Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jul 1960

Vol. 52 No. 20

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1960—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Senators will have seen the explanatory memorandum which was circulated with this Bill and which sets out its provisions in some detail. I propose therefore to make no more than a brief reference to those provisions which need some additional explanation.

In the first place, the Bill gives effect to the increases announced in the Budget. It provides for additional payments of 1/- per week in respect of all old age pensions and blind pensions. Rates of unemployment assistance are also being increased by 1/- a week for applicants themselves, 1/- a week for adult dependants and 1/- a week for each child dependant. The extra shilling will be paid for every dependant child and not only for the first two qualified children to whom payments are confined at present.

A man with a wife and two children will qualify for an increase of 4/- a week while a man with a wife and six children, who at present receives the same amount as a man with a wife and two children, will now qualify for an increase of 8/- a week. For widows with non-contributory pensions the Bill grants an increase of 1/- a week for the widow herself, plus an increase of 1/- for the first and second qualified children. Widows with three or more children will receive an additional 3/6d. for each child in excess of two. Thus a widow with four children will receive a weekly increase of 10/-. Orphans' non-contributory pensions are also being raised by approximately 50 per cent. All the increases mentioned will come into effect on 1st August next.

The Bill makes a number of other important changes in the law relating to old age pensions, widows' pensions and unemployment assistance. One of these. Section 6, affects old age pensioners who go to live in Northern Ireland. At present payment of their old age pensions must be suspended when they cross the Border. They cannot have their pensions restored unless they come back here and they cannot qualify for assistance under Northern Ireland legislation until they have lived there for at least five years.

This Bill will allow such people, provided, of course, they continue to satisfy the other conditions, to get their pensions in the North for five years, or until they are granted an old age pension or national assistance under Northern Ireland legislation. This pension would, of course, be paid directly to the pensioner, whether he is living in his own dwelling or in a home for the aged and infirm. Pensioners who have already gone there and who have been less than five years in the North, will be able to have their pensions restored to them, if they have not already got a pension or assistance in the North.

I am also repealing the provision in the Old Age Pensions Acts whereby a person who is detained in a Mental Hospital is debarred from receiving old age pension. The effect of the repeal is that such persons will be no longer ineligible for old age pension, as they have been up to this. It is necessary to provide at the same time, however, for the appropriation of the pension, by the authority responsible for the maintenance of the pensioner in such cases, as a contribution towards his maintenance and upkeep. This, of course, will have an appreciable effect on the demands which the Mental Hospitals will make on the various health authorities. Those who would be capable of deriving some benefit, however, will be able to obtain, at the discretion of the Resident Medical Superintendent, up to 10/- a week towards such things as extra comforts.

The period within which payment of an old age pension may be obtained is being altered. Under the law as it stands, pension orders which are not cashed within three months go out of date. Many old people are unaware of this fact and sometimes fail to cash their orders before the three months have expired. If payment has to be refused in this type of case it can often lead to definite hardship. The Bill gives the Minister power, therefore, to extend the time within which payment on account of an old age pension may be made, up to six months, which is the period already in operation for widows' pensions and for children's allowances.

Subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 is being repealed. This subsection, which does not seem ever to have operated, empowers a court to disqualify a convicted person over the age of 60 and liable to have a detention order made against him under the Inebriates Act, 1898, from receiving old age pension for a period of up to ten years.

Section 13 of the Bill makes a change in favour of widowed working mothers, who are claiming or receiving non-contributory pensions. Earnings of a widow from insurable or excepted employment under the First Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, 1952, up to a limit of £39 for each qualified child of the widow, may, when this provision becomes law, be disregarded when assessing her means.

Some other concessions affecting the assessment of means concern those in receipt of allowances or pensions under the Army Pensions Acts and Military Service Pensions Acts. These are dealt with in Section 10. They also apply to those in receipt of Connaught Rangers' Pensions. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the first £80 of each of the first two types of pension which I have mentioned is already disregarded in calculating means for old age and widows' pension purposes. The present Bill will extend this disregard to those claiming or receiving unemployment assistance, and, in addition, will apply the disregard of Connaught Rangers' pensions for all purposes.

Section 13 also provides for the disregard of the maintenance allowances payable to disabled persons under Section 50 of the Health Act, 1953, and puts them on the same footing as the allowances of a somewhat similar nature payable under Section 44 of the Health Act, 1947. This is being done by adding them to the relevant portion of the Seventh Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and thus enabling them to be excluded from reckoning as means in old age and widows' pension cases.

