asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of farmers of over £10 land valuation in County Mayo who will not benefit from social welfare increases in 1977; and the number of farmers of over £20 land valuation in County Mayo who have been notified by his Department that they no longer qualify for social welfare payments.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
5.
It is presumed that the Deputy's question relates to the payment of unemployment assistance to smallholders.
Approximately 960 smallholders registered at local offices of my Department in County Mayo will not benefit from the increased rates of unemployment assistance which will become payable from the beginning of next month as their valuations fall between £10 and £20. Some 140 smallholders in County Mayo with land valuations over £20 have been notified that they will no longer be entitled to unemployment assistance on the notional basis of assessment from 30th March, 1977. Smallholders in this latter group may, however, qualify for unemployment assistance on the basis of a factual assessment of their means under the general provisions of the unemployment assistance scheme.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an indication of the criteria to be used in deciding whether people with a land valuation of more than £20 are eligible for unemployment assistance in view of the fact that the notional system is now being abolished?
As has always been the case, there are farmers who have opted for a factual assessment instead of a notional assessment. The same criteria will apply as heretofore in respect of those people, namely, a normal factual assessment of means.
Are we to take it that recipients of social welfare who have a valuation of from £10 to £20 under the notional system will not get any increase as from 1st April? Is it correct that they will be the only recipients of social welfare who will not get any increase? If that is the case, does it not show an anti-farmer bias? If these people are entitled to social welfare they should also be entitled to any increase.
As the Deputy is aware, there has been a great need and demand for a proper rationalisation of assistance given to small farmers. The way it has been done is to have regard to the incomes of the farmers who may be affected. Deputies opposite may be aware that in 1971 an order was made by a former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Brennan, which excluded a very large number of farmers irrespective of income——
It was only single farmers.
It was irrespective of income.
I am not asking a question about who is or is not entitled to social welfare. I am referring to an increase being given to all social welfare recipients on 1st April except the farmers. Is that not a fact?
No, it is not.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what other social welfare recipients are not going to receive the increase?
Any person in any grade of assistance as distinct from benefit who does not meet the statutory requirements will not get the increase. Only people who meet the statutory requirements will get it, whether they are farmers, industrial workers or anyone else.
I am referring to people who meet the statutory requirements and who are in receipt of social welfare. I cannot understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can say that one category of recipients will be entitled to the increase while another category, even though they are entitled to social welfare, will not get the increase.
The Deputy is making a statement.
As I replied in answer to a previous question, they are not necessarily excluded because they have the option of going for a factual assessment.
I am not referring to people who have a valuation of more than £20. I am referring to people with a valuation of between £10 and £20 who are within the Act. They will not get any increase.
The point is they are not getting the increase on a notional basis. As has always been the case, if a farmer opts for a factual assessment he is entitled to do so. If any of the people in the category mentioned by the Deputy wish to opt for a factual assessment and if they qualify, naturally they will get the increase.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that those farmers who have opted for a means test are having their assistance reduced? This is happening throughout the country.
The way the Deputy phrased the question would tend to distort the situation, not intentionally, but it could happen. If a farmer wishes to go for a factual assessment as opposed to a notional assessment, he is assessed factually. He may qualify for a full pension or he may qualify for a reduced pension but on the same basis as any other recipient of social assistance. There is no distinction whatsoever. The farmers to whom the Deputy refers in his supplementary question may find that if they go for a factual assessment the benefit will be reduced and that it is beneficial for them to go for a notional assessment, but they have the option.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the purpose of changing from the factual assessment, in the first instance, to an assessment based on valuation was to create a situation whereby unemployment assistance would not act as a disincentive to small farmers producing on their holdings and improving their income? Was that not the basis of the change to the valuation assessment?
We have dwelt a long time on this question.
I could not give any reason for the way the scheme was originally introduced.
Question No. 6.
My question has not been answered.
