Vol. 343 No. 2
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will amend the social welfare code in the area of entitlement to old age contributory pensions in view of the anomalous way in which it operates in certain cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
4.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that the criteria used for deciding eligibility for contributory old age pensions, namely the average contribution record from the date of entry into insurable employment until the date of retirement, favours people who entered into insurable employment late in life compared with others who were in insurable employment for a long period but did not maintain their contributions when their means exceeded a certain figure; and whether he will consider having a simple absolute number of contributions as the criterion for eligibility.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together. The existing contribution conditions for receipt of contributory old age pension provide for (1) entry into insurance before a certain age, (2) a minimum of 156 weeks covered by paid contributions and (3) a specified yearly average number of weeks of contributions over the period from entry into insurance to pension age.
These conditions were devised to ensure that the scheme is confined to those who have been genuinely insured persons in the period to pension age. The scheme was never intended to cater for persons who at one time or another were insured for a short period or had a minimal insurance record. To do otherwise would affect the financial viability of the scheme and would have serious repercussions by way of additional costs.
The average test can be satisfied by a minimum of 20 contributions paid or credited over the test period. Any worker who was in insurable employment for a long period should, therefore, normally satisfy this particular condition. Any worker with more than three years insurable employment who for any reason ceased insurable employment always had the option of becoming a voluntary contributor paying contributions which would preserve pension rights.
I will be examining this matter in greater detail in the context of the National Pension Plan which is at present being drawn up and I will be paying particular attention to the conditions for receipt of pension to ensure that there is equity for all in the plan.
Can the Minister tell us if the Department of Social Welfare notify everybody who is eligible to become a voluntary contributor?
Not everybody is notified in a formal way. The information is generally available. People come in and out of insurability and it might be some time afterwards that the Department would become aware of their income change. I would urge any person entitled to voluntary contribution to have so availed themselves.
Deputy R. Bruton has the question down.
I would like to put two questions to the Minister. The first is: is he aware that the contributory old age pension was brought in in 1961 only so that referral back to a pre-1961 date in order to decide eligibility is not only anomalous but unfair because people who were contributing before that would not have been making contributions towards the scheme? Secondly, would the Minister not consider that a person who entered insurable employment back in 1950s, who was below the income which forced him to make contributions but later moved out of that, is discriminated against under this scheme?
A question now, Deputy.
The question is: would the Minister not accept that an absolute criterion of a number of contributions would be much fairer than an average contribution record since, for people who might have fallen on hard times during their contribution period, the averaging period might have been extended even though they were not contributing in every year?
If one were to give a contributory pension to everybody with a minimum number of contributions paid, irrespective of the time in which they were accumulated, there would be very considerable cost implications. Therefore, the precondition has been laid down that the average test condition from the point of entry into insurance until pension age is taken as the criterion.
Only after 1953, though, is it not?
That is true. But if one were to take a situation in which people could come in and out of insurance, not be insured for extended periods but accumulate contributions over a period of a working life, the cost implications would be very considerable.
Will the Minister consider allowing the pre-1953 contributions to be taken in respect of a pensioner who does not satisfy the full requirement of contributions for entitlement?
That is the sensible thing to do.
The second thing is: if somebody has been in insured employment, leaves it and subsequently comes back into insured employment, will the Minister allow that person to make a lump sum purchase of contributions in order to be fully eligible for benefits subsequently?
I regret that the answer at this stage must be "no" because it is a contributory scheme, self-financing, a "pay as you go" scheme. If one were to give credits for periods of employment prior to 1953, when there was no such scheme in existence and no such contributions were being made, then the scheme would simply collapse.
Will the Minister answer the second part of my supplementary question in regard to a lump sum payment in lieu of contributions?
Again, it would destroy the fundamental principle we have been endeavouring to develop, namely, that a person should pay on a weekly basis over the period of his lifetime, Unfortunately, many people discover in their early sixties that their prospect of getting the full pension has been destroyed. There is no way that one can finance an insurability scheme on the basis of periodic lump sum contributions. They have to be paid on a weekly basis, on a yearly basis, and then paid out to all intents and purposes on an actuarial basis.
