asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of deserted wives in receipt of the various entitlements under the social welfare code on 31st March in each year from 1970 to 1977 inclusive.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
24.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement I propose with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to circulate it with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
Numbers receiving deserted wife's benefit or deserted wife's allowance at 31st March.
|
1970* |
1971 |
1972 |
1973† |
1974 |
1975 |
1976 |
1977 |
|
|
Deserted Wife's Benefit |
— |
— |
— |
— |
431 |
1,134 |
1,459 |
1,731 |
|
Deserted Wife's Allowance |
— |
1,263 |
1,698 |
2,097 |
2,623 |
2,678 |
2,948 |
3,129 |
*Deserted wife's allowance came into effect on 1st October, 1970.
†Deserted wife's benefit came into effect on 5th July, 1973.
25.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (name supplied) in County Dublin who was in receipt of unemployment assistance and was subsequently convicted of a number of criminal offences had no income to provide for his wife from the time of apprehension to six months after conviction; and if he will make a general statement in relation to prisoners' wives.
If a prisoner is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than six months before he has been held in custody for a period of six months, entitlement to prisoner's wife allowance commences from the date of his conviction. Otherwise it commences from the date on which the prisoner completes six months in custody. The maximum period which can elapse before entitlement to an allowance is established is therefore six months. In the case referred to by the Deputy, the allowance was awarded with effect from the date of her husband's conviction. Her needs for the period during which he was held in custody before conviction were met by weekly payments of home assistance.
26.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of persons in receipt of prisoners' wives entitlement on 31st March, 1976, and 31st March, 1977.
The number of prisoner's wife allowances in payment at 31st March, 1976 and at 31st March, 1977 was 110 and 130 respectively.
27.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the estimated cost of increasing by £1 per week the qualifying income limit for (a) old age non-contributory pension (b) widow's non-contributory pension and (c) blind person's pension.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to circulate it with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
|
(a) old age non-contributory pensions |
£30,000 |
|
(b) widow's non-contributory pensions |
£21,000 |
|
(c) blind person's pensions |
£500 |
Would the Parliamentary Secretary indicate when the limits were last increased?
To the best of my recollection, the rate was £26 per year when we came into office. In the first budget introduced by this Government it was increased and has been increased on two occasions since by £1.
Since the Parliamentary Secretary found himself unable or unwilling to answer the supplementary question, would it be correct to say that the limits were last increased in April, 1975?
I think that is correct.
Would it be true to say that because of the inflation rate since then, the effect in real terms is that a number of people who were included in 1975 are now excluded?
It would be correct to say that allowing for inflation since this Government took office the percentage increase in the allowance has by far exceeded the inflation rate—in fact, the rate of allowance has been increased by several hundred per cent.
I do not know why, perhaps I do, the Parliamentary Secretary keeps evading the supplementary question put to him. The question relates to the limits and the Parliamentary Secretary appears to be saying that the limits were last increased in April, 1975. Since then, the rate of inflation has been approximately 40 per cent. Therefore, the limits obtainable in 1975 have been almost halved in real terms and, therefore, is it not true to say that people included in April, 1975 are now excluded from any allowances whatever and that consequently the amount of the increase is immaterial to them because they are not getting anything?
There is neither a desire nor an intention to evade answering, but the question should be put in its proper context. The performance of this Government in the area of means tests and allowances should be appreciated. I do not intend to accept responsibility for the failure of the previous Government.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is a relatively simple matter to increase allowances fairly substantially if at the same time one effectively is excluding many people who were entitled to widows' non-contributory pensions and OAP non-contributory——
The Deputy was Minister for Finance and I am amazed he did not deal with the question of allowances.
We had more conscience than to do this kind of thing.
28.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether it is proposed to restore the position whereby on reaching the qualifying age for old age non-contributory pension, a recipient of a widow's non-contributory pension was entitled to opt for whichever pension was more favourable to her.
A recipient of a widow's non-contributory pension never had the option of retaining that pension on reaching the qualifying age for old age pension. There is, however, a provision which enables a non-contributory old age pension to be paid instead of a widow's (contributory) pension where the non-contributory rate would be higher. This provision is still in existence.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether the means test applied in the case of a widow who reaches the age for OAP is different from that which operated when she was awarded the widows' non-contributory pension?
The Deputy should know there is a much more liberal approach to widows' pensions than to OAP and that has always been the case.
Is the practical effect of this that widows frequently find themselves, on reaching qualifying age for OAP, in receipt of smaller pensions?
The Deputy's question indicates that there has been some change in the position. As I pointed out in my reply, the position now is the same in that respect though there has been, by virtue of substantial increases in the meant test, a substantial extra number of people in receipt of these pensions.
Since the Parliamentary Secretary does not find it possible to answer the question, I would ask him is it a fact that many widows reaching the qualifying OAP age find themselves receiving a reduced pension because they get the OAP under a statutory means test?
The Deputy is confusing contributory widows' pensions with non-contributory OAPs. There always has been a difference in the rates. The former right has been acquired during many years of stamping cards.
The question I put related to non-contributory widows' pensions and non-contributory OAPs. Is it a fact that many widows in receipt of non-contributory widows' pensions, on reaching the qualifying age for OAPs, find themselves receiving less?
This is the third time the question has been put.
I am finding it difficult to get an answer.
In order to answer the question put I will repeat the Deputy's question:
... whether it is proposed to restore the position whereby on reaching the qualifying age for old age non-contributory pension, a recipient of a widow's non-contributory pension was entitled to opt for whichever pension was more favourable to her.
As I pointed out, there is no question of restoring the position because it never existed.
The Parliamentary Secretary has repeated his reply to the question put down. Would he now give a reply to the supplementary question of whether it is a fact that many widows in receipt of non-contributory pensions, when they reach the qualifying age for OAPs——
This cannot go on. I have allowed much ventilation of the matter.
With due deference to the Chair, is a Deputy entitled to get an answer in this House and is he not entitled to expect assistance from the Chair if there is deliberate evasion and failure to answer parliamentary questions?
I have not tried to evade the question. I have told the Deputy there has been no change in the situation.
We have heard that on a few occasions.
The Deputy has heard it but he did not like it.
The Parliamentary Secretary's replies have been inadequate and inaccurate. I will not pursue that. I have asked him, perhaps, four times——
Five times.
——and he has failed to answer. Of course, his deliberate failure to do so indicates what the real position is.