6.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the severe hardship being caused to home assistance recipients by the failure to implement the provisions of the Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Act, 1975; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
As I informed the Deputy on 2nd November last in reply to a previous question concerning the implementation of the provisions of the Act mentioned, it was decided to defer the making of the ministerial order which is necessary to bring the provisions of the Act into operation, as negotiations were in progress between the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board and the appropriate unions regarding the conditions of employment of the staff concerned. I understand that the unions and the board agreed to refer the claim jointly to the Labour Court and the outcome of that reference is now awaited. Meanwhile I am pleased to say that I recently received an assurance from the Local Government and Public Services Union that they would co-operate fully in the implementation of the new legislation and I understand that the other union involved will be meeting shortly to consider the matter of implementation.
As I assured the Deputy on the occasion of his previous question, I am most anxious to have the Act brought into operation at the earliest practicable date. The existing home assistance scheme will, of course, continue in force until the new supplementary welfare allowances scheme comes into operation.
The Parliamentary Secretary will certainly give me credit for trying to have this very worth-while legislation introduced as a matter of urgency. It is very welcome news to hear him say that there has been progress made on all fronts, but can the Parliamentary Secretary say when we can look forward to the implementation of this legislation?
As I explained to the Deputy in my reply, there are two unions concerned. One union, the local government officials' union, have communicated that they are now prepared to implement the scheme. A meeting of the other union concerned is to be held in the very near future and I am hopeful that a similar result will emerge from that meeting. If it does, the scheme could be operated within a matter of weeks following that decision.
Is there any influence the Parliamentary Secretary can bring to bear on the second union? I know the Parliamentary Secretary cannot interfere directly in negotiations, but it would be a great help if they would follow the very worth-while lead given by the local government officials' union.
No. As the Deputy is aware, I have made my views on the desirability of the implementation of this new scheme publicly known on a number of occasions. I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that it would be inappropriate and improper for me to try to use any undue influence with any union.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (name supplied) in County Mayo has not been allowed payment of an old age pension.
It was decided by an appeals officer that the person concerned was not entitled to an old age, non-contributory, pension on the ground that he did not fulfil the statutory condition as to residence. This condition requires that a person must have had a total of 15 years' residence in the State of which at least five years were subsequent to his attaining the age of 50 years. The person concerned has not completed five years' residence in the State since he reached the age of 50 years on the 1st October, 1959.
The appeals officer's decision is final save where there are new facts or new evidence, which would warrant its revision. It will be open, however, to the person concerned to make a fresh application in September, 1977, when he will have completed the required five years' residence, provided he remains in the State in the meantime.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that this is a completely new departure in respect of people who emigrated and worked outside this country for a number of years, and may be regarded as permanent migratory workers from the point of view that they are working whole-time in England? I have never found a situation where they have been refused a pension on this basis. Would he accept that this is a departure?
There is no departure. The law, as I have stated it, in regard to residential qualifications has been in existence for many years. However, in regard to the case the Deputy mentions of a person who was born in Ireland, emigrated to Britain and having worked there for many years, returned to Ireland, that person would have acquired rights for pension purposes under his British stamp.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the practice up to now has been that people from the west who worked in England and come back here after a number of years and apply, when they are eligible, for old age pension are refused payment perhaps on the grounds that their contributory pension from England may be too high? Never have they been refused because they were regarded as aliens in their own country, because they had to look for employment outside the country.
I cannot see how that situation could arise. If a person worked in England for a period of years he would have established an insurance record in England that could be and is taken into consideration here. He would not, in those circumstances, be applying for a non-contributory pension; he would be entitled to a contributory pension. This is in respect of non-contributory pensions only.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that in this case the man maintained a home in Ireland, came home for his annual holiday and as such is, you might say, a permanent migratory worker and therefore should be entitled to claim an old age pension.
No, I have not got the full details of the case but I cannot accept that in the circumstances the Deputy describes. In such a case he would qualify for a contributory pension on his British stamps.
How can that arise?
We must pass on to another question.
In view of the unsatisfactory reply I have got from the Parliamentary Secretary, I would like, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.