The Minister has said that he would like the payment on a weekly basis. Would he ensure that his Department would notify people who are entitled to make voluntary contributions that they can do so in order to become voluntary contributors?
I am not entirely satisfied at the extent of information people are entitled to, or that the extent of that information is always readily available. On the other hand, we do have employers, we do have workers, we do have trade unions and a whole range of social services. One would imagine that there is hardly a worker in this country who would not by now be fully aware of all his social insurance entitlements. There is a wide battery of people, including 220 Members of the Oireachtas and 220 secretaries, to advise approximately only 900,000 people of their entitlement, but I accept that there should be more information available.
Is the Minister aware that there are many cases of hardship?
I did not get a reply to my first supplementary on the 1961 point but, as a final supplementary, I should like to ask the Minister to refer this to his new Social Welfare Commission as a matter of urgent importance because I can see a clear, anomaly between someone who commenced compulsory contribution after 1974——
That is not a question, Deputy. You will have to get into the habit of asking questions.
Would the Minister refer it to the Social Welfare Commission he is proposing to set up?
Yes. I might particularly refer to the fact that when the limit was abolished in 1974 many who had earlier been insured but who had gaps in their insurance record found that for the period from their first entry into insurance over the average test period they did not satisfy the regular contribution condition. I think that particular anomaly could be referred to the commission and I will do so.
5.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the Government intend to provide the double payment to pensioners and other social welfare recipients at Christmas time as has been the practice in recent years.
The cost of a double payment next Christmas to recipients of long-term social welfare payments would be about £18 million. Provision for such a payment was not made in the Estimates for 1983 which were based on those drawn up by the previous Government and published in November last. The question of providing a double payment would depend on financial constraints and the availability of funds to meet the cost at the appropriate time.
It was difficult to hear the Minister, but may I take it that he is saying that it is not intended to make this double payment? Surely he would know at this stage whether or not he intends to do so?
I can assure the Deputy that at this stage I have no money at all to make that payment of £18 million. In fact, on the ordinary unemployment payments I am short of money so that, come next Christmas, it will be a matter of paying our ordinary month's payment of unemployment benefit and pensions. At present we do not have £18 million nor are we likely to have it in December.
Can the Minister tell us how many years this scheme has been in operation whereby a double payment was made at Christmas?
1980 was the first time since 1955 that double payments were made at Christmas. In 1980 it was done in accordance with the provisions of the Second National Understanding for Economic and Social Development. In 1980 the cost was £8.8 million, in 1981 £12.5 million, then in 1982 there was a double payment for child dependants only of £4.2 million and a double payment generally of £15.3 million. The cost is approximately £18 million.
Would the Minister not accept that it is insufficient to come into the House and say that money is not available to provide for the needs of those on social welfare benefits?
I might put it to the Deputy that last year the payment was made but there was no money available and the Government borrowed £18 million. The only reason it was paid last year was the election. There was no provision in the 1982 Estimates for the money and then, as the Deputy well remembers, the then Minister for Social Welfare announced some weeks prior to the election that it was intended to pay it. This year our Estimates are on a different footing. If I can get the £18 million I will most willingly pay it, but as of now probably I will be short £10 million to £15 million on the ordinary social welfare side, because we have 193,000 unemployed, we have 10,000 on short time, our PRSI receipts have inevitably dipped somewhat, and their is no money.
Deputy Gregory, with a final supplementary.
Could I ask the Minister if his decision not to make a double payment is in line with Labour Party policy?
That is a separate question.
6.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will change the present regulations whereby 16 to 18 year olds who are unemployed are inelligible for any form of supplementary benefit, in order to take account of the serious rise in unemployment among this age group; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
There are a number of ways in which young people aged 16 to 18 who are unemployed can benefit from State schemes. A young person who has been in insurable employment and who becomes unemployed can qualify for unemployment benefit in his or her own right. The various benefit and assistance payments made by my Department can include increases to parents in respect of qualified children until the children reach the age of 18.
