amount might be payable, it would enable them to place many of those partially handicapped people in employment.
Would that be possible under this subsection or does it merely apply to persons who happen to be in work and make application to have the gap closed? Would it be possible to come to the health board beforehand and say: "Here is a person who is blind and would be able to do a job to some extent but would not have an output which would justify my paying him the full rate. To what extent would you supplement his wages if I employ him?" If there could be prior negotiations in that way, prior consultation, the subsection could result in having many partially disabled persons employed who at present are not. We have said already when speaking on this subsection that we do not like these people being taken on unless they are paid the full rate, and their output does not justify it. Not all employers are philanthropists. Many of them do take on a percentage of disabled people and pay them the full rate just for the sake of helping out those who are engaged in rehabilitation work.
Here is a section which can be used with tremendous benefit. It is probably not sufficient to deal with this problem. When I was Minister in charge of Labour and also Social Welfare I had approaches from the rehabilitation people to ascertain to what extent the State would be prepared to assist in the employment of people who were not, due to mental or physical capacity, capable of earning a full wage.
This subsection can help those people. It may require a separate Bill to deal adequately with what is proposed in this subsection. On the other hand, it could be used to permit of the necessary expansion, if widely interpreted, to enable hundreds of incapacitated or partly incapacitated people to find employment. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to elaborate further in relation to this subsection.
As I said previously, this is an extremely important provision under the terms of the Bill. While it allows a supplementary allowance to be made to a disabled person who is in full time paid employment but who, by virtue of his handicap, physical or mental, would not be capable of earning sufficient wages it does not mean that all disabled persons are not capable of taking up employment and giving extremely good value to their employers and are entitled to and, in fact, earn, by any standards, a full week's wages. Deputy Brennan mentioned blind people in the course of his contribution. Very many blind people are employed and give more than adequate service to their employers.
Paraplegics.
Yes, a number of disabled people are employed. I would not wish it to mean that a disabled person, irrespective of his capacity for output, could be taken on cheaply by an employer because he would be able to make it up under the provisions of this Bill. The subsection we are discussing is to cater for a genuine need in our society to ensure that people who are disabled are able to work and are able to contribute but because of the type of their disablement are not capable of earning a full week's wages. Such people could qualify under the Bill. It would be a mistake if we were to think that all disabled people cannot be gainfully and fully employed. I understand, as far as employment is concerned, that the output of very many of them is greater than that of people who do not suffer from any disablement.
Some employers who have employed disabled people have said that the disabled people are much more conscientious and productive workers than many of their fellow workers who have no disablement. It is important that we make it quite clear that the provision in the Bill is only to cater for the needs of disabled people who, because of the degree and type of their disablement cannot with the best will in the world perform what would be regarded as a normal week's work and, accordingly, their earnings are affected. The majority of disabled people are quite capable of doing a full week's work and when they are given the opportunity to do so it has been the experience of employers that apart from possessing all the qualities that make for a good employee their commitment and dedication to their employment is greater than that of their fellow workers who have no disablement. This provision in the Bill can be of tremendous assistance to people suffering from certain types of disablement in varying degrees.
I am not sure that the Parliamentary Secretary's statement has been reassuring because I hoped that the subsection would have wider appeal than he seems to attach to it. I asked if a separate Bill would not be necessary. We all know that many incapacitated people, whether suffering from physical or mental incapacity, are holding down good jobs. Their concentration, because of their incapacity, is very often greater than that of those who are mobile. I am particularly interested in the type of work available for particular types of incapacitated people. We must realise that the number of incapacitated people seeking rehabilitation is only a small proportion of the total number of incapacitated people. This is partly due to the lack of suitable work. We know that blind people can operate telephone exchanges and some of them have been trained to use typewriters but their output may not be so good.
Training is very important in such cases. If the income of such people could be supplemented from the health boards, it would enable many of them to go into employment where they would serve apprenticeship. We know that there are hundreds of such people throughout the country who have received no training who may not be listed by the rehabilitation people. Some of those people, such as people with one arm, people paralysed from the waist down and many other people in wheel chairs can carry out a certain amount of work. We need to do a lot more for such people as the public conscience becomes more and more awakened in relation to providing for them.
It would be no harm to apply the provisions of this subsection to these people to enable them to get into employment. At the start it is a question of training. They may find themselves in certain types of employment not very suitable to their incapacity but in which after a certain time they become very proficient. If such people got a supplement to their incomes at the start it would encourage many people to employ them. It could be reviewed from time to time if their capacity to earn improved, not taking a weight off the employer by any means, not providing cheap labour—that is not what I have in mind.
The Deputy appreciates that there would be a great danger that cheap labour would be availed of by certain employers.
It could be open to that abuse, but it could be useful in cases where people are not in a position to earn full wages. Disabled persons, such as polio victims who have proper education and training, are always capable of holding down any job requiring those qualifications and even of giving a better output than those who are not handicapped. It would not apply to them but to those who have no training or no opportunity. It would be of such tremendous assistance from the therapeutic point of view to have employment that any type of work would be useful. Without the provisions of that section I cannot see them making much progress because none of us likes to be branded as employing cheap labour. If we pay some of these people one-quarter of their weekly wage it looks bad and sometimes we do not do it when it is subject to that accusation.
The words I was using were "prior negotiation". Perhaps prior arrangements could be made. I think the Parliamentary Secretary does not contemplate the subsection being used to that extent. Perhaps he is right it might require a separate Bill to cover all the possibilities and permutations that would necessarily come into this type of supplementary payment in respect of handicapped people. I am in no way taking from the importance of the section; even in its most restricted interpretation it is still calculated to do an excellent job, but whether it could be extended in the wider sense to which I am alluding, I do not know.
The only problem I could foresee it that some unscrupulous employer or employers might attempt to avail of the subsection to abuse the person suffering from physical or mental disability in his employment. There may be—no doubt there are— sanctions for such an abuse. Would it be too late to consider that at this stage? I appreciate that once we have got into a section we cannot offer amendments but the Parliamentary Secretary might consider the possibility on Report Stage of making the section subject to some form of sanction or to more rigid control. It came to my attention some years ago that people recovering from a nervous breakdown condition were employed by certain employers offering a service to the public. They were paid at the rate of £3 or £4 a week. Possibly the employers felt they were doing a service to the employees in the context of rehabilitation but they were getting a full day's work from the employees who were recovering from the condition mentioned. It seems grossly unfair in those circumstances not to offer a higher wage. The rehabilitation element is very important, but people suffering from such a handicap should not be treated as second-class citizens. My only judgment of employers of that type is that they are employing cheap labour. They might consider they were performing a Christian service according to their own ethics but if you pay somebody £3, £4 or £5 a week on a full-time basis it is disgraceful.
