Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jul 1964

Vol. 57 No. 17

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1964: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

This Bill is designed primarily to give legislative effect to the increases in the rates of non-contributory old age and blind pensions, widows' pensions and unemployment assistance from 1st August, 1964, announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement on 14th April last. The opportunity is also being taken to bring about some further extensions and improvements of both the Social Insurance and the Social Assistance schemes which it is desirable and possible to make. The wording of some of the Sections in the Bill is necessarily technical and, accordingly, an explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill.

The Budget increase proposed in the rates of non-contributory old age and blind pensions is 2/6d a week, which will make the new weekly rates of these pensions range from 37/6d at the maximum by steps of 5/- down to 7/6d at the minimum according to the means of the pensioner as set out in the table in Section 2.

In regard to unemployment assistance, which is dealt with in section 3, the increase proposed in the Budget is also 2/6d. a week, but this applies to both the personal rate of assistance and to the allowance payable in respect of an adult dependant. Thus the maximum rate of unemployment assistance for a married man with a dependent wife will be increased by 5/- a week to 52/6d. a week in an urban area, and to 44/6d. a week in a rural area. The increase in the maximum rates of unemployment assistance by automatically raising the means limit for assistance purposes, will bring within the scope of the scheme persons who at present fail to qualify for assistance because their means are a little in excess of the limit.

An increase of 2/6d. a week is also proposed in the rates of widows' non-contributory pensions. As a result, the rates of pension for a widow with no dependent children would range from 36/- a week at the maximum by steps of 5/- down to 11/- a week according to the means of the widow. However, a widow whose means were just over the limit for 11/- pension would get no pension even though the margin by which her means exceeded the limit might be considerably less than 11/- a week, and to obviate this the scale of means and rates of widows' non-contributory pensions is being extended so as to add a new rate of pension of 6/- at the minimum. This new rate is included in the table in section 4.

In addition to providing for the Budget increase, the Bill will bring about some desirable improvements and extensions of the Social Welfare Schemes. The first of these is the payment with old age pensions, both contributory and non-contributory, of increases of pension in respect of qualified children, which are dealt with in sections 5, 8, 9 and 10. It is anomalous that a person approaching the age of 70 could be in receipt of disability benefit or unemployment benefit, which included an increase for children, but that immediately on reaching that age and becoming entitled only to an old age contributory pension, no increase could be paid in respect of the children.

A similar anomaly arises in the case of persons in receipt of unemployment assistance or widow's non-contributory pension who qualify for non-contributory old age pension at the age of 70. To rectify this position, the Bill proposes to provide for the payment of increases of pension to old age (contributory) pensioners for qualified children at the same rates as are paid with disability benefit, unemployment benefit or widow's (contributory) pension, i.e. 13/- for each of the first two qualified children and 8/- for each additional qualified child, and for the payment in respect of qualified children of non-contributory old age pensioners of increases at the same rate as those which are paid with widow's (non-contributory) pension and unemployment assistance, i.e., 10/- for each of the first two qualified children and 5/- for each additional qualified child.

In addition to extending the scale of means and rates of non-contributory pension, section 5 will enable £39 of any earnings from insurable employment to be disregarded in assessing means for pension purposes in respect of each qualified child.

The same qualification conditions will obtain in respect of the increases of pension for children, as applies for the general Children's Allowances scheme and as obtains in respect of children under the other forms of Social Welfare benefits.

Provision is made in sections 5 and 8 for the making of an order bringing these increases into force. For administrative reasons it would not be possible to bring them into payment concurrently with the Budget increases, but it is anticipated that payment will commence at the beginning of November next.

This Bill also provides for two amendments of the Social Insurance scheme. The first of these relates to the insurability of pensionable teachers in the training colleges for national teachers who are at present compulsorily insurable for all benefits under the Social Insurance scheme, where their remuneration is within the insurability limit. Provision is made in section 6 of the Bill to enable the Minister to make regulations treating these teachers for insurance purposes in exactly the same way as pensionable teachers in national, secondary and vocational schools who are insurable for widows' and orphans' pensions purposes only.

The other amendment in relation to the Social Insurance scheme dealt with in section 7 refers to the overriding limit of half a million pounds on the amount which may be paid by way of treatment benefit in any financial year. Treatment benefit is now limited to dental benefit, optical benefit and medical and surgical appliances benefit the appliances in question being contact lenses and hearing aids. Expenditure on treatment benefit is increasing and it could happen that unless the overriding limit is removed the scheme might have to be terminated or suspended during the course of a financial year for lack of money. Section 7 proposes, therefore, to remove that overriding limit and leave the amount to be spent in any year to be agreed upon between the Minister for Finance and myself, the amount involved being, of course, included in the year's Estimates.