Supplementary welfare allowance paid by the health boards can also include increases to parents in respect of children to the age of 18. Supplementary welfare allowance is not however normally paid to persons under the age of 18 unless it can be established that the applicant is not living at home and is not supported by a parent or guardian. The day-to-day administration of the scheme of supplementary welfare allowance is a matter for the health boards and I do not propose to intervene in the existing arrangements.
The Department of Labour Work Experience Programme caters for school leavers in the age bracket mentioned. Such young people are also covered by schemes operated by AnCO and the Youth Employment Agency and it is normal in these cases for payments of one kind or another to be made.
I would much prefer to see young people who are unemployed availing themselves of the schemes that have been specifically set up with them in mind and I would be happy if they were encouraged to look in this direction as the more positive and hopeful approach towards developing their training, their skills and their initiative.
Could the Minister say if there is sufficient work through these schemes for people between the ages of 16 and 18 years who want to avail of them? Could he tell us how many parents have sought supplementary allowances in respect of children in this age group?
I do not have the information available in regard to the second question but in the Department of Labour work experience programmes, about 5,000 young persons between 16 and 18 participated last year. Under that scheme young persons are placed in firms to gain work experience. They are paid £30 per week for the duration of the course. Likewise, as the Deputy is aware, there is a major scheme operated by AnCO for unemployed young persons and allowances are paid to them for the duration of their course. The Youth Employment Agency has a series of schemes as well. Nevertheless I am very concerned about the large number of school leavers who are still unemployed. The Department of Labour survey last year showed that the number of unemployed was about 30 per cent. I imagine it will be somewhat higher this year.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to increase the value of fuel vouchers.
I am at present considering the arrangements for the fuel schemes in the season commencing next October and the value of the weekly allowance is one of the matters under review. I hope to make an announcement on the matter at an early date.
Could the Minister say if he intends to have a single scheme in operation next winter?
I would certainly prefer to see a single unified scheme in operation. The current schemes are most unsatisfactory and I am working on them in an effort to bring in a single uniform scheme with uniform criteria of eligibility. I hope that by the 1984 Estimates there will be a single scheme in operation with appropriate Estimate provision.
Could the Minister give the estimated out-turn of costings for the scheme last season and the total number accommodated?
I have not that information here but I shall get it for the Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that many of these vouchers are not sent out until late in the winter? The year before last some of them were not sent out until after the snow blizzard in February. Will he ensure that the vouchers are available at the beginning of October?
I shall certainly endeavour to have that done. There has been a variety of methods of administration. Some health boards issue the allowance in cheque rather than voucher form. I am not happy about it. I think the whole thing is wrong and, bearing in mind that there is a limited amount of money, there should be a better scheme in operation.
Is there difficulty in administering the scheme?
There should not be.
Question No. 7 deals with the value of the vouchers. It now seems to be developing into a general discussion on policy.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether a wife who is separated from her husband under the terms of a deed of separation which provides for weekly maintenance payments to be paid by the husband to her is entitled to the deserted wife's allowance if the husband ceases to make maintenance payments and cannot be compelled by the courts to do so; and, if she is not so entitled, if he will amend the deserted wife's allowance scheme to enable wives in such circumstances to claim the allowance.
The regulations governing the deserted wife's schemes provide that a woman is to be regarded as having been deserted by her husband if, (a) he has of his own volition left her, (b) he wilfully refuses or neglects to contribute to her support and maintenance, (c) she has made and continues to make reasonable efforts to trace his whereabouts and to prevail on him to contribute to her support and maintenance.
Where a separation agreement is entered into, and there is no question of desertion by the husband prior to the agreement, the parties would be held to have separated by mutual consent. In such circumstances desertion does not arise and the woman would not be entitled to payment as a deserted wife.
The suggestion of the Deputy would alter fundamentally the nature of the scheme administered by my Department for deserted wives and a situation would arise where my Department would be expected to assume responsibility where a maintenance agreement freely entered into by both parties lapsed for one reason or another.
I do not propose on the basis of the hypothetical situation quoted by the Deputy to alter the basic conditions of the scheme specifically designed for wives who have been deserted. The scheme of supplementary welfare allowances would be available to a person suffering hardship arising from the circumstances described by the Deputy.