Deputy Brennan and the Parliamentary Secretary both adverted to the fact that the disabled person is not a second-class citizen and disablement does not necessarily mean mental incapacity. Many people who had been fully fit may, due to some tragic accident, become paraplegic and suffer from a disability below the waist and find themselves in a wheelchair for life. These people should be given the opportunity to engage in full-time, remunerative employment. The terms of this Bill would not be envisaged in the context of their work in society.
We might, in that connection, mention the Irish Wheelchair Association which has done such wonderful work for its members by attempting to bring about—and succeeding in the main— an awareness of the rights of people in wheelchairs. In that context we should examine our own consciences. Deputy Brennan said the matter might be dealt with in a Private Members' Bill or a Government Bill, entitled the Disabled Persons Bill, and the terms of such a Bill might include access to public buildings by persons in wheelchairs, provision of ramps and so on. For instance, can people in wheelchairs get up to the Distinguished Visitors Gallery in this House or to the Public Gallery? They are citizens just as much as any of us but they are excluded because of their disability from access to the House. We might begin by providing access in Dáil Éireann.
I do not think that arises on this section.
I was merely expanding Deputy Brennan's suggestion of a Disabled Persons Bill. I appreciate that it is not dealt with specifically in the Bill, but if we are talking of disablement and the value of section 4 (3) surely we are entitled to develop the subject a little on behalf of the people the subsection intends to benefit. It is not often we have an opportunity of discussing physical or mental disability.
Acting Chairman
I remind the Deputy that he had an opportunity of discussing the matter on the Second Stage of the Bill.
I did discuss it on the Second Stage and I am now having a second opportunity of discussing it. We should avail of every opportunity to discuss this matter.
My reason for making this short contribution on the subsection was to inquire of the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would consider the possibility of introducing on Report Stage some form of amendment containing a sanction to deal with abuses. Given human weaknesses, I have no doubt that there will be abuses under that subsection. That does not speak well for human kind, but there is a lot of pressure from time to time.
One can see a weakness in the subsection. The subsection has received the plaudits of the House, and rightly so. It is a good subsection, but could we not make it a better one by copperfastening it and making it watertight against attack from people who might use it under the heading of cheap labour or otherwise?
Deputy Andrews has made an important and serious contribution in the field of our treatment, as a society, of disabled persons. I do not see any need for an amendment; but I accept that, were the Bill to be interpreted as suggested by Deputy Brennan, it would be open to abuse. It could be used by unscrupulous employers to obtain cheap labour from people who are suffering from either physical or mental handicaps but who would be giving those employers a damn good return by their labour for any money received.
There are many things being done here today in the name of Christian charity and I am convinced that Christ would denounce them were He among us. There are disabled people, particularly in rural Ireland, working in bars, hotel bars and in general hotel work who because of some disablement are being exploited in the name of Christian charity by some of our more affluent citizens.
This subsection is designed to do one thing: where a person is legitimately in full-time employment and by virtue of disablement, physical or mental, cannot produce an output on a par with other people engaged in that type of employment and his remuneration is less as a result that, he can be taken into consideration under the terms of the Bill. I do not disagree with the other matters mentioned in connection with the disabled but I do not think they fall within the ambit of the terms of the Bill. Training and things of that nature in the field of the disabled cannot be dealt with under this Bill.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to examine the possibility of introducing sanctions. The Parliamentary Secretary has agreed with the concern expressed by Members on this side about abuses, and I would be obliged if he would give some reasons why he does not consider it reasonable to have sanctions. This is a worthy subsection but it should be protected from attack by the unscrupulous. The Parliamentary Secretary some time ago informed me that 500 prosecutions are being taken for abuses of the social welfare code. If that is the size of the attack on other sections of the social welfare code one can imagine the attack on this subsection, which is open to abuse by the unscrupulous. There are unscrupulous people willing to take advantage of such subsections. They are a small minority, but they are there. If there is a prospect of one abuse of this subsection it is important that we should protect it by some form of sanction. The Parliamentary Secretary should consider the possibility of adding some protection on Report Stage.
I do not think the possibility of abuse of the subsection arises. The fears expressed here have been to the effect that unscrupulous employers who want cheap labour will avail of it. They cannot do that because the payment is made to the employee and not to the employer. The opportunity for a potentially unscrupulous employer to avail of this subsection is not there. There is no need for sanctions to meet the fears which the Deputy has sincerely raised.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
This section is very fundamental and concerns persons affected by trade disputes. Again, I must deal with this section in conjunction with another section, section 15. If I took section 5 on its own I could not be blamed for wondering why a person who is legitimately out of work by reason of a trade dispute at his place of employment is not entitled to supplementary social welfare allowance. Having made a clear statement on section 5 (1) that such a person is not entitled to a supplementary welfare allowance, then the Parliamentary Secretary makes exceptions to that rule. When a man joins a trade union he undertakes to involve himself in a strike if his union consider it necessary. I accept that he may be entitled to other benefits under the social welfare code, and that his dependants must be taken care of, but why must the Parliamentary Secretary be so definitive?
Under the provisions of this section a person engaged in an industrial dispute would not qualify for a supplementary allowance. Normally such a man, if he is a member of a trade union, pays contributions to his union. Embodied in those contributions is an element that allows for such contingencies as strikes. A strike fund is built up and usually payments are made to members who are on strike. Under the terms of this Bill there would be no barrier to the dependants of such a man being granted supplementary allowances. If a man was on strike, there is no reason why he should have to witness his wife and five children suffering from the economic repercussions of a prolonged strike. I do not think our society would wish to wage war, whether it be industrial or any other kind, against women and children. That is the reason this very proper provision is in this Bill. On the other hand, a legitimate charge could be made by those on the other side of the industrial dispute if the agents of the State were to be seen as subsidising an industrial dispute.
Deputy Andrews referred to the exemptions under section 15. In any kind of liberal approach to this area, where there are general rules, there must be exceptions, if the legislation is worth enacting. There must be provisions which will take into consideration certain unforeseen contingencies that would not generally apply, but do arise and could impose very severe hardship on individual members of our society. This type of legislation, particularly the area covered in this Bill, should take those exceptional cases into consideration and ensure that as far as possible there are provisions which will see to it that people are not forced to suffer unnecessary and extreme hardship during those periods.
I accept that people should not be asked to suffer extreme hardship under any circumstances. Would the Parliamentary Secretary say if my interpretation of sections 5 and 15 taken together——
May I interrupt for a moment? Are we taking sections 5 and 15 together?
That is a good point. We could do that.
Acting Chairman
For the purposes of debate they could be taken together.
But the questions would be put separately?
Acting Chairman
Yes, without debate, at the appropriate point.
