In view of the heavy burden placed on employers and employees by virtue of the increase in the stamp contribution, I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary if it would be possible for those on part-time work to pay a contribution to cover occupational injury only. Following the increase in the amount of the contributions the employer must now pay £1.03 extra while the employee must pay an increase of 50p per week. That is a sizeable levy for the employer and the employee to pay weekly. Obviously, it will not encourage people to engage in part-time work. In my view those who are engaged in part-time work would not be keen to have the necessary number of stamps to qualify for all the benefits and a stamp to cover occupational injury would suffice.
Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Bill, 1976: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
I doubt if the people referred to by the Deputy would be interested in having their social security cover reduced as he suggested. In my view part-time workers find coverage for unemployment and pensions a tremendous protection. The Government have changed the regulations with regard to contributions by deserted wives and unmarried mothers in that such people do not have to pay their portion of the stamp; that is carried by the State. I do not think there is much merit in the suggestion although I appreciate the Deputy's concern. I do not think such a change would be welcomed.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary examine my suggestion?
I will investigate it but I do not think the Deputy's suggestion would be in the best interests of those he is referring to.
Tá
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscce, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to explain the import of section 14? It is the section which refers to voluntary contributions and the new increased rates to be paid by voluntary contributors. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give an explanation in nutshell fashion? I do not want him to go into any great depth. I have often said in the House that a layman finds difficulty in interpreting Bills. I do not suggest that this section is not well drafted. Unquestionably, it is drafted within the bounds of reason. Nevertheless, if the Parliamentary Secretary can give a nutshell explanation it will be appreciated.
This section increases the rates of ordinary contributions by amounts appropriate to the benefits covered by each contribution. The rate of voluntary contribution which covers widows' and orphans' pensions and deserted wives' benefit only is increased by 27p to £1.10, and that covering the additional benefit on old age contributory pension, retirement pension and death grant by a further 39 pence, £2.70 to £2.80.
That is the full explanation of section 14?
That is it. Prior to the abolition in April, 1974, of the limit of £1,600 for insurability for non-manual workers there were some 12,000 voluntary contributors most of whom are now compulsorily insured, but the need for voluntary contributions still exists to cater for those who for one reason or another do not fall into that category.
How many people are contributing?
I could not say precisely how many but the number is relatively small.
There would be a substantial decrease on the 1974 figure.
Yes.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to give us some information on this section? It would help us in interpretation. It is a good section and an important section.
The purpose of this section is to provide for the payment of benefit at a weekly rate equal to a wife's contributory pension which included an increase in respect of a husband who was incapacitated physically or mentally and because of infirmity was unable to support himself.
It is a transfer to the dependant who survives.
Yes. It took place in respect of a widow and now it will take place in respect of a widower.
The Leader of my party has continuously over the last six to nine months stressed the possibility of instituting community services for the unemployed and the setting aside of money for that purpose. This idea was also propagated yesterday by the Commissioner on Social Affairs in Europe, Dr. Patrick Hillery. I accept that not everybody would be able to take up the type of employment that might be available but it is a question of providing services and we believe that the Government should have an immediate investigation into the possibility of setting in train schemes which would result in young people finding some occupation. That is not to say that senior citizens are not entitled to the same consideration. They are but I refer specifically to young people, particularly school leavers. Remember, thousands more will be leaving school in a few months' time.
On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but the matter he is speaking about does not come within the scope of this Bill and it is not within the competence of my Department. It would be appropriate for another Department.
I see the Tánaiste here and I know that the English translation of his title is Deputy Prime Minister and possibly——
The matter does not arise on the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a number of points which were not totally relevant to the Bill. However, I have made the point. Over the weekend the Parliamentary Secretary made a speech suggesting that he intends introducing a Bill in the near future which will increase the penalties for abuses. This was a point I made in the first instance and I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is following my reasoning in this. These abuses have a demoralising effect and the sooner the Bill is introduced the better it will be. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary of our co-operation.
On Second Stage I omitted referring to an injustice. It deals with the position of farmers' valuations and allowances. If a farmer opts for the multiple, it is £40 for every pound valuation but he is given allowances out of it which in certain cases bring him down to £25 per pound. But in the case of social welfare once he is over £20 valuation he is assessed at £40 to the pound valuation and he gets no allowance. This is slightly unfair and I forgot to mention it on the Second Stage of the Bill.
On the point that was raised by Deputy Callanan, I did say earlier today in relation to any small farmers who feels the changed system of assessment constitutes a hardship in his case, that he can apply to have a factual assessment of his income made on the same basis as, in fact, 7,000 small farmers are doing since the introduction of the scheme and are still doing. That assessment would be made in the normal way in respect of everyone who would be applying for this type of benefit or assistance and all relevant factors would be taken into consideration in assessing means. Deputy Andrews made two points. As I said, one of the points he made does not come within the functions of the Department of Social Welfare——
The spirit of it does surely.
——but undoubtedly it would be our ambition to see that payments, whether they be pay-related, flat rate or assistance in respect of unemployment, would cease, in that we would hope in time to be able to create a society that will allow for full employment and make these payments unnecessary irrespective of what category they fall into. We have always stated that, irrespective of the level of payment for unemployment benefit or assistance, we regard this as a bad second best.
As regards the new law on abuses. I can assure Deputy Andrews that I will welcome his support when the Bill comes before the House. I indicated this morning that it will substantially increase the penalties that are now provided under existing law for abuses whether by employers for failure to stamp cards or by employees who may fraudulently draw social welfare benefit or assistance. Deputy Andrews said he was sure the Bill was lying there all the time, but if it is any consolation I can tell him it has not been; it is still in the course of being drafted and is at an advanced stage.
I thought the Parliamentary Secretary needed encouragement.
No. His indication of his desire to see this law introduced may have had some effect, and we look forward to his co-operation in passing it through the House speedily when it is introduced.
I am glad we have achieved something positive in opposition.
Am I to take it from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my question that he is not sticking rigidly to valuation that, depending on the circumstances, a farmer can have his income assessed other than by valuation?
Yes. Under the 1965 Act there is power, in order to prevent inequalities or injustice, for the Minister for Social Welfare, in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, to have, if it is so requested by the applicant, a factual assessment of means made. I can assure the Deputy that anyone who is adversely affected by the change in the means of assessment and who wishes to have a factual assessment of his income in order to qualify may have that done.
I am delighted to hear that because any time I got a reply from the Department——
The Deputy may not——
I am only asking a question. It is important to have another way of assessing income apart from valuation. What I am trying to clarify is that if I am a poor person with a high valuation I can be assessed on my income rather than on my valuation.
Yes.