Would the Minister indicate precisely what he regards section (c) as covering from the point of view of one spouse making reasonable efforts to trace the other? Would he agree a considerable number of deserted wives are refused the allowance on the ground that they do not make sufficient effort to trace the other spouse? What would he regard as sufficient effort? Notifying the Garda?
As far as I can gather, the inquiry officer interviewing the applicant generally seeks a statement — not a sworn statement — as to the efforts on her part to contact her husband, to ensure a maintenance order has been taken out by her, and that there was failure on her part to contact him because of total unawareness of his existing residence. In that case he would be deemed to have deserted her. But desertion as a criterion for eligibility inevitably must have a degree of subjective assessment by the officer concerned and in many cases not all the information essential is readily available.
Is the Minister aware that in quite a number of desertion cases it is virtually impossible for the spouse to carry out the search as suggested by the Minister in that many of the spouses go to another jurisdiction? Would he agree that in the meantime the investigating officer should give immediately the benefit of the doubt to the applicant and certainly go so far as to arrange full supplementary welfare allowance until such time as the decision is taken? Is he aware that quite a number of deserted wives find it impossible to comply satisfactorily with the requirements of the investigating officer in so far as section 3 is concerned and would he advise investigating officers to be more flexible in their dealings in these matters?
I am not casting any reflection on either Deputy but this is a classic example of how Questions are getting out of hand. Deputy Shatter asked a specific question, whether a breach of a deed of separation constituted desertion and the Minister answered "no", but then we got into extraneous matters that are not touched on in the question at all and we could spend a half an hour on them.
I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's point of view but the Ceann Comhairle will understand that a question such as this is relevant to circumstances that exist today and is very beneficial in making information available to applicants who have had difficulty in this regard. The Ceann Comhairle has been very generous in allowing a certain amount of flexibility in supplementary questions and replies which can be of enormous benefit by way of information to the general public and that is the reason I ask him to be generous in respect of this question.
If I were the Deputy who put down Question No. 523 I would be very angry with the Ceann Comhairle. It looks as if it will never be reached.
Question No. 523 is about a telephone service. I am sure the Deputy who put down the question is concerned about the matter we are dealing with.
I picked the wrong one.
Would the Minister agree that it is time to reconsider and broaden the concept of desertion to cover situations such as this and, indeed, other situations where it may be necessary for the wife or the husband to tell the spouse to leave because of the conditions they are living under, that the concept of desertion should be widened to include such cases?
It may not be widely known that where a husband behaves in such a way as to force his wife to leave him because, for instance, of violence, habitual drunkness or cruelty on his part the wife is regarded as being deserted because of being forced to leave. In the case of a wife having a barring order against her husband forbidding him access to the house, that also would be regarded as constructive desertion. If there is mutual separation and mutual agreement, I would hold the view, and I am sure the Deputy would also hold the view, that there was an obligation on his part to provide maintenance for her.
Is the Minister aware that a number of women who apply for deserted wife's allowance have no income other than perhaps supplementary welfare and are not in a position to sue the husband for maintenance, even with free legal aid, which is not always readily available? Would the Minister consider a suggestion that the Department of Social Welfare should help out in such cases and take steps to recover the money thereafter?
Every action is taken on our part where, for example, we have reason to believe that the husband may be claiming social welfare in respect of his wife and giving the wife no money or very little money. We can take action in that regard. In a case where the husband leaves home to live with another woman or another person, the wife is elegible for deserted wife's allowance. The criteria are quite broad but do not extend to maintenance agreements of a separation agreement nature.
Do they ever take action against the husband where they are paying deserted wife's allowance?
The Department take pretty rigorous action.
On a specific point, there is a case of which I am personally aware, where a wife in her innocence informed the investigating officer that she had told the husband to get out and has been refused the allowance.
That is a correct refusal.