I will not take it on that basis because some Members of my party may want to discuss section 15. If we were to take sections 5 and 15 together now, the question would have to be put without debate. Therefore, with the Parliamentary Secretary's permission. I will deal with them separately.
Can the money paid to a man affected by a stoppage of work or a trade union dispute in his place of employment be recovered in certain circumstances? In other words, can the health board go after the individual to whom the payments were made in the circumstances envisaged by sections 5 and reclaim that money? Under what circumstances can the money be recovered?
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is aware that he may discuss the implications of section 15 provided they are relevant.
That is what I was doing.
As far as recovery is concerned, the health board would only seek to recover money that had been obtained fraudulently but there would be no attempt made to recover money that had been claimed legitimately.
That is not clear in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary might like to straighten up subsection (2) of section 15, which is connected with the section we are now discussing. Section 15 does not make the point the Parliamentary Secretary has just made on the question of the recoverability of money.
Acting Chairman
Perhaps the Deputy would not go too far in that direction. He is advocating changes in section 15.
I will deal with it more specifically when we come to the section, but it relates to section 5.
Acting Chairman
The border between relevancy and irrelevancy is very fine. I do not wish to stifle debate but we will be coming to section 15.
It is very difficult to separate the two sections in the debate.
They are very close together.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary deal with that point? The Chair has been most gracious.
I can deal with it if the Deputy wishes.
I hope it will not exclude debate on section 15 later.
Acting Chairman
It would be better not to discuss it if it is to be debated later.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 9, after "person" to insert "and payment of such supplementary welfare allowance shall, wherever possible, be made by postal order or cheque".
Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary rightly said that if we are serious about up-dating social welfare legislation we should exclude the element of the poor law mentality and give people benefits to which they are entitled out of right and not by way of charity. He said the 1939 Public Assistance Act was a disgrace. He is entitled to that interpretation but we must be fair to the legislators of that time. We are talking about legislation which is 40 years old and we must have regard to the atmosphere of society and the demands of the time. Our legislators were the touchstone of that interpretation and they came along here and produced an Act in the fullness of their wisdom. It is easy to use an Act 40 years old, blacken it and then come in here to produce by comparison something that is regarded as whiter than white.
In that context, this amendment has high relevance. I accept that supplementary allowances are generally paid by assistance officers handing out the payments in cash or kind to those directly entitled to them. Nowadays the queues at labour exchanges extend out onto the streets. I agree there has been such progress in our society that people no longer feel the humiliation that existed some years ago but there are people who do not like the idea of standing on the footpath. In my constituency of Dún Laoghaire the queue extends from the labour exchange back to St. Michael's Hospital. Arising out of my efforts there is to be a new labour exchange there.
We are only too glad to accommodate the Deputy.
Thanks. My efforts have been successful in that respect and I know Deputies in the constituency tried to come in at the end of it. We can accommodate them at any time. My amendment would avoid the present system because payments would be made by postal order or cheque. That is a reasonable proposition. The Parliamentary Secretary delivered himself of a long discourse on the poor law mentality and I am sure he would agree that if we are sincere in this section the amendment can be nothing but totally acceptable.
The amendment of Deputy Andrews is a good one if only for the reason that old people are nowadays robbed and beaten. We are approaching the stage when normal coin and currency are disappearing in favour of cheque payments. There have been all sorts of social reforms since the days of Elizabeth Fry who did so much for prison reform. Today one would find some of her attitudes almost offensive. She did great work but always with that condescending attitude.
Politicians must guard against an attitude of that kind. They must not become mere do-gooders but must show themselves to be men who have a deep concern for social reform. I am convinced that the Parliamentary Secretary has such concern. However a Government must never become merely a full-purse Government. If we look at the 40-year-old Act we are amending we will find that on its introduction it was much more radical and far-seeing than some present-day Acts. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will find it possible to accept Deputy Andrews's amendment. Not only must we endeavour to continue to better social welfare payments but we must modernise that method of disbursement. The acceptance of this amendment would improve the Bill. I cannot see any administrative difficulty in paying by cheque or postal order.
This question arose during the Second Stage debate when it was discussed at considerable length and when I indicated that I agreed fully with the thinking behind the suggestion. During the time between the adjournment of the debate one evening and its resumption the following morning I ascertained, from inquiries I made, that in the vast majority of cases it would be possible and practicable to make these payments by cheque. As I indicated then, I consider this to be the most desirable way of making payments. However, I do not think it would be possible to accept the amendment and to enshrine in legislation the words "wherever possible".
I assure the House that I am very anxious that in so far as possible payments would be by cheque—I am referring to all long duration payments—but there are other types of payments envisaged under this Bill. For instance, in certain circumstances such as the aftermath of a fire, a once-in-a-lifetime payment might be made. This would be by way of a lump sum paid to help a person cope with a difficult situation, having first ascertained the extent of damage and the losses incurred and so on. There are also envisaged payments in respect of the dependants of those on strike. Family circumstances can change not only from one week to another but from one day to another.
Deputy Andrews referred today to the question of abuse of the social welfare code and pointed out that 500 prosecutions had taken place in this context. So far as possible it is our desire to be liberal in the operation of the scheme but we must always bear in mind our responsibility to the taxpayers, the ratepayers and to society generally, and consequently we must take reasonable precautions to avoid abuses of the scheme.
So far as I am concerned payments will be by cheque or postal order where this is possible, but it would not be desirable to enshrine in our legislation the words suggested by the Deputy in his amendment.
To some extent I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view. I do not have available to me the benefit of a parliamentary draftsman but in drafting amendments I am guided by my head and my heart. I endeavour to frame amendments comprehensively. Obviously, the wording in this case does not comply with the accepted standards. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that those in receipt of supplementary benefits and other social welfare entitlements during long periods would be paid by cheque or postal order. Generally such persons would not need to go to a bank or post office in order to cash a pay order because they would be facilitated in this way by their local grocer or some such person. I do not see why we should not have incorporated as a statement of law a direction in regard to the method of payment. Were this done the people for whom we are legislating would have no doubt about the method of payment to which they were entitled. I accept that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to ensure that payments are by way of pay order; but, if I withdraw my amendment, will he introduce another in terms acceptable to him and to the Department which will have the same effect? The legislation would be all the better for having such a provision.
I would not agree that it would be all the better for that kind of phraseology.
I am leaving the phraseology to the Parliamentary Secretary.
Deputy Andrews says he has not got available to him the machinery that is available to me. Deputy Andrews had the civil service available to him——
Not personally, no.
