An amendment sheet has been circulated to Members.
Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1981: Committee Stage.
Sections 1, 2, and 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
On reading subsection (c) of this section it appears that an anomaly exists in relation to deserted wife's allowances. A young woman who applies for a deserted wife's allowance — an objectionable term which I will tolerate only for the purpose of this discussion — who is under 40 and does not have any family cannot apply for unemployment benefit or assistance. Has the Minister any comment to make on that?
Technically, that is for the allowance. I presume that the intention, when the Bill was drafted, was that such a woman would be free to take up employment and, consequently, would come under the other categories. Such a person did not have any children to mind at home and had not advanced in age to over 40 years. What the Deputy has said is technically incorrect.
Such a person, therefore, does not qualify for unemployment assistance until she is 58 years of age?
From 18 years of age upwards she can apply for unemployment assistance.
If she is a deserted wife and she does not have any children?
Yes. She can apply for unemployment assistance or supplementary welfare allowance.
I am talking about unemployment assistance.
As long as she is not a dependant of her husband and is not receiving assistance claimed as a dependant of her husband.
If she leaves the family home, as she is entitled to and is not receiving benefit from her husband is she entitled to unemployment assistance?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Deputy Harte put down an amendment to section 5 but it has been ruled out of order.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Two amendments in the name of Deputy Harte which refer to this section have been ruled out of order. The Deputy is entitled to speak on those amendments after we have disposed of the Minister's amendment but he is not entitled to propose their adoption.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection (4), line 18, to delete "(a)”.
This amendment is merely to correct a typographical error.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
The reason I tabled my amendments was to try to expedite claims from rural Ireland. Basically, most of the claims referred to the Department come from rural areas. As I understand it if an applicant has less than 78 contributions paid and has a poor law valuation of £4 or more his case must be referred to the Department. The local officer does not have the discretion although he would be very competent — maybe more competent than Dublin — to make a decision. Even though he can forecast accurately almost all the time what the decision from Dublin will be, nevertheless the application must be forwarded to the Department. This is bureaucracy gone crazy and I do not see any reason why persons with less than 78 contributions and a PLV of £4 should have their applications sent to Dublin for decision. A PLV of £4 means a holding of about six acres of poor land, or eight acres of very poor land or more acreage of ridiculously poor land. It is a notional figure that has no purpose whatever.
While I am not permitted to move my amendments I request the Minister to change the regulations so that the local officer can determine applications for benefit in such circumstances. The Minister should also amend the PLV figure to a more realistic one. He should increase it to a higher figure. I have been told that it takes ten days from the time the local officer sends the file to the Department until it is returned. In many instances the Department send back the file for further investigation and that can result in delays of up to one month. My amendments sought to eliminate the bureaucracy in the Department when dealing with such claims.
I appreciate the point the Deputy has made. It is a question of weekly means of £12 in assessment. This is a matter that is under current examination and I can give the Deputy an undertaking that I will have it examined fully. It is basically an administrative matter and, as the Deputy knows, we have introduced a number of administrative improvements which have speeded up the payment, particularly relating to the assessment for non-contributory old age pensions. In that respect the administrative procedures that have been introduced have been very successful. This has been verified by Deputies on both sides of the House, apart from the proof that we have by way of the figures.
Would the Minister not accept that there is blatant discrimination in these cases in respect of married women in that when a married woman applies for unemployment benefit, the case is sent to Dublin for processing whereas if a man or a single woman makes a similar application and if their poor law valuation does not exceed £4 and if they do not have a business or reside with someone who has a business, their case is decided at the local office. Even if these conditions are fulfilled so far as a married woman is concerned, her case must go to Dublin for determination. What is the reason for this?
I will inquire whether there is such a practice as that outlined by the Deputy. It may be that in some instances the local officer may express more doubt about a situation having regard to the fact that in many of these cases we are talking about employment that is subsidiary to farming employment. There may be more doubt expressed in the case of a female as to whether she was engaged in farm employment. The procedure the Deputy describes could arise from that situation rather than for any Machiavellian reason. However, I shall have a look at the situation.
It is not a question of being Machiavellian. The local officer is statutorily bound to send to Dublin an application from a married woman.
The Deputy is under a misapprehension because that is definitely not the case.
I have the regulations here but I shall not quote them now. They stipulate that an application from a married woman who has fewer than 78 employment credits and who has a poor law valuation of less than £4 is sent to Dublin for processing. The local officer would know the circumstances at first hand. He would have compassion and understanding in respect of the application but when that application is referred to Dublin it becomes a mere statistic and the applicant is only some anonymous person so far as the Dublin office is concerned. Surely in this day and age a little commonsense should prevail and such cases should be dealt with at local level, thereby ensuring no undue delay.