Old age pensioners who are also receiving a statutory pension from some other source will benefit from Section 9. It sometimes happens under existing legislation that a small increase in another pension being received by an old age pensioner can cause a much greater decrease in the old age pension, the net result being that the pensioner's total income is actually reduced. The necessary provision to avoid this is made in Section 9.

Section 11 of the Bill is intended to benefit people who have endured a long spell of unemployment and relates to what is known as the three days waiting period which an unemployed person must serve before he can receive the benefit or assistance he is seeking. During that period of three days he cannot receive either benefit or assistance. If he remains unemployed long enough to exhaust his title to unemployment benefit and then looks for unemployment assistance he must, as the law stands, serve a further three waiting days, during which he can get neither benefit nor assistance. This latter requirement is a definite hardship on people who have the misfortune to be unemployed for a long period and the section to which I have referred will abolish this waiting period.

One of the contribution conditions for maternity allowances is that not less than 26 employment contributions have been paid before the relevant date—that is the date of commencement of the sixth week before the end of the expected week of confinement. If the contributions due in respect of insurable employment before that date have not been paid, the insured woman cannot receive any maternity allowance, even though the contributions may have been paid within a short time after the relevant time. The amendment which is being made by Section 15 of this Bill will enable such allowances to be paid in future from the date on which the contributions are paid.

The Bill contains some provisions designed to clarify the law on one or two points relating to the insurable classes, about which some doubts have arisen as a result of recent court decisions. The amendments concern some classes of civil servants and student and trainee nurses and midwives. Civil Servants of the State, as, for instance, a solicitor employed in the State Solicitor's office, as distinct from Civil Servants of the Government, and certain student and trainee nurses and midwives are being added to the employments scheduled as insurable under the Social Welfare Acts.

Every year large sums of money are lost to the State as a result of fraudulent claims to old age pensions and false statements regarding means. Accordingly, the Bill includes some provisions, Sections 16 to 22 inclusive, which aim to reduce, as much as possible, irregular payments of old age pensions. The provisions in question are intended to deter people from making fraudulent claims, and giving false information, in order to get pensions to which they are not entitled. Where people have succeeded in getting such pension money in these circumstances, the Bill will facilitate recovery of the money from them or from their personal representatives. With a few exceptions the provisions and penalties are not new, but are to be found already in operation in relation to other social welfare services. In some respects the old age pensions code differs from other social welfare services, and differs to the disadvantage of the State, that is, of the taxpayer, where proceedings for the recovery of money overpaid are concerned. The amendments which this Bill proposes to the law will bring the old age pension code into line with the other services in that respect. Among the new provisions is the requirement obliging the personal representative of a deceased pensioner, before distributing an estate, to give not less than three months' notice in writing of his intention to distribute the assets and making him financially liable if he fails to do so. Another is the establishment of a legal presumption that once a pension is proved to have been awarded and payment made during any period, the pensioner shall be deemed, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to have received payment from the date of the award. These provisions will be reinforced by Section 17 which authorises the suspension of pension where a pensioner refuses or fails to furnish information or produce books or documents, reasonably required to establish his continued entitlement to pension and by new provisions requiring the personal representative of a deceased pensioner, under penalty, to furnish similar information regarding the pensioner.

The amendment being made by Section 12 of the Bill arises out of the need to adjust, on a legal basis, a claim in respect of overpayment by a local authority of its contribution towards the cost of unemployment assistance in its area under Section 26 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933. Under that Act local authorities in areas where the higher rates of unemployment assistance are payable are required to pay to the Minister in each financial year as a contribution to the cost of Unemployment Assistance certain sums levied on the rateable valuation of their areas. For the purpose of determining the rateable valuations certificates are obtained annually from the Commissioner of Valuation. Under the existing law the Commissioner has no power to amend any certificates furnished by him or to issue a revised certificate. Previously, the Commissioner had included the valuation of certain small dwellings in the certificates furnished by him. The local authorities concerned held that this was wrong and their view was upheld by legal opinion.

Since legal opinion was obtained to the effect that the relevant legislation did not give the Commissioner power to amend his certificates the over-payments were adjusted by allowing the local authorities concerned credit in subsequent years in respect of the amounts over-contributed. Both the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, however, considered this procedure and concluded that it was unsatisfactory and the Committee expressed the view that amending legislation should be introduced when the opportunity offered. It happens that further application for a refund of amounts erroneously contributed by a local authority in respect of the valuation of small dwellings was recently received, and the present amendment will enable the Commissioner of Valuation to issue a revised certificate as to rateable value where the facts so warrant and thus enable this and any other cases which may arise to be dealt with on a legal basis.