——when he was engaged in Government business. I appreciate the difficulties. I spent a long time in Opposition and I know all the disadvantages and, indeed, some of the advantages of that particular role in political life. Social welfare payments are paid by cheque and postal order. Long duration payments are paid by cheque only. There are practical difficulties in paying every recipient by cheque. The Deputy said this morning abuses take place. They do. The Deputy pointed out we had 500 prosecutions where abuses occurred. Long-term payments do not present a problem from the point of view of payment by cheque or postal order. We discussed shortterm payments on a previous section. If I were a worker on strike and my wife and children qualified for benefit for a limited period, I could be on strike for two days, two weeks or two months. We have to face the realities. There are human failings. People do not necessarily run to notify you that at a particular time on a particular date they ceased to qualify. We have a responsibility to safeguard as far as possible against abuses arising. I accept totally the principle behind what the Deputy is advocating. It is highly desirable that payments should be made as far as possible by cheque or postal order and I shall do everything to ensure this is done. But I cannot enshrine in this Bill a provision that that is the way in which payment must be made because, if one did that, one would leave the position unnecessarily open to abuse.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary is unintentionally misinterpreting the intention of the amendment. He used the phrase "Payment must be made". That is not my intention at all. The intention is that payments should be made in that way in certain circumstances. The amendment does not say that, but that is the intention. I say "whereever possible" and the Parliamentary Secretary says "as far as possible". I accept entirely what the Parliamentary Secretary says about the impracticability of making all payments by cheque or postal order. That just would not work. The Parliamentary Secretary used the example of a fire. In those circumstances you would not pay by cheque or postal order. In exceptional circumstances you might but, as a general rule, no. There is absolutely no reason why long duration recipients should not be paid by postal order or cheque and why that cannot be provided in the Bill is something I do not understand.
My amendment is not restrictive. It is flexible. I have said I will withdraw it if the Parliamentary Secretary will bring in an amendment on the same lines. There is no reason why it should not be given legal effect, the more so as it is already the position.
I support the amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the taking away of the old stigma attaching to home assistance. One way in which to remove that stigma would be by changing the methods adopted in the administration of home assistance and stop the queuing up outside some local meeting point to await one's entitlement. Any degradation in the system is patently manifest in this queue. People are dragged out, sometimes almost physically incapable, to collect their entitlement. Indeed, in many cases the physically incapable have to send someone else to collect for them. One of the old arguments with regard to personal collection was that it provided an opportunity for contact with a person with whom you might not otherwise have any contact. In the case of unemployment assistance a certificate signed by a member of the Garda Síochána is taken as proof that people are genuinely seeking work and therefore still qualify for the weekly assistance they get. As I said, there are people who are physically incapable of collecting. In the areas I know there are appointed centres to which the people come once a week to collect. I was rather hoping that system would be done away with. Even in the case of a single payment to tide over unexpected tragedy payment should be made by way of cheque or postal order. We know how long people have to wait for compensation for malicious damage. The fact that it is sanctioned, that somebody has said he will get it, enables him to get extended credit. Even in the case of the single payment it is possible to have an order sent by post to reach an address the day after posting. If there is any stigma in the present system, this would remove it. It would be reassuring to have it inserted in the Bill.
The wording in Deputy Andrews' proposed amendment is that "payment of such supplementary welfare allowance shall, wherever possible, be made by postal order or cheque". As it stands, that amendment would be sufficient if the Parliamentary Secretary would accept it. Deputy Andrews has left it to the Parliamentary Secretary's discretion to change the wording. The fact that it would be written into the Bill would be reassuring.
On the question of the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that payment will be made as far as possible by post, there is no guarantee that certain health authorities may not adopt the other system of personal payment, making the point that personal contact is necessary in order to ensure the recipient's continuing qualification. That is not a valid argument any more. I believe acceptance of the amendment would remove one piece of degradation from the system. The Parliamentary Secretary should accept the amendment as it is, or undertake to have it rewritten and applied.
I cannot add anything to what I have said. The vast majority of payments at the moment are by cheque. I accept fully the principle behind Deputy Andrews' thinking on this matter. As far as possible, it is desirable for payments to be made by cheque. I am prepared to deal with that by way of regulations or by guidelines to health authorities. If "wherever possible" were enshrined in this legislation Deputy Andrews might spend more time in the courts in trying to define what it means than he spent here arguing over this section of the Bill. If that phrase were enshrined in the Bill, one could say: "It is possible to pay me by cheque and you are breaking the law by not doing so."
In fact, the circumstances of the case and the nature of the case that qualified in the first place for allowance under this Bill might change at very short notice. I have tried to instance the type of thing we should guard against while being as liberal as possible. The family of a man on strike can qualify. He can be on strike for half a day, a week, a month, or a year, but if we are not notified when the circumstances change, the health boards may have to go to court to recover the money that continued to be paid because a constant check was not kept on the changing circumstances in the particular case. Still being as liberal as one would like to be, there is an obligation to ensure where possible that this kind of abuse does not arise. I told the House my thinking on this matter.
I accept the thinking behind the contributions made by Deputy Andrews and Deputy Brennan. I am prepared to look at it by way of regulations or guidelines to the health authorities but I am not prepared to see that kind of thing, which is, ambiguous, to say the least, enshrined in legislation.
This is a real case of the pot calling the kettle black. Times have certainly changed as far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned. His condemnation of the purity of my drafting is rather surprising and disappointing. I have already said that, if the Parliamentary Secretary is as concerned as he appears to be about the way the amendment has been drafted, he can redraft it himself. I have admitted to a piece of impure drafting and accepted the Parliamentary Secretary's strictures with all the humility available to me in all the circumstances. The Parliamentary Secretary appears to be giving some form of undertaking that he will deal with the matter by regulation. I wonder whether he can deal with it by way of regulation. If he can, will he say that he will definitely deal with it by way of regulation? These are simple and reasonable requests from the Opposition to the person in the saddle. There is no reason why they should be met with anything but agreement and discernment.
The Parliamentary Secretary told Deputies that so far as possible payment will be made by cheque. In County Cork, in Kerry, and I am sure generally all around the country, most payments are made by cheque. We now have the very desirable system of the payment of disablement allowance by the issue of books similar to pension books and the recipient can collect his allowance weekly. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the difficulty of interpreting the term "wherever possible". The Deputy should accept that it is his aim and his endeavour——
I have said I am in error. I have said I am in damned error about "wherever possible". The Parliamentary Secretary was not here to listen to the arguments. It is not good enough that he should intrude twice in this debate with no knowledge of what he is speaking about.
Possibly I have more knowledge than the Deputy.
He does not know what he is speaking about. I already admitted that I am in error. I am not concerned about his knowledge.
I was one of the first to advocate payment by way of cheque or order rather than the recipients having to call at dispensaries, and so on, to collect their payments. The Parliamentary Secretary's statement is quite clear.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries does not know what he said. He was not here.
I heard the latter part of his statement.
That was the least important part of it.