The Deputy may be referring to a staff instruction which may be given because I can confirm that there is no statutory provision nor is there any regulation that has been made by any Minister to the effect outlined by the Deputy. The staff instruction could arise in circumstances where a more senior manager is available in one of the other exchanges. In other words, the instruction could relate to the level of staffing at a particular exchange. The matter would be one of an administrative arrangement but I shall have it looked into as a matter of urgency. I agree with the Deputy that this is an area in which in so far as possible decisions should be taken at local level.
Therefore, we may take it that the Minister will issue clear instructions to the managers of local employment exchanges to the effect that where the necessary information is readily available, bureaucracy will be eliminated and the decision taken at local level.
Yes, given the fact that there is the suitable level of management to take those decisions. However, I have given an undertaking to the Deputy that those general provisions will be reviewed.
I think the Minister should accept that in the vast majority of cases applicants attend personally at the local employment offices, that the local officers help with the filling in of the application forms and that they, almost by way of mental arithmetic, are in a position to make the decision before, perhaps, the applicant leaves the office. In circumstances in which applications are sent to Dublin, would the Minister indicate clearly to officers at local level that this should not happen and that the decisions should be made locally?
I would repeat that what the Deputy is talking about is not a regulation in the strict meaning of that word. It would be an administrative arrangement. All I can say to the Deputy is that I agree with the general points he makes and with the objective which he would pursue on that. That would be my objective also and on that basis I will have the matter reviewed as one of urgency. I have mentioned that there can be administrative complications but it may be a case of referring sideways rather than upwards as it were, in arriving at a satisfactory answer locally.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
The two amendments put forward by Deputy Harte were ruled out of order.
The reason why I tabled these amendments was that I felt the section was very unfair, particularly to working-class families. In a family where a child is attending full-time education the children's allowance would be paid until that child is 18 years of age. This is also the case where the child is in a recognised apprenticeship to a particular trade. Now we find that with the large number of redundancies some children over 16 years of age and under 18 years of age in working-class families find themselves out of work with no desire to go back to school and their parents are deprived of the children's allowance. This is probably an oversight on the part of the Minister but I appeal to him to sympathetically consider including such children.
The children's allowance is payable to parents of children over the age of 16 and under the age of 18 provided they are in full-time education or in apprenticeships or incapable of self-support by reason of physical or mental infirmity. Once the children leave school their parents no longer receive the children's allowance if they are over 16 years of age. On the other hand, as the Deputy said, if they do an apprenticeship and then subsequently are made redundant their parents would not receive the children's allowance because they would return to a comparable situation to the children who did not enter into apprenticeship in any event. There, one would have to change the children's allowance scheme generally to provide that it went on whether the child continued in education or not. That is a much broader question. It certainly would involve substantial numbers. I appreciate the point the Deputy makes about someone who goes on an apprenticeship. First and foremost, if the apprenticeship is not regarded as a formal apprenticeship the parents cannot benefit, whereas if it is a formal apprenticeship they can benefit. Some problems arise in that area. I would be prepared to say that certainly in relation to the apprenticeship and the different kinds of apprenticeship I am prepared to look at them to see what the situation would be. But the problem is the one of comparability with other children once they leave school and before they get into employment.
Would the Minister have any knowledge of the number of children between the ages of 16 and 18 in apprenticeships and not attending school whose parents are receiving the children's allowance? Are we talking about big figures?
The total number of children in that age group is 94.000 but I do not have the other figure available now.
I appreciate the Minister's sympathetic approach to this but there is a difference in young boys or girls serving an apprenticeship or being six months of one year in apprenticeship and then, through no fault of their own, being made redundant.
That is why I say that is an aspect that I would certainly look at. I will look at the question of someone who enters an apprenticeship and becomes redundant following that. There could be a genuine case in that event and it might be possible given the more limited numbers involved in that event, to overcome the comparability problems. I take the Deputy's point in that respect.
I had put down another amendment that all documents relating to a decision should be made available to the person concerned or a person acting for him. I wonder would the Minister agree that when people are refused benefit or assistance of any description from his Department it is most unsatisfactory to tell them that because of a particular section or because their means exceed the statutory limit they are excluded from the scheme? In the North and in Great Britain the entire file on the case is made available to the applicant, so he can read the file and see the deciding officer's opinion or medical evidence on it and can come to a fair judgment of whether he is entitled to benefit or not. I am sure Deputies in the House will appreciate the difficulty that arises when an applicant approaches a public representative to renew his appeal and there is a vacuum. The Deputy does not know why the Department shot down the application. He may suspect the reasons but he does not know precisely what the position is and it leaves the applicant in a most unfair position. If a person makes an application for benefit or assistance he is entitled to be told precisely why the application is refused. If he goes into a court of law the judge tells him what the case is. I do not see why this barrier should be there between the Department of Social Welfare and the applicant. I would ask the Minister to change the regulations so that the applicant will be informed in full of the position relating to his case.