Roughly a quarter of a million people including old and blind persons, widows and their dependent children, the unemployed and their dependants, stand to benefit by this Bill. On the basis of present numbers, the cost in a full year of the increases announced in the Budget Statement and provided for in this Bill is estimated at approximately £657,000. Other increases and concessions will amount to £212,000 in a full year. The figures I have quoted add up to a yearly total, of £869,000 which of course is additional to the £21,354,000 originally framed as the Estimate for Social Assistance requirements for the current year.

I should, perhaps, give a word or two of explanation in connection with the cost of the proposal regarding payment of old age pensions in respect of persons detained in mental hospitals. This will, it is estimated, add about £153,000 to the cost of old age pensions. The Exchequer provides 50 per cent. of the cost of mental hospital services and if the pension were being fully appropriated in all cases the net cost to the Exchequer of this repeal would consequently be only half the figure I gave, that is, £76,500.

Since it is being provided that up to 10/- a week may be obtained by the patient, if he is fit to make use of it, the net cost to the Exchequer of repealing this particular disqualification will be substantially more than £76,500. In fact, it may be over £100,000, depending on the extent, which there is no means of estimating, to which patients will he found able to avail themselves of the provision enabling them to get up to 10/- of the pension for their own use. However, the repeal is a long overdue reform which I am happy to be able to provide for in this Bill.

I could not call this Bill anything but a miserable measure. It is one of those pieces of legislation that has to be introduced as a result of the most unwise policy of the Government some years ago in removing the food subsidies which well nigh caused dislocation for several years in the economy. It was the principal factor in these rounds of wage increases that have taken place since the Government came into office.

They have now decided, as a compensation to the weaker sections of the community, the old age pensioners and blind pensioners, to give them an increase of 1/- a week. In fact, the little bit they have tried to do for that section of the community will be seen through, even by the blind. It is a miserable effort.

If there is any section of the community that deserves to have the cost of living kept down, it is old age pensioners and the blind pensioners. In fact, anyone who is prepared to save for the future deserves consideration from the Government charged with the responsibility of carrying on the affairs of State. I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Government will see the folly they engaged in a few years ago when they removed the £11 million subsidy and did not reduce taxation after wasting that £11 million.

To-day they talk about a buoyant economy but the small farmers, the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners and all these sections of the community will not be a bit impressed by this talk of an increase in industrial exports when many of the small farmers who, when they get old, would be entitled to enjoy an old age pension, are just locking up the doors and leaving the west of Ireland. That in large measure is caused by the inability of the Government to approach the cost of living in a realistic way.

If there is anything worth while at all in the entire Bill, it is the suggestion to pay family allowances for all children rather than to pay them after the first two children. I presume we have nothing else to do but to pass the Bill but I think it is desirable at least to put on the records of the House the fact that we disapprove of this type of parsimonious dealing with a subject of this nature—a sort of make-shift legislation caused by policies that were in their conception immature and which caused a great deal of damage to this economy. If anything is necessary in Ireland more than in any other country, it is that it should be a cheap country to live in.

The Government have done more to make this a dear country than any other Government we had in this country. The 1/- increase for old age pensioners and blind pensioners is a sort of sop thrown out to those people for the depreciation in the value of the pension they had heretofore.

I am rather amused to hear Senator Burke describing this measure as a miserable contribution. Of course, that is nothing at all unusual coming from that side of the House. They will tell you at one time that taxation is going up, that the cost of living and everything else is going up. They will also tell you that the people are being reduced almost to a terrible plight to-day.

I am probably the oldest administrator in the House. Even if it were only for one section in the Bill I should rise to congratulate the Minister. I refer to the section concerning the mental hospitals. I have been a member of the mental hospital committee in Ennis for 32 years now. As a matter of fact, I think I made a suggestion on a few occasions in regard to the number of people in the hospital. It is surprising the number of old people who are in the mental hospital, but the reason the number of people there is so high is that at the present time, with modern treatments, you have admissions and discharges, but on the other hand you have poor people who are there and who have to remain.

There have been wonderful changes —I could almost call them revolutions —in mental treatment since I first became a member of a mental hospital board. At that time it was regarded as a place of detention where people would scarcely go to see their relatives. They would ignore them altogether. But at the present time the mental hospital is regarded as any other hospital and thanks be to God for that advance, in which medical science has played a big part.

We have 700 patients in Ennis District Hospital and we have passed. resolutions on the question: why should they not get the old age pension? If there were nothing in the Bill to commend it but this section, I would feel bound in duty to stand up and offer congratulations to the Minister. These people now are being very well looked after in mental hospitals. They have all sorts of amusements, recreations, occupational therapy and all the rest. Next year will be a big year. It will be the mental hospital jubilee year and we in Clare look forward to occupying a very high place. We hope to get great credit for the strides we have made from people in high places.