His statement should be accepted. He instanced cases which could arise suddenly of hardship that might last for a matter of days only. Consequently payment by cheque would not be possible in such cases. Payment must be made in cash by the local assistance officers where hardship occurs suddenly. Therefore I do not see what Deputy Andrews is cribbing about.
I am not cribbing. I am making a constructive contribution.
Which was answered constructively.
We did not advocate the use of a book, such as is used for pensions. Lack of continuity of payments in this case would not make for the use of a book. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary placed much emphasis on the removal of any stigma attached to home assistance and on the concept of dignity of the person so far as these payments were concerned. This is one means by which, if there is a stigma, it can best be eradicated. A more dignified approach can be established by having the allowance put in the post.
It is not a valid argument to say that personal contact is necessary to ensure that a person continues to be qualified or indeed to ensure that he is alive at all. That can happen in relation to other payments also. Very often some other member of the family or another person collects; there is no obligation on them to attend in person. Yet the queues line up. It is humiliating for people who collect small or large amounts to have to expose themselves to this degradation. If emphasis is being placed on giving this in a more dignified way than has been practised heretofore, this is one case where it can be exemplified better than any other. If that is seen to be done, certainly there should be no objection to having it written into the Bill.
This simple amendment is an addition to section 6, which deals with administration, and would tend to ensure that an effort was really being made to have a change in keeping with the dignity of the person. The Parliamentary Secretary told us this morning that it was to be paid as of right and that the humiliating provisions of the Home Assistance Acts were now only a bad dream. The fact that benefit will be spread over a greater number of people would emphasise further the need to use the postal service more. In fact I would go so far as to use it in every single case, even in respect of a person getting an allowance for one day, because there is now delivery the following morning. If there is any check needed the home assistance officer can carry out a scrutiny of his recipients by a periodic visit, which he would have to do anyway.
I do not think there is any dispute between Deputy Brennan and the Parliamentary Secretary. Nobody could disagree with the sentiments expressed by them. I do not, nor does the Parliamentary Secretary, want people to call at some public office to collect a few shillings. My knowledge of the payments system is not national; it is confined to the Southern Health Board area, where all such allowances are paid through the post. For example, where an old age pensioner gets an addition of £1 or £1.50 weekly it is paid to him through the post and, by agreement, that is done monthly. Small supplementary allowances are paid monthly and this seems to satisfy recipients. The health boards prefer, and they are obliged, to pay through the post. The only question in dispute here is in regard to cases where an applicant may call on the local assistance officers for urgent help. They are obliged to deal with that case and determine whether or not it has merit, issue money to buy goods or a voucher with which to buy goods required by the family.
Deputy Brennan should be satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone as far as he can. He has clearly indicated that the postal system will be used wherever possible. The Deputy wants the Parliamentary Secretary to define the term: wherever it can possibly be used. As I indicated to Deputy Andrews, that may need some determination by a court, and in this type of Bill that would be unlikely.
Deputy Brennan will appreciate that the book system for payment of allowances is quite a good one. What is at present termed home assistance allowance is paid through the post and, if the amounts involved are small, is paid monthly. I agree entirely with Deputy Brennan that we must preserve the dignity of the person. This is principally what this Bill is about—to do away with terms such as "home assistance" and so on, to change the name and, if you like, system of payment. I see no reason why anybody should doubt the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances so far as that method of payment is concerned.
There is something more than what the Parliamentary Secretary has been saying involved here. It is not quite as simple as that. Inserting this would not be superfluous because under the Bill as it stands at present the health authority may, if they wish, pay the entire allowance personally. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so. I agree that perhaps the word "possible" could be changed to "feasible"—reading "wherever feasible"—leaving that option, where it might be more expeditious to have the money collected on a Sunday, bank holiday or some other such day, affording the exceptional case the optional delivery by hand. Otherwise, the health board, if they so wish, can cause the entire payments to be made by hand. I am not saying they do that but it is possible. If it were inserted in the Bill it would be an assurance to applicants.
I assume that this matter can be dealt with without difficulty. It is not one likely to go before the courts for determination of what is meant by this or that section or wording. Its language is quite clear and expresses what the legislator has in mind. My assumption would be that the Department would send a letter to each health board setting out what they would like to see happen so far as payments are concerned. I have no doubt but that such a letter would be accepted generally. Of course, they could go beyond that and make regulations, or offer guidelines. But I have no doubt that this can be done by a letter to the eight health boards informing them of the Department's desires so far as the method of payment is concerned.
There must always be a loophole for the urgent case. It may be that a case would be urgent today but not next week and such a situation must be checked personally by the local assistance officer. What Deputy Brennan has argued will be done. I agree wholeheartedly with his suggestion, as does the Parliamentary Secretary. There is no dispute here. There is only the possibility that writing something into Bills may present difficulties for those who will be interpreting the measures in the health boards later on and that is what we are trying to avoid.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is guilty of loose thinking and I do not think that should happen on this Bill. He has said the Bill expresses what the legislature intends but that is not so. It expresses what the majority intend but it does not express the views of the minority, namely, the Opposition. For that reason we must stick hard on this.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not been altogether complimentary in relation to my drafting and the suggestion is that the phrase "wherever possible" is out of order. I do not accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of original thinking in his criticism of me. I have already conceded that if the expression "wherever possible" is not acceptable in the context of the parliamentary draftsman's requirements, in those circumstances I am willing to withdraw the wording while requesting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare to draft his own wording.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has said he will urge the Department of Social Welfare to send a letter to the eight health boards asking them to give effect to the intention of my amendment. I am not at all satisfied with that undertaking. It is a letter from a Government Department with no sanctions in it, good, bad or indifferent. I want the principles expressed in my amendment to be mandatory, without any equivocation or shilly-shallying. I do not want my views and the principles enshrined in the amendment to be carried out by way of a letter from the Department of Social Welfare or any other Department. I have no doubts about the efficacy of the staff in the Department of Social Welfare but, equally, I appreciate that a letter from the Department to me as a Deputy or if I were a representative of the health board would have little, if any, effect.
I reject the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. He has been guilty of loose thinking with regard to this Bill and his suggestion does not merit serious examination. If he said that he would issue definite guidelines by way of regulations, that would be acceptable but nothing short of that would be acceptable.
The Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministers for Social Welfare and Agriculture and Fisheries have said they are in total agreement with the sentiments expressed in my amendment and, as they see it, the only area of difference is in the wording. The phrase "wherever possible" is unacceptable to them. I have conceded that if they are right I will withdraw the amendment and let them put in suitable wording. We want the payment of entitlements under this Bill to be made by way of cheque or postal order. It is accepted by all sides that this is the proper way to handle the situation, that this would be the way it would be dealt with in the payment of benefit to people in receipt of long duration supplementary welfare allowances. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare has suggested that this is the way it will be done. If that is so, let there be no doubt about it. Let us put it in this Bill. That is all we want. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that while he accepts our amendment in principle he does not regard the wording as correct. On the basis of his acceptance of the principle, let him put it into the Bill in his own words. What could be more reasonable?