Sections 11 and 12 of the Bill effect improvements in the Unemployment Assistance scheme. Under the provision in section 11, persons applying for unemployment assistance can be paid retrospectively where favourable decisions revising earlier decisions have been given. This will ensure that the time taken to deal with cases will not detrimentally affect the amount payable to the applicant where his application or appeal is successful. The amendment will also clarify the law in so far as it relates to overpayments of unemployment assistance arising in the converse situation where a revised decision results in a reduction of the unemployment assistance payable, and fraud is involved.

The provision in section 12 is intended to give some relief to the persons who are employed seasonally as fishermen either working on their own account or on a share basis. This matter has been a source of considerable grievance over the years. Earnings from employment under a contract of service are not regarded as means for the purpose of unemployment assistance but a fisherman working on his own account or on a share basis is not normally employed under a contract of service. Accordingly, any income which he derives from his fishing is treated as means and may deprive him of a qualification certificate, without which he cannot get unemployment assistance, or make his means such as to reduce the rate of unemployment assistance payable to him, and it has been claimed that this bears unfairly on these seasonal fishermen. It is now proposed to reduce the impact of such earnings on title to unemployment assistance by allowing a proportion, up to an overriding limit of £80 a year, of the income derived from seasonal fishing to be disregarded in assessing a person's means for unemployment assistance purposes.

Section 13 of the Bill proposes an improvement relating to the minimum age limits for widow's non-contributory pension. A widow cannot qualify for a non-contributory pension if she is less than 48 years of age, unless she has a qualified child or children and, if a widow with a qualified child or children has not attained the age of 40 years within six months after her last or only qualified child ceases to be qualified, she loses her pension. Both of these minimum age limits can have rather harsh effects.

The only real argument for them is that a widow without children should be in a position to provide for herself by working. Circumstances may, however, prevent such a widow from working, for example, incapacity for work, lack of suitable employment locally, domestic responsibilities, which the minimum age limit cannot allow for. It is proposed therefore to remove the minimum age limits, thus leaving the question of title to a widow's non-contributory pension to be determined on the basis of the widow's need as measured by the means test.

In conclusion, Senators may find a summary of the cost to the Exchequer of the various proposals which I have outlined above of assistance. On the Social Assistance side, the total costs are estimated to amount to £1,290,000 in a full year, all of which will fall on the Exchequer. The annual cost of the proposal for payment of increases in respect of children of old age (contributory) pensioners which will for the present all fall on the Exchequer, is estimated at £73,000, thus bringing the overall cost to the Exchequer to £1,363,000 in a full year.

I have much pleasure in recommending this measure for favourable consideration by Seanad Éireann.

We can well leave the question of the amount of Government expenditure devoted to social welfare to debates on the Finance Bill and other debates on general Government policy and so confine ourselves in discussing this Bill to a consideration in detail of the social welfare provisions which are amended here and the general operation of the social welfare code.

There are, as the Minister has outlined, a number of improvements with regard to the social welfare code contained in the Bill before us at the moment but, looking through the Bill and listening to the Minister speaking, the main effect, on me at any rate, was a sense almost of shock to find that the anomalies which the Bill is now removing had been there at all. The various improvements being made here are startlingly necessary and should, indeed, have been dealt with long ago. Take for instance, the provision under section 5 dealing with persons when they reach a certain age and pass from being dealt with under unemployment assistance or some other code to the old age pension code. Apparently, up to this, persons who had dependent children on reaching the age at which they passed into the area of the old age pension code would actually suffer a loss in income. It is, indeed, commendable but it is also high time such an anomaly was removed.

When we come to section 11, I find myself even more disturbed to think that we have had in the past a social welfare code which needs to be amended by what is proposed here in section 11. I shall read subsection (1):—

(1) Where, as a result of a reversal or revision of a decision, a person becomes entitled to hold a qualification certificate under the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1964, the person shall, for the purposes of those Acts, be deemed to have been the holder of a qualification certificate as on and from the date on which the decision as so reversed or revised came into effect.

Apparently, unless I completely misread this subsection and misinterpret what the Minister has said, the position up to now has been that a decision could have been given and a person could have got that decision reversed at a considerable period later but the reversal of this previous decision did not benefit that person in respect of the intervening period. It was a shocking thing to have existed in our social welfare code for so long, that the person could get the benefit only from the date of final determination and not from the date of which the initial mistake was made, be it an error of judgment or be it what it may. It comes as a matter of shock to me that we should have in this day and age to enact a section like section 11 in this Bill. Accordingly, we should do so very hastily indeed in order to repair a very serious defect in the social welfare code.