I would like to make clear that certainly as far as the appeals officer is concerned he will divulge the full details of assessment and any other relevant factors at the hearings and that in fact a detailed reason is given for the decision of the deciding officer. I think the question that can arise is the question of whether someone has given a statement otherwise, in relation to, for instance, unsuitability for work. This is something that may be in relation to an accident at work where civil proceedings may be going on. The cases here would be very few and, in effect, very detailed reasons are given and every opportunity is given in the appeal. Not only that, but in second appeals at times when, say, a Deputy comes along to vouch for someone and say that in his view such and such is the case, this view and this information are taken into consideration. The appeals officers do divulge the full details of means assessment and how they arrive at this means assessment and any other information they are acting on at the hearings, and they would be obliged to do that in any event in relation to the discussion which takes place at the hearing.
I have personal experience of people in the Republic, particularly in Donegal, working in Northern Ireland and finding the difficulties that I am talking about with the Department of Health and Social Services in Belfast. In making a representation to that Department in Belfast I find that the information I receive back from them is most detailed and complete, fair, open and honest and the person getting the copy of that can take a look at it and say. "That is the right conclusion which the Department have come to. I now understand why I am not getting it" or "The Department are reading the situation wrongly" and can point out to me or any other person where the Department are misleading themselves or misunderstanding the case.
No matter what the Minister tells me, there is a very big difference between the information which a person in Northern Ireland receives from the Department of Health and Social Services in Belfast and the information that a person in the Republic receives from the Department of Social Welfare here in Dublin inasmuch as it refers to any case that I know of in the constituency where I have the duty to work as a public representative. I am merely saying to the Minister that it would be more honest, fair, complete and businesslike for him to direct that a person who has been refused would be given the complete details of the reasons for that refusal. I will give an example. One of the new bodies set up here is An Bord Pleanála and the entire file of any information which is passed between an objector and an applicant under An Bord Pleanála, is related back to both sides. If it is good practice in An Bord Pleanála there should be more need for it in the Department of Social Welfare.
This is an administrative procedure and when a deciding officer gives a decision he gives the reasons for the decision. I think deciding officers give the statute under which the decision is made and they indicate that the beneficiary has the right to appeal the decision. The Deputy is really talking about the extent to which the reasons are given.
Right.
There will be cases and instances even in relation to private medical information and arrangements where the doctor-patient relationship may enter into the question. I presume that these are things which the Deputy would not particularly want laid out in an appeal. Here, of course, the individual has the right to bring his or her own doctor along to the appeal and to consult him in that respect. Whether there should be any further elaboration of the reasons is something that certainly I will look at.
On the question of the relationship between the doctor and the patient——
We are dealing with something now that has been ruled out of order as not being relevant to this Bill. We will finish on this point, please.
We are concluding this point. It may be more important in the case of medical reports. While I acknowledge that the relationship between the doctor and the patient must always be very confidential, this may be one of the cases where it is more important. Again I cite the case of a Donegal person working in Northern Ireland appealing on a disability benefit claim. That person's doctor did a detailed report to the Department of Health and Social Services in Belfast. The medical evidence in reply to it was made available to my constituent. That is not done here. I do not see any violation of the relationship between patient and doctor if the matter has been dealt with between two doctors and the patient concerned. If the patient concerned wishes to make the information available to a public representative such as myself, that clearly is a decision which must rest with the applicant.
The Minister to conclude.
The procedure here is that the doctor who certifies that person as being unfit for work does get a copy of the medical referee's report from the medical officer directly. That doctor may or may not pass that on to the person concerned, but as far as the procedure is concerned the certifying doctor receives a copy from the medical referee.
That may be so, but why can the applicant not get a copy of all the documents so that when the applicant approaches a public representative the public representative would have full knowledge or could read into the reasons why the decision has been "with regret"?
We must move on to the final stages.
As I have said, I will have a look at the reasons and the administrative procedure in relation to the reasons.
Question put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE A.
Question proposed: "That Schedule A be Schedule A to the Bill."
I want to take the Minister up on the Second Reading. Can I speak on this on the Schedule?
The Deputy can raise a point on anything in the Schedule.