I am rather surprised at the Deputy's use of the term "shilly-shallying"——
I did not say that.
I heard the Deputy say this in his contribution. Before he left the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare told us that his views coincided with those of Deputies Brennan and Andrews so far as the amendment was concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary told Deputies that, if necessary, guidelines will be set and regulations provided to ensure enforcement. The reason it was not overemphasised is that it is happening today. So far as possible health boards are paying allowances through the post. I thought a letter would suffice. Everyone is in agreement regarding payment through the post or by the book system. Surely this should be accepted by Deputies opposite as an assurance by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare that regulations or guidelines will be provided if deemed necessary. There is no room for argument here. One would think that the Parliamentary Secretary was in favour of personal payments but that is not so. He favours personal payments only in exceptional cases which he states could arise from time to time.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is correct in his statement with regard to payments.
Earlier I said my knowledge related to one board only but that I assumed it might be applied nationally. The Southern Health Board pay supplementary allowances to old age pensioners and others through the post but this may not happen in the Eastern or Western Health Boards.
In the Western Health Board area payment is by the old method where the home assistance officer makes a personal call on recipients and payments are not made in any other way in that area. I am positive that this is what happens in Mayo. This Bill should move away from the old system with regard to payments to people in receipt of home assistance. There has been no fundamental change in the concept of the Bill and as far as I can see the only change has been in the name. Unfortunately, the old system still operates.
In my county's estimates we provided £280,000 for home assistance. The work will be done by the health board and the county council will have no say whatsoever in the manner in which that money will be expended. We will just be presented with a bill annually from the health boards, and going on experience of what has happened since the health boards were formed, where the number of personnel has been increased considerably, we are likely to see this situation occurring here as well. As a result of this, we shall have an added increase in our annual estimates, but fundamentally I do not see any basic change at all in this Bill except that we are changing the wording from "home assistance" to "supplementary social welfare allowances". Unfortunately, we still have this situation of the home assistance officer making personal calls to recipients.
What Deputy Gallagher has said is not correct. Up to the present the county council levied money on the rates for home assistance, and home assistance was 100 per cent a local charge, but county councils had the right to determine applications if they so decided. Some councils did not take that right and they passed it on to the health board. That was the decision of the councils, and the health boards sent along the bill, which the councils paid. Now it has changed in this way, that the taxpayer is helping as well as the ratepayer, and this measure provides for 60/40 per cent.
The taxpayer and the ratepayer are indistinguishable.
This argument about the taxpayer and ratepayer being the same is true to an extent only.
An extent?
We have a big number of taxpayers who are not ratepayers. That is the answer.
Tell me who they are, give us an example.
We have a big number of taxpayers who are not ratepayers. Many of the people employed around the country who have no homes of their own and who are living out.
I expect living in houses that are not subject to rates.
We term them taxpayers. In any case, the Exchequer provides 60 per cent of the money that will be paid.
No.
Over and above the existing expenditure. The existing expenditure was relatively small in most counties, and we used always find fault with it in Cork because taking into account the size of the population it was relatively small, so that, over and above, you have 60/40. Up to the present the taxpayer did not help. Now he is being asked to help.
The taxpayer contributed to the Exchequer.
He is being called on to a greater extent. In any case, we are going away from Deputy Andrews' amendment, and I ask him to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance in that line. Everybody knows Deputy Cluskey is a reasonable man and that he will ensure that these payments are made through the post whenever possible. We cannot overlook the fact that assistance officers must periodically review claims. Maybe the recipient's position has worsened or maybe it has improved. We cannot keep the applicant away altogether from the investigating officer, because periodic reviews are desirable. It can work both ways. The allowance may be increased or cut off, depending on the circumstances of the applicant. So far as the payments are concerned, it is clearly set down there, and I have no doubt that the Western Health Board or any other health board will be only too ready to accept the postal system where it does not already obtain.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us an undertaking that it will be done by regulation?
Speaking for the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Cluskey, I think I can give the Deputy that undertaking, because the Parliamentary Secretary did say he would take steps to ensure this system will apply as far as possible. The main fault he found with the Deputy's amendment was its wording and the difficulties of its interpretation later on by health boards or by their executive officers.
I have said he could put in his own wording.
I think it is the unanimous view of the Members of this House that in regard to the system of payments we want to get away from the position where the applicant has to go to the assistance officer's house and wait there for his few shillings for a quarter of an hour or an hour until the assistance officer arrives. That day is gone.
The purpose of my amendment was to ensure this queuing would stop. I shall speak here as long as I think is necessary on this, regardless of the inconvenience to others, in order to make this Bill what we in Opposition consider to be a proper Bill. It may become boring to some and if so they are entitled to leave. In the meantime, if the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a definite undertaking that this matter will be enshrined in regulations, I shall withdraw my amendment, but Deputy Gallagher may have something to say about it in the meantime.
The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the taxpayer will be responsible for payment of the supplementary social welfare allowance. In our estimate in County Mayo last year we made a sum of £201,000 available, and this year a sum of £280,000. Those were entirely rate charges. The administration will also be the responsibility of the ratepayer. The county council will have to pay for that, and the taxpayer comes in just at a figure over the one which has been allowed by us this year on a 60/40 basis. From that we can see that there is no fundamental change, that the ratepayer is the one who will really have to pay the bill in the long run.
I would have thought the ratepayer would have to foot the bill in the long run, because the only way he would be obliged to foot it fully is if the amounts were not increased. I sincerely hope that the need for these supplementary benefits will not arise in future years. Our system should be changed and our national allowances such that people will be treated fairly in regard to their original allowances and get what is their due, so that only in exceptional cases will the need for supplementary allowances arise. In any case, in the foreseeable future they are likely to arise, and while we would like to see this sum for County Mayo that Deputy Gallagher speaks about remaining static, it is likely to increase in the years to come. Then the taxpayer will have to help. I said during the Parliamentary Secretary's absence that he is in full agreement with the views of the Opposition. I also said that the 144 Members of this House agree that the payment should be made through the post if at all possible and that it is only in exceptional cases, as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary, that payment will be made by hand. This particular amendment is accepted in principle and if necessary the Parliamentary Secretary will ensure that it will be implemented through a letter to the health boards. If the other means has to be adopted, it will be done by the Parliamentary Secretary in exceptional cases.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries said that a lot of this will not arise in the future. I would not agree with him on that because I know it arises every day. As Deputy Gallagher said, it is a question of the amount the local ratepayers will have to pay. During Second Reading I pointed out the hardship for a person receiving social welfare payments who, because of disability receives disability allowance. Take, for instance, a small farmer on social welfare with a couple of children who is entitled to £13. If he gets a heart attack and goes on to disability allowance no allowance is given for the children. The disability allowance is a personal allowance. Those people lose up to £5 when they go on to disability allowance. When I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if the Bill would cover this he said it would. There are quite a number of such people in every county who are on unemployment assistance and for some reason or other have to go on to disability allowance. They cannot receive unemployment assistance because they are not available for work. In the unemployment assistance there is an allowance for every child but there is no such allowance in the disability payment. If this Bill covers such people it will be of great benefit to them although I understand the ratepayers will have to bear the burden. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify this.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries said, we will ensure that as far as possible payments are made by cheque because we accept it is the right thing to do. I am prepared to cover this in the regulations which will be drawn up after the passage of the Bill.