Ours is the first hospital in the State where certain drugs are being tried out. If they live up to anything like the results they are supposed to give, it will mean a big revolution in mental treatment. The patients have table tennis, tennis and football pitches, as compared with the conditions that obtained in those places 30 years ago when people were kept in Ennis County Home. In consequence of the amalgamation and the great grants which came from the Sweep, there have been great changes. We have an admission, unit which is in itself a hospital. Patients are received there and segregated. They do not mix with the other patients. They get a reasonable chance of recovery before they mix with the others.

I want to thank the Minister for this. Although the patients have been well treated without any pension, the old age pension will give them great comforts like tobacco or cigarettes for male or female patients. We have a very grave and serious duty to those people. They are people who have been mentally afflicted by the Lord and are not able to look after themselves, and we have a duty to see that they get anything that will help them, mitigate their affliction, confer comforts on them or hasten the day of their recovery. We should co-operate in every way to see that such plans are brought to fruition as soon as possible.

I happen to know a lot about the other sections, too, in my various capacities. Senator Burke sneers and jibes, of course, at this "miserable pittance", but what did they give when they were in office?

Value for money.

That is a very pertinent question. When they wanted to get economies, the only person they could swoop on was the man with 10/- a week and he had to contribute 10 per cent. to ease the terrible economic pressure, but now they have the effrontery to get up and talk about "a miserable pittance". Anyone would imagine that they were great philanthropists when they were in office, that they were dishing out money for this, that and everything else, that this country was Utopia when they were in office, that they were increasing all sorts of benefits and at the same time, reducing taxation. Such tripe! In my experience, I never listened to such tripe because there is no logic of any kind there and it is very far removed from facts. Facts are facts. We in Fianna Fáil at any rate take pride in everything that has been done since Fianna Fáil became the Government. The first consideration at all times was for the poor and I think the present Taoiseach will rank as one of the greatest social reformers ever in this country.

The cheap jibes of Senator Burke are nothing unusual. That is the introduction to nearly every opposition to a Bill presented in this House. I want to thank the Minister for this further measure, which is designed to improve the lot of the poorer sections of the community. I do not regard anything that runs to the sum of £860,000 as anything that warrants cheap jibes such as those made about this by the Opposition. Again, I thank the Minister, and thank him very sincerely, for all the provisions in the Bill.

I welcome this Bill, as far as it goes. It does clear up a very great number of small matters—at considerable expense. There are small matters about which I am sure Senators and Deputies have had complaints. Some seem unfair treatment like certain means being taken into account which people felt should not have been taken into account. Another matter, as Senator Brady says, is the 10/- for inmates of mental hospitals, if they are able to avail of it. With modern ideas coming into force comparatively recently regarding the treatment and freedom of those patients, this is a very great step forward and I am sure that R.M.O.s in these hospitals who are interested in their patients— and I think all of them are—will at least appreciate that step.

The Minister may not be able to do very much about this now but there is one trouble I have met with several times: when a widow or orphan gets a grant from a charitable society or an orphan society, I understand that is taken into account in assessing means, if it is a regular grant. If that is so, and I think it is still, it is rather despicable that we should relieve the State of a certain amount of liability by reason of money collected or given by a charitable society.

There is one other point which I would ask the Minister to consider, if not now, then at some future date. It is the case of the man in receipt of unemployment benefit who is offered a day's or two days' employment. The present position is that he cannot take that employment because if he does, he loses his week's money. I wonder could some system be arranged whereby a man could accept one or two days' employment by notifying the exchange in the morning that he intended to do so and that thereby his money would be reduced by only a proportion and he would not lose the whole week's money? Could the employment exchange not work out some system whereby if I were looking for extra men for harvesting or haymaking on fine days, I could go to a man and ask him to come to me for one or two days? The present position of that man is that he will say: "If I do, I will lose that week's money but if you can guarantee me the week, I might go." I cannot guarantee the weather and therefore I cannot guarantee him his week's pay. In the country, we find that if a man takes a casual day's work, he does so illegally and he is working at the back of a ditch and hoping that the pensions officer will not appear at the other side because then he will lose his assistance and it might be some time before he can get it back again.

I feel sorry for those men that they cannot earn a few more shillings and it would be a good thing if some regulation could be made whereby they could do casual work, provided they notified the employment exchange by telephone or by wire. I welcome a great many of the provisions in the Bill, which I regard as a step in the right direction.