In relation to the question of old age and retirement pensions, the Minister has been making a lot of play of the fact that the increases which he has awarded to people in the Republic are far in excess of those awarded to people in Great Britain. That is not precisely the case. For example, the Minister has prudently avoided mentioning the case of the person from the Republic living in Northern Ireland, the retired civil servant who has gone back to Northern Ireland to live or maybe the widow of a civil servant who has gone back to Northern Ireland to live and is now in receipt of a widow's pension, retirement pension or old age pension. That person now living in Northern Ireland is living on 75 per cent of the value of the pension because of the currency difference which has him or her living almost as a pauper. Virtually every week, maybe not with the same regularity now as at the beginning, I get telephone calls and letters from people living in Northern Ireland or I have personal contact with the relatives of those people in Northern Ireland asking if there is any way in which the currency differential which is now affecting their mother's pension, leaving the mother living now almost as a pauper, could be attended to. Therefore, there is no sympathy whatever from the present Government for people living in such circumstances. I refer to people who have given great service to the State. They are Irish people who happen to live in Northern Ireland where sterling is the currency. Because of our exchange rate, those people are living on three-quarters of what the Minister says is a very good pension.
If someone with a pension from Northern Ireland who is living in the Republic, has that pension increased either by a direct increase by a budget proposal in Westminster or an increase in value as a result of the current currency exchange rate, the Republic of Ireland pension will be reduced by the same amount. In other words, if a person who has worked in Northern Ireland or Great Britain is now living in the Republic, particularly in Donegal, and that person is in receipt of a small or part British pension, and a part pension from Dublin, the value of that pension is taken into consideration in determining the amount of pension which that person should receive from the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin. If the pension is increased directly as a result of a budget proposal in Westminster, say the figure is £2 per week, the pension from the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin is subsequently reduced by £2 per week. If the pension is increased as a result of the difference in our currencies by £2 or £3 per week, then the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin reduce the Irish pension by a similar amount. It is grossly unfair. The present Government are having their cake and eating it. It is very unfair to people who have given great service to the State and who now find themselves living almost as paupers in Northern Ireland. It is also unfair to people who had to emigrate because they could not get work here and who now find that, because their pensions have increased either directly or as a result of the high value of sterling, they also lose out. The Department of Social Welfare in Dublin are gaining as a result of the currency differential. The Minister has almost constantly referred in the House to the great increase which he and the Government have given to old age pensioners and other pensioners in the budget. He has cleverly avoided this very unsatisfactory position.
We cannot have Second Stage speeches, only brief questions.
I must make some points clear because there could be some confusion. I am sure the Deputy appreciates the situation but, from what he said, one would think that some of these things applied generally. The increases are 25 per cent here. They are at a very much lower level in England. There is no question about that. To take the old age pension couple, if you apply a 25 per cent increase on the United Kingdom pension, you get £3.90, you increase by roughly £1, that is £4 or £5 against £10.75 here. The Deputy makes the most of the point. I accept that it is his job in opposition to do that but it fades in comparison with the reality of the size of the increases. That is the global point.
On the question of the Irish pensions being reduced because an English pension increases, fortunately, the increase in this case is much bigger in Ireland. The increase in England is smaller so the effect of that will be much less this year. This applies of course, only where the pension is an assistance pension——
An Leas Cheann Comhairle
In this schedule we are dealing only with contributory pensions.
It applies only to assistance. It does not apply to contributory pensions. If you have a contributory pension and another pension from England, that is entirely your business. What the Deputy says refers only in cases of assistance, because a means test is applied for assistance benefits. The only way to get over this in the long run is to have a national pension plan and to get away from assistance schemes altogether.
The Deputy raised the question of people going from here to the North of Ireland, that the value of their pension may, due to exchange rates, be reduced. Within EEC regulations, we are required to pay at the national rate in any event and each country would, in effect, be doing this. That could apply differently when the person goes to any other country, to Germany, the United States or anywhere else. A great deal of variation could be created. If one is receiving a pension here and going to England, the pension will be paid at the rate prevailing here. We cannot do much about that.
In relation to partial payments, which the Deputy mentioned, the actual rate of increase would be higher where they are means tested than the 25 per cent we talk about globally. For instance, if the means are £15 per week, the increase will be closer to 50 per cent in practice. It is one of the features of the Bill that when you are on a partial payment, it is higher.
I appreciate that the Deputy has great concern for Border movements in both directions. I hope the Deputy also appreciates that we are extending the free telephone rental scheme to people who have returned from England or the North of Ireland. That did not apply before. I am not totally unheedful of the Deputy's points and suggestions. It is one we have included in the provisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.