I withdraw the amendment on that undertaking.
I would like to comment on some other aspects of the matter which were mentioned. Deputy Callanan mentioned two things and I think Deputy Gallagher also mentioned them. Under the terms of this Bill it is possible that people already in receipt of social welfare benefit of one type or other could qualify for additional payments in certain circumstances. I believe that covers the aspect the Deputy was concerned about.
Does it cover the people in receipt of disability allowance?
The underlying qualification under the Bill is the need of the person making application.
If a person is in need of £13 before he gets disabled and is not able to do anything he will qualify under need. As far as I know, £9 is the maximum for disability so surely those people are entitled to the difference between what they would get in normal unemployment assistance and disability allowance?
If the Deputy makes a distinction between benefit and assistance, they would.
I am not very clear on that.
A means test applies under the provisions of this Bill. A person, irrespective of his means, can be in receipt of benefit. If he ceases to qualify for that benefit, it does not necessarily mean that he will get the same amount of money provided to him under the terms of this Bill because his means might be such as to disqualify him from assistance. The over-riding consideration under this Bill is need.
Deputy Gallagher and Deputy Callanan mentioned the imposition on the rates. There will undoubtedly be some charge on the rates. This thing is being presented as if it was new. The rates have paid 100 per cent under home assistance but I never heard any Fianna Fáil Deputy dispute that this should not be so.
I put down a question to the Parliamentary Secretary in May, 1973, asking that the payment of home assistance be made a national charge. It is on the record of the House.
The most significant part of that statement is the date the Deputy chose to put down the question. I did not see him putting it down in 1972, 1971 or 1969. I did not see any member of his party putting the question down either.
The Deputy was not here at that time.
Under this Bill the Exchequer will take up 60 per cent over 1975 expenditure. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that if it is frozen at the 1975 figure it will undoubtedly be to the advantage of local authorities. The local authorities are being asked to bear 40 per cent and the Exchequer is bearing 60 per cent. That, compared with the 100 per cent under the previous legislation which this legislation replaces, could not be described as a terrible imposition on the local authorities.
It is 40 per cent on top of 40 per cent on top of 40 per cent.
The base here is 1975 and it is fixed on that. That does not change. It is 40 per cent of anything over and above that particular year which will become, in the course of a relatively short period of time, a fairly insignificant figure.
I would have argued the other way. We will argue the matter when we come to the section.
Fair enough. I have no objection to arguing it when we come to the section but when it is raised on almost every section it is important that the actual situation be explained. Even if it has to be repeated it is important that the wrong impression should not be created. These are the realities: instead of 100 per cent charge on local authorities for home assistance, the base year 1975 is being taken and 60 per cent of the additional expenditure is being borne by the Exchequer. If the Opposition think this will excite the people politically I think they are wrong.
I take exception to the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks because my county council on a number of occasions put down resolutions seeking to have payment of home assistance made a national charge. I put down a parliamentary question in regard to the matter very shortly after coming to the House. I did not have an opportunity of coming in on the Second Reading and that would have been the time to have made my contribution. As far as Mayo is concerned, and as a member of the county council, I cannot see that we are getting any great concession in this matter. The sum of £280,000 in our estimates this year is quite a big figure for a county in which we have a demand of £12.57, the highest in Ireland. We are not getting any help in this case.
To refer to a question raised by Deputy Callanan, does this Bill cover payment of disability as such? I do not think it does and I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary answer that question.
The Parliamentary Secretary said on the Second Reading that it did cover the question of the difference between what a person would get in disability payments and what he would be entitled to as unemployment assistance. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this: I do not know how they assess income in both cases because he said it was a question of means test. I had a case of a man with four children who was eligible for about £13 social welfare. This man got a heart attack and when he went to sign again he was informed that he could not do so because he was not available for work. There is no allowance for dependent children in the case of disability benefit and the £9 or so that one can get is a personal allowance. Before this man became an invalid he was able to do all his own work and was entitled to £13 or £14. When he became disabled and was ordered to stop work completely he had to pay for everything that was done and he had £4 or £5 less income. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary did the Bill cover this type of case and he replied that it did. I want to know if the method of assessing the man's income will be the same for the social welfare benefit as it is for unemployment benefit?
Yes.
If that is so, he is entitled to it, but if it is not, he may not be entitled to the supplementary benefit.
It will be the same method of assessing these and it will be the same amount of minimum payment.
If so it will mean that the difference between what he would be getting as unemployment assistance and what he is getting as disability benefit should be covered by this Bill. That is the basic point I want to make. The Parliamentary Secretary has said "yes" to that. I want to be very clear about it because——
The methods of assessing it are exactly the same under the terms of this Bill.
Then he should be entitled to it.
May I take it the amendment is withdrawn?
Yes, on the undertaking by the Parliamentary Secretary that he will accept the principle of the amendment by way of regulation. Would he be good enough to consider, when the Bill becomes an Act, sending me a copy of the regulation? I am not in any way questoning his truthfulness in the matter, quite the contrary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
In section 6 (3) it states than any doubt or dispute as to which health board shall be responsible for the provision of supplementary welfare allowances to a particular person or to persons of a particular class shall be decided by the Minister. Is that subsection necessary? Should the Minister be concerned about disputes between health boards as to responsibility for provision of the supplementary allowances? Could they not be resolved in another way?
My view is that the Minister for Health and Social Welfare has enough to do in those capacities without having to deal with what might be considered by some as a minor row between health boards but what is a major row from the viewpoint of the person entitled to the supplementary benefit when the row is resolved. Is it the Parlamentary Secretary's intention to give that responsibility to a civil service ombudsman or somebody within the civil service who might be able to handle such disputes and take the pressure off an already heavily burdened Minister?
I welcome the recognition and appreciation of the heavy burden that rests on the Minister, but it is not envisaged that disputes of this kind would be of frequent occurrence. They would arise very rarely, but it is necessary in legislation to cater for all foreseeable contingencies, no matter how infrequently they may arise. I do not think it would present any great difficulty to determine the small number of cases that could reasonably be anticipated. I do not think this is a major issue or that it will cause any great difficulty.