There is one section of the Bill which I should like especially to commend. That is Section 6 which enables a person in receipt of a pension to retain that pension for five years after he or she crosses the Border to Northern Ireland. There have been cases of genuine hardship which this section will remove, and I congratulate the Minister on meeting this hardship in this way. I should just like to ask—why five years? Is it all we can afford, or is it that after five years that person may qualify for a pension in Northern Ireland?

That is the position.

If the second alternative is the answer, then that is entirely satisfactory.

I have just a few words to say on this Bill and I must say that Senator Burke provoked me into making these few remarks. He described the Bill as a miserable one. I do not think it deserves that description. It is always right when dealing with measures of this sort to deal with them in perspective and we are entitled to examine the position as it has been since the present Minister for Social Welfare took over. Since he took charge of the Department of Social Welfare, this is the third increase which has been given to old age pensioners, amounting in all to 4/6d. After all, an increase of 4/6d. in three years is not too bad and I venture to say that if old age pensioners received an increase of 4/6d. a week every three years, they would not be doing too badly. It is more than they got during the previous three years when those who criticise the Bill and describe it as a miserable one had some authority to grant increases to these old age pensioners.

There is more in the Bill than the granting of increases to old age pensioners. We also have the other categories, the recipients of unemployment assistance and the recipients of widows' non-contributory pensions, whose pensions are being increased as well. Added to that, additional allowances are being given in respect of the children of these people so that, in all, this Bill should not be regarded as an ungenerous one. I am very glad the Minister has granted the same concession to recipients of unemployment assistance as that granted to old age pensioners vis-a-vis military service pensions and so on, and that the first £80 of a military service pension will be exempted from calculation for the purpose of unemployment assistance.

I did not think that such matters as the cost of living and the abolition of the food subsidies would be introduced here in connection with this Bill. I do not want to deal with them at this hour of the night—if I did I would have a lot to say indeed—but I am coming to the statement again that these are miserable provisions. The sum of £869,000 is no small amount and it is surprising to find Senator Burke advocating an increase when a colleague of his, in connection with another Bill which the House has passed, described a provision for other categories of these people as a brake on industry. If we are to grant more to these people, will that be described as a burden on industry?

I was talking about the £11 millions which were wasted.

I think the Minister is doing fairly well in this Bill and if he continues to travel in the same direction as he is going and if an increase of 4/6d. a week is given to these people every three years, it will not be a bad thing at all.

Senator Ó Ciosáin said something which I think it was necessary to say, that is, that the Fine Gael Party in the Seanad seem to be strangely at odds with themselves. At one moment they are protesting that the cost is going to be a very heavy imposition on industry and then the next moment they are describing this Bill as a miserable one. I am not going to go back over their sorry record in regard to social assistance and social insurance schemes, but I well remember the fate which befell the Social Welfare Bill of 1950 and the attitude which they then took up in regard to a proposal to increase old age pensions.

The House will remember that the Social Welfare Bill, 1950, was brought in with a great flourish of trumpets. It was preceded by a White Paper and not only was it preceded by a White Paper but something which was unprecedented in the history of this State happened. A number of civil servants were sent down to address political meetings throughout the country in order to proclaim to the people the benefits which the Bill would confer on them. The Bill of course did not become law because the Coalition broke up. The Coalition Government broke up for a number of reasons. One of those reasons, I think, was that one element in the Coalition wished to give effect to the demands which had been made in the House by its own supporters that the old age pensions should be increased, and another element—represented in this House by Senator Burke and Senator O'Donovan —opposed that demand and the consequence was, as I have said, that the Coalition broke up. We did not have a Social Welfare Bill of 1950, and it was left to the Fianna Fáil Government which succeeded them to pass the Social Welfare Bill of 1952, and to increase old age pensions in 1951 by 2/6.

The next increase in old age pensions took place under the Fianna Fáil Government in 1952, when, following the increase of 2/6 which was given in 1951, the pensions were further increased to 21/6, and in July, 1955, an increase of 2/6 was given by the then Coalition Government. Nothing further was done for the old age pensioners until the Fianna Fáil Government, in 1957, increased the pension by 1/-, and we increased it further last year by 2/6. Now we are coming forward again with the proposals in this Bill to increase it by a further 1/- making, in three successive years, three increases, totalling 4/6.

Having listened to Senator Burke in this House, contrast that with the record of those who are full of concern and solicitude for the plight of the old age pensioners. Contrast it with the record of both Coalitions— the first Coalition and the second— and it will be found that our record compares very favourably indeed with theirs.