It is not a correct supplementary question. It is a separate question.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (details supplied) in County Dublin has been deserted for 12 years and has been approved for the deserted wife's allowance for a long time, without any result; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The person concerned claimed deserted wife's benefit on 24 September 1982 and it has been awarded to her with effect from 30 September 1982. An order book payable from 3 March 1983 was forwarded to the designated post office on 28 February for collection by her and she was notified accordingly.
A payable order for the amount of the arrears due for the period from 30 September 1982 to 2 March 1983, adjusted in respect of unemployment benefit received by her in that period, has been sent direct to her.
A previous claim from this woman was refused in November 1979 as she did not make herself available for interviews by the investigating officer. Earlier, in January and February 1977, two application forms were sent to her following representations on her behalf by the Deputy but neither was returned.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that the present scheme for deciding eligibility for free electricity and free telephone allowances and free television licences, etc., discriminates against those who are not in receipt of social welfare pensions, although some may be on significantly lower incomes; and if he will consider introducing a statutory means limit to decide entitlement to fringe benefits associated with old age pensions.
The benefits to which the Deputy refers were originally intended to enable old people receiving social welfare type pensions who were living alone to remain active in the community for as long as possible by enabling them to reside in their own homes. This is still a basic objective of the schemes although the concept of "living alone" has been extended to disregard certain other categories such as dependent spouses and children, other pensioners, invalids.
I am satisfied the schemes serve a useful social purpose and I do not propose to impose restrictions on them on the lines suggested by the Deputy.
Having regard to the statement that the Minister made yesterday that about 40 per cent of those entitled were not claiming their full entitlement and that a considerable number do not apply for the benefits to which they are entitled, will the Minister consider issuing the leaflet he referred to yesterday with the new old age pension books that will go out when the next increase is implemented — the first week in July?
That was a supplementary question to yesterday's question and is not in order today.
I was trying to get the Minister to nod his head in agreement.
I would be reluctant to send it with the pension books because of the practice in many post offices to take the pension book from the envelopes when they are paying the pensions. I would prefer to send a separate notification.
I was trying to suggest a means whereby the Minister could save money by enclosing the leaflet with the pension book rather than incur the enormous cost of issuing it separately.
Is the Minister aware that there are a number of pensioners whose income is less than the social welfare pension who are not in receipt of free electricity, free television licence and free telephone? Would he ensure that the scheme is extended to cover these persons?
That is the exact wording of the question.
The Minister did not answer it.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when the family income supplement which was promised in the budget will be introduced.
A sum of £5 million was provided in this year's budget for the purposes of a family income supplement scheme. I will be submitting my proposals on the scheme to the Government shortly and when these have been approved the necessary legislation will be introduced. I intend to bring the scheme into operation later this year.
The £5 million allocated in the Finance Bill has been taken from PRSI allowances. Could the Minister indicate how much will be paid to families who are entitled and how many families are eligible under the scheme? Will the Minister state if it will be a weekly sum, a monthly sum or a lump sum?
About 20,000 families are estimated to benefit from the scheme. I have not calculated as yet the exact amount of benefit but it will be paid on a monthly basis. Work is proceeding in my Department on preparation of the proposed scheme. We are in consultation with other Departments and I hope to have the legislation through the Dáil before the summer recess. The legislation will be introduced to operate from 1 October with an amount of £5 million for the last quarter of the year.
I take it the full £5 million will be available for distribution and that there will not be any administrative costs taken from that amount?
The scheme will have to be administered by the Department of Social Welfare on an ordinary administrative basis. We are examining the basis of administration. I am anxious to keep it as simple as possible because of the enormous pressures on staff at present.
Will the Minister indicate the criteria for the families concerned?
In his budget speech on 9 February the Minister for Finance indicated that a group of workers could be in a poverty trap situation if they were somewhat above the basic level of social welfare but below the lowest level of general wage income. The Minister indicated that people in such a poverty trap situation were suffering. It was intended to introduce the scheme as a supplement for low income families who were in the active labour force.
Legislation will be necessary in this instance and that will afford an opportunity for a long discussion of the matter.
Will the Minister indicate how much each family will receive?
We cannot discuss this matter now.
Why not?
Because it would not be in order. That is the reason. I am calling Question No. 12.