Presumably what is in mind here is itinerants or such people who might be moving from one district to another. The problem I see in having the authority vested entirely in the Minister is that it may delay the actual process of making payments to people concerned. Would it not be better to have some arrangement between the CEOs of the health boards by which a decision could be reached more quickly rather than having to go to the Minister? This would delay the process of payment.
I do not think so because this issue would arise very infrequently. There is no need for any undue delay in the Minister determining under whose jurisdiction an application arises. It is not envisaged that there will be any difficulty or delay.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 23 and 24, to delete "(being either another officer of the health board or a person not such an officer)" and substitute "(not being an officer of the health board)".
I have received representations from public assistance officers in relation to this amendment. One official expressed the view that the amendment did not place too much confidence in public assistance officers, but like Deputy Brennan, I have found that the vast majority of assistance officers carry out a very difficult task in a good manner. In my constituency I found the public assistance officers to be very good officials. They have been operating under a 40-year-old Act which should be amended. They have been doing a good job under the terms of reference of the Public Assistance Act, 1939. However, in spite of the criticism of my amendment by the public assistance officers I intend to stick out on my amendment.
It seems unfair that the system, and the people operating it, cannot be appealed against outside that environment. I am not in any way imputing any disrespect to public assistance officers but it is in the interests of fair play that the person appealing against a decision of a public assistance officer should not have to go to that official's colleague. Whilst I accept the criticism levelled at the amendment by people who have been involved in the dispersal of public moneys over the years, people who have been doing a good job and have enjoyed the respect of the community, nevertheless, I believe an appeal should not be passed from one colleague to another. The amendment is an effort to propose an alternative way of appealing, to appeal outside the system.
I view this as a reasonable and proper submission which fits in with the concept of natural justice, that a person is entitled to be heard in his own cause or that his appeal should not be heard in his absence. In fairness to the Parliamentary Secretary, my amendment does not propose an alternative but I have already committed myself against the idea contained in section 6 (3) of appealing to the Minister and it would seem invidious now for me to propose that the appeal be taken to the Minister for Social Welfare. That is not my proposal because it would be inconsistent with what I said on the previous section. My proposal is clearly set out in the amendment. In spite of the genuine criticism levelled against that amendment by people who have been operating the system, I am standing my ground.
I would not agree with anyone levelling criticism against Deputy Andrews on what motivated him to put down the amendment. Frankly, when I was in Opposition I held the same view but since I became closely associated with the Department of Social Welfare, and obtained some better insight into the workings of the Department of Health, I found the present system extremely successful and not open to abuse. The public have no reason to feel any disquiet about the way the system is operating. If one looks at the number of appeals upheld one will see that the fact an appeal may have been heard by a colleague did not influence the officer hearing the appeal in the slightest. Deputy Andrews seemed to imply that appeals are heard in the absence of the person directly affected.
I did not imply that.
I was not sure whether the Deputy said that or not. The person who is making the appeal is notified and invited to attend the hearing. He may be accompanied by a trade union representative or any person who might be able to present the case or help in its presentation. The provision in the Bill does not necessarily confine it to a member of the health board but it does not exclude a member of the board. If we examine objectively, and impartially, the record of the appeals machinery, we will see that it has worked satisfactorily. I have not heard any serious objections being raised to it.
I am not suggesting that the integrity of any public assistance officer is in doubt or the integrity of any member of the Department of Social Welfare engaged in social welfare entitlement appeals. My concern is the impression this creates in the mind of a person appealing. He may feel aggrieved that when his application is turned down by one officer it is passed on to another official in the same Department. If Deputy Callanan and Deputy Gallagher are close, one can envisage doubts being raised in the mind of the person appealing from A to G. That was the reason for my amendment. It has raised eyebrows in quarters within the public assistance service but that is their entitlement. I have no objection to that. I welcome their constructive criticism. At no time did they suggest that I should withdraw my amendment. Quite the contrary. They offered their views which did not coincide with mine. Nevertheless, I believe I am reasonably right and I am coming to the point of view that the other people were reasonably right too. Under the circumstances I withdraw the amendment.
At the moment in most areas the public assistance officer is responsible to a supervisor. Under this section is it envisaged that somebody else will conduct that business or will a person have a right of appeal to the supervisor as happens at the moment? From my experience in local authority I know that public assistance officers are familiar with every situation and there is seldom an appeal. These officers have a good deal of freedom in disbursing funds. Will we have the same problem which we had since the health boards were set up of too many extra personnel? This will mean extra costs for the taxpayer and for the ratepayer. What has the Parliamentary Secretary in mind?
Under the terms of the Bill the Minister can designate to act on these appeals a person who may or may not be a member of the health authority. There is nothing in the Bill that would debar the Minister in certain cases from appointing a person who was the superintendent of the assistance officers, but it does not necessarily follow that it will be that person. It is not envisaged that there will be any great influx of staff to deal with the appeals machinery under the Bill. The health board or the Minister may decide in some cases that the person so appointed may not be a member of a health authority. In other cases an officer who is a member of the health authority or a member of the staff of the health authority may be designated. I could not say in any particular instance that such and such a person or officer will be the appeals officer. We have not reached that stage yet. It is at the Minister's discretion as to who will be appointed in each operational area.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would expand on paragraph (a) which reads:
he is registered for employment in such manner as the Minister may prescribe,
Earlier we discussed sections 5 and 15. We may have to refer to section 21 in a general way. Would the Parliamentary Secretary expand on the exact meaning of section 8 (a) in relation to section 21? To say the least of it, to the uninitiated section 21 is most complicated. As we have already said the purpose of any legislation is to have it understandable not only to those who are passing it but to those on whose behalf it is passed. In other words, a person looking at this Bill should not have to refer to other legislation to understand it. That is why I ask for a more comprehensive explanation of this section.
The section provides that the applicant be registered for unemployment in such manner as the Minister may prescribe. This is to ensure that people who apply for supplementary allowances are genuinely seeking employment and do not wilfully want or intend to become a liability on the taxpayers or ratepayers. It will also give the Minister a certain amount of power and discretion to ensure that people who wish to avail of the benefits provided under this Bill are living up to their responsibility as far as they can by being registered for unemployment. The Deputy mentioned regulations——
Yes, I was wondering if there are exceptions under paragraph (a)?
Yes. If a person is not physically capable of taking up employment.
That is an important point. This is where the ambiguity appears.
The operative words are "may prescribe". They give the Minister discretion.
I take it the Parliamentary Secretary has covered the points I raised in relation to the Minister's function. The section states that "the health board may, subject to regulations made by the Minister", and so forth. It leaves the health boards with a discretion.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.