There is no use in talking about this Bill in terms of contempt. The two Bills which have been before the House this afternoon—the Bill relating to the social insurance side of the social welfare code, and this Bill which relates to the social assistance side of the same code—represent an increased expenditure of £1,200,000 upon social welfare schemes in a full year. That is not an inconsiderable sum. It certainly is not an inconsiderable sum to the Minister for Finance, who, as I have said speaking on the previous Bill, has to go to the taxpaying public and collect it from them. Certainly having regard to our general resources, it is a very substantial and significant contribution to make to social welfare in a single year, apart from the increase which arises in the normal way upon the Social Welfare Estimates themselves as a consequence of the provisions of the 1952 Act and the other Acts passed subsequently.

I was amused when I heard Senator Burke advocating the return of the food subsidies. That would mean, of course, the imposition of a further £15,000,000—not less than £15,000,000 and probably nearly £20,000,000— having regard to today's prices, upon the taxpayer. It would mean an increase of not less than 20 per cent., in round figures, on the existing tax rates, and 20 per cent., in round figures, on the amount of revenue which is extracted today by the Minister for Finance. That would appear to be the new Fine Gael programme so the taxpayers had better look out. If they vote at the next general election for a Fine Gael Government, they will be voting to increase the load upon their backs by no less than 20 per cent.

How would we raise £20,000,000? An increase of 5/- in the £1 on income tax might do it, provided we did not in that way strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs. I do not know what it would mean to the price of the pint—and we remember how solicitous people were during the 1948 general election about the price of the pint—or what it would mean in terms of the price of petrol or of cigarettes.

There is something else which I think is equally relevant to the speech Senator Burke made. I remember in 1952 I was responsible, I may say, for taking steps towards the abolition of the food subsidies, a measure which was designed to put the remuneration of our working people on a realistic basis.

And reduce taxation by £11,000,000—and it did not do that.

It did not reduce taxation by £11,000,000. On the contrary, in order to close the gap that had been left by my predecessor in the first Coalition Government, I had to increase taxation very substantially, even though I had, at the same time, to reduce the food subsidies by £9,000,000. I remember in the debate on the 1952 Budget, Deputy Dr. Browne put a question to the leaders of the Fine Gael Party, then on the Front Bench, asking them, if they were returned to power, would they restore the food subsidies. The answer which he got—I shall not say it was a blunt "No" because the Fine Gael people could not bring themselves to give a direct answer to any question —left no doubt in the minds of any person listening that one thing the Fine Gael people were determined not to do was to reintroduce that vicious system of food subsidies.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I wonder would the Minister restore the House to the Bill.

Perhaps we can hear the Minister to-morrow on the Appropriation Bill.

One criticism which Senator Burke directed against this Bill was that it would not be necessary to bring it in if we had not abolished the food subsidies. I want to point out that, after all, it is quite inconsistent for the Senator here, where he has, in fact, very little financial responsibility, to suggest that if the Fine Gael Party got back into power, they would restore the food subsidies. That question might be debated elsewhere on another occasion.

Senator Cole asked one or two questions with which I might perhaps deal. He asked whether, when a widow or orphan gets a grant from a charitable society, the amount of the grant is taken into account when assessing means for the purpose of the non-contributory widow's or orphan's pension. The first £52 of any ex gratia payment is not taken into account, but if the amount exceeds £52, the excess is then taken into account. That is the usual sort of provision in relation to all these social assistance schemes. In relation to military service pensions. Army pensions, and so on, the first £80 is not taken into account. Where it is an ex gratia grant, the first £52 is not taken into account.

There was a reference to a person casually employed for a day or two. It was asked whether, in all cases, such a person would lose his entitlement to benefit. I should require more precise details about the position of the person concerned. We have to start off with the condition that in respect of the first three days a person becomes unemployed, if he happens to be in the insurable category, he does not receive anything. If he continues to be unemployed, then, provided he is not employed for more than three days in six, if they happen to be consecutive days, he does not lose his entitlement but he will not get benefit in respect of the three days he works. I think that is the general position.

If the Senator would be good enough to give me a more precise note of what he has in mind, I shall look into it and see if something can be done to deal with the case of a person who becomes casually employed for a day or two during a busy harvest period. However, if I were able to make any concessions of that sort, they would have to be very carefully safeguarded. It might suffice if the person gave notice to the exchange, or something like that, but I should not like to say so. In the case of people remote from exchanges, they might have to go to the Garda barracks and so on. I do not know what the position would be. If the Senator would let me have more precise particulars of the case he has in mind, I shall see what we can do in regard to it.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill considered in Committee.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

When I read the explanatory memorandum dealing with this section, it seemed to me to be very welcome. The section itself does not seem to be as liberal as the memorandum rather indicated. It says the provision is made to avoid a net loss in the income of an old age pensioner which might arise consequent on an increase in a pension from another source. The Bill, however, seems to define the sources of those pensions which will not be taken into account as affecting means.

I have had experience of representing people out on pension for a very long time, the value of whose pensions had depreciated, who sought some assistance from their old employing companies. Both the companies and we ran into the difficulty that a supplementary pension, some extra assistance, did not leave the pensioner any better off because some State assistance he might have been receiving was reduced accordingly. I think £52 is not taken into account. We have come up against the difficulty that where an employing company was willing, after maybe a little persuasion, to give extra assistance to a person a long time out on pension, they found there was no point in it because if they did so it meant that the money was taken off whatever pension the person was getting from the State. That is undesirable

This Bill does not seem to go as far as was indicated in the explanatory memorandum. It seems to be confined to persons whose pensions are provided under statute. The pensions I am talking about would not be provided under statute. As far as I could ascertain, they would be paid by the old employing company. It is unfortunate that where an old employer is willing to give some extra assistance, there is no point in doing so because of the consequential reduction in the pension the person is getting from the State.

The section deals only with statutory pensions. These are pensions which are awarded and which the person cannot reject or refuse. It deals with that hardship. I think it is clear from the section that provision is made to avoid a net loss in an old age pensioner's income which may arise consequent on an increase in a pension from another source.

I am not criticising that but I am expressing regret——

I am not sure that the existing law would operate as harshly as the Senator suggests. The first £52 would be excluded. That is not an inconsiderable amount. The first £52 of any pension which he might secure from a non-statutory source would be excluded and he would still be entitled to the full non-contributory pension.

Fifty-two pounds is very little.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill"

In spite of the fact that I differ in politics from the Minister, I want to say that we welcome very much the withdrawal of the three-day waiting period. I have heard the point criticised at so many trade union conferences that it is a relief to find that that grievance has been removed.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Does subparagraph (a) propose to set aside a decision of the Supreme Court that civil servants are not liable for insurance contributions? Is it not rather peculiar that we should use legislation for the purpose of setting aside a decision of that sort in the court? I should like to hear the Minister on that point. If we are using it for that purpose, I believe it is undesirable that we should do so.

That is surely turning the question inside out. After all, the Oireachtas makes the law.

But the Supreme Court interprets the law.

The laws we make are not like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. We can alter them, if we like. The necessity for this section arises from the very subtle distinction the Supreme Court made between those civil servants who are servants of the State and civil servants in the service of the Government. The remuneration was all coming from the same source, but they are in fact attached to particular offices in the State like the State Solicitor's office. It was a person employed in the State Solicitor's office who was held not to be a civil servant in the service of the Government. That necessitates this section, in order to make it quite clear——

To make it uniform?

Very good.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 14 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

I do not know if this is a new arrangement, but it seems extraordinary to provide that the poor old age pension recipient will not alone be chased after going into the grave but his personal representative will be liable for any few shillings he may have got out of the State. I think this is quite unjustifiable. The personal representative might not necessarily be aware that the person for whom he was acting was in fact in receipt of an old age pension, and even if he were, it seems that he cannot do anything about distributing what little estate there might be without giving notice to the Minister, and presumably would have to wait at least three months before he could touch anything, to give the Minister plenty of time to check over the records and find if by any chance this poor person who died got anything and whether it could justifiably be included in the assets.

I am not attempting to condone the action of people who might get the old age pension by false pretences. They are more to be pitied than anything else, that at that stage of their lives they should be trying to hide away a few pounds they might have and dodge and scrape to get a few shillings from the State. The Minister has got a bit too harsh in this respect recently, and really I do not see the need for this provision. It is quite onerous and could put the personal representative in a very invidious position. He may not even know that the person for whom he is acting had an old age pension, and if he finds out that he had, he cannot do anything until he has notified the Minister and allowed three months to elapse so that the Minister can check back. Then if by any chance he was not notified the Minister, because he did not know that it was necessary and if it is subsequently found that the Minister can claim anything against the estate, the personal representative is, by the last few words of this section, made personally liable to the Minister. That would make any of us think twice about acting as personal representative for anybody, if by a section stuck in a Bill like this, we can be personally liable for any few shillings a person may have got in error from the Minister by way of old age pension.

I believe this section is onerous, but I was rather interested that Senator Murphy raised it because he spoke very strongly in favour of the continuation of the most rigorous form of death duties last week, and this is really a poor man's death duties. I am not in favour of the poor man's death duties, but the Senator should be a little consistent with regard to these things.

I should like to give the House one experience I had—the case of a woman who was in a labourer's cottage and who applied for an increase in the old age pension. I am a member of an old age pension committee, and she made the case that she had nothing else to live on. What happened? That woman died and she had over £2,000 in Scarriff bank. She had drawn about £366 unlawfully. All that money was going back to the United States to some friend she had over there, so the local pensions officer stepped in and collected the £366 which was due to the State. After the other things were paid, the balance went back to the United States. I could give the name of the person.

It is only when these things occur that you see how sometimes the State can be defrauded. I am always in favour of giving the pension to a person who is needy and deserves it. Sometimes I have found it very hard to convince pensions officers of the need in some cases; yet other people whom I consider much better off find it much easier to get the pension. I do not know why this is so. Then when they die and do not have time to make a will, the whole cat is out of the bag and letters of administration have to be taken out.

In this question of concealment, one of the difficulties is that the people concerned are not educated in how to use the money. If you take £1,000 or £2,000, the only place such a person knew to invest it in was in the bank at one and a half per cent, which brings in £30 a year. He could not live on that, and the old age pension looks big compared with it. Such a person would not dream of investing it in something that did not appear to be as secure as the bank—say, in a loan. One suggestion I might make is that in some future improvement the Minister would make it possible for such people who are living in rather poorer circumstances, not spending very much, who have money hidden away in the bank, to buy an annuity from the Department of Social Welfare or some other agency that would for the payment of a sum give them what they really looked for—a State guarantee of a small amount each week.

Of course I am quite prepared to state that that was an isolated case.

Senator Brady has given us an instance which he says was an isolated case. I might say that it is not as isolated as he thinks it is. There are quite a considerable number of people who have falsely concealed their real means, and this section is aimed only against them and at those who would benefit by that concealment. Senator Brady referred to a case of a person who died leaving £2,000. I have known of cases where £5,000 and £6,000 was involved. I had a case before me the other day, which is as bad, of a person who left £800. He had enjoyed the pension for quite a substantial period and had other sources of personal income. When we tried to recover that, we found that his legal representative was a solicitor. They are all shrewd enough to employ a solicitor to make their wills or their representatives, knowing very well they are comfortable people, are also shrewd enough, where they die intestate, to get a solicitor to take out grants of administration for them.

In all those cases, before the social welfare officer in the area can get evidence that, in fact, the deceased died leaving a substantial estate behind her, the assets are distributed. The only way in which we can reduce the temptation to make false statements in regard to applicants' income is to make certain they will not benefit in the end by it. That is the purpose of this.

I agree with the Minister. It seems to be provided for in Section 18 where the personal representative must answer the questions and must disclose all information. You seem to be going further by providing in Section 18 that when he is approached, he must disclose all the information about the assets of the person who has died. Then you provide in case we do not check up, if by any chance the personal representative distributes the assets before three months without notifying the Minister, that personal representative is personally liable. That seems to me to be a bit onerous. After all, the personal representative may not be a solicitor. He may not know, in fact, that the person at some stage drew an old age pension. I think the Minister is adequately safeguarded in Section 18 as it stands.

In support of Senator Murphy's point, it strikes me, listening to the debate, that Senator Brady's example proves Senator Murphy's point completely. If it is possible for the State, under existing legislation, to recover moneys, surely it should be sufficient to protect the State without writing into the Bill a specific provision that the personal representative, regardless of who he may be, will be liable to the State for the refund of the amount in question. I submit that the case quoted by Senator Brady bears out Senator Murphy's point.

Senator Crowley would be very easily convinced. I should love to appear before the Senator if I were endeavouring to defend myself in relation to an offence under this section. I would scarcely have any hesitation in asking the Senator to be my judge. What, in fact, does the section require a person, to do? It requires the personal representative to give notice before he distributes the assets. They are not so innocent around the country as people think. Most people know who is drawing an old age pension in a country area and I suppose some people even in towns and cities know which of their neighbours are drawing the old age pension. If a solicitor gets a substantial estate to administer and knows the circumstances in which a person has been living, as they all know in relation to their clients, then there is not any very great hardship imposed on him in requiring him to give three months' notice before he distributes the assets. That is the position. If he does not give that notice, what are we to do except make him liable for his failure to comply with the law.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.

May I suggest that we should, with the agreement of the House, continue to sit until we have disposed, if possible, of the remaining items on the agenda?

I agree, if the House will agree. The remaining items may be very short.

It is proposed that we should meet at 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.

Will we reach item No. 9 to-night?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Business has been ordered up to item No. 9.

Top
Share