One of the other benefits conferred by this Bill is one which commends itself very much to me, that is, the one provided in section 12 in regard to seasonal fishermen. This is a very commendable section. Indeed, as I say, we can all welcome the provisions of this Bill and I personally have the feeling that there are many things being done in this Bill which should have been done long ago.

I want very briefly to welcome this Bill, partly, as Senator Dooge has said, because it corrects anomalies that were present heretofore, but also because it is a step further in the improvement of our general social welfare services. We have a long way to go yet before these can be described as in any extent adequate but every step we can take towards making them a bit more adequate is, of course, therefore, all the more welcome.

There is an aspect of this matter which I have mentioned before in this House but which I take the liberty of mentioning again because I do not think it is sufficiently realised, that is, the importance of the impact that social welfare makes on the health services. I mention this with a due sense of responsibility. I do not want to delay the House or to be irrelevant but it is important to realise that what we can do for sick people is in inverse proportion to what we have to do for people who are not really sick but who have to be confined in hospital because of inadequate provision of social welfare services.

There are more hospital beds in this country than in any other country per thousand of the population. This is because we have many people in hospital who need not be there because to a large extent they do not really require the acute services of a hospital. This refers particularly to children and old people. Mothers bring their children to hospital. They may be ill in the first instance but they are left there long after they are well because they do not want them at home. They have no help and have not that provision of social welfare service to cope with them. The same applies to elderly people.

I hope the Minister and the officials of his Department will remember this when they are looking at the general provisions of social welfare and consult, as I am sure they do, with the officials of the Department of Health because this is a very important area in which the two services overlap.

Naturally, everybody should be pleased to see any increase being given by the Minister in social welfare benefits. It is well that there are what might be classed as all-round increases for social welfare recipients. I know the Minister is tied to the amount he has available for distribution but I think the amount is too little, that what each social welfare recipient gets is entirely too low. It should be very much more than it is at the moment.

I review the figures. We have to have extra taxation and all that kind of machinery working but since 1957 we have had some £81 million of extra taxation. Then we examine how that is being distributed towards social welfare. Of the £81 million, the amount spent in increased social welfare benefits was just £9 million, or little more than one-tenth. In 1957, the weakest sections of the community received 25 per cent of the total tax revenue in the form of social welfare. So there would appear to be a very steep downward tendency in the amount directed towards social welfare.

When this Government took office in 1957, the proportion was 25 per cent and in 1964, it has sunk to 19 per cent, a reduction from one quarter to less than one-fifth. Although the cost of living has moved up—nobody has disputed that—and the value of money has dropped the social welfare recipient has still only that small amount with which to purchase the necessaries of life, and they would need much more if we are to provide proper social welfare services. The people in receipt of social welfare benefits are entitled to at least sufficient to purchase the necessaries of life. Some people will say that taxation would not stand that. Of course it would and the large numbers of social welfare recipients would be better off.

The Minister might examine the social welfare code in relation to the means test. There is a severe means test operating in regard to certain payments from the Social Welfare Fund to people badly in need of help from the State. Take the case of the woman whose husband dies and who has, say, a family of four young children. She gets children's allowances and, as her husband was an insured worker earning approximately £16 per week, she gets a contributory widow's pension of 37/6 per week. She certainly will not keep a home on 37/6, plus what she gets in children's allowances. She must keep the family, pay the rent, and so on. She goes to work but can only take up casual employment. When that temporary employment ceases, she, as an insured worker, can sign at the Social Welfare Department's office and draw benefit.

Because she has a contributory widow's pension, there is immediately a reduction of practically half the benefit she would otherwise receive. According to the regulations, she may not receive two full payments out of the Social Welfare Fund. If she were working in order to supplement her husband's earnings, she could sign for social welfare benefit and receive full benefit. When there is a higher income coming into the home, she gets full benefit but because she is a widow in receipt of a pension, the amount is cut down. That is an unfair regulation.

I do not expect the Minister to deal fully with that question today but I should be glad to hear what is his approach to it. I am sure that regulation was there when the Minister took office but I certainly think a means test as severe as that should be examined, apart altogether from the low amounts of social welfare benefits in general.

In so far as the Bill before us is designed to correct certain anomalies and to remove certain injustices, it can be welcomed. However, it would be hard to find any other commendation for the steps which this Bill proposes to take. The increases which the Bill provides for non-contributory pension recipients are meagre, to say the least of them, but, like Senator Dooge, it would be unfair to the Minister this afternoon to repeat some of the criticism which has been levelled already at the general attitude and policy of this Government on the whole question of social welfare benefits.

It is necessary, nevertheless, to remind the Minister that this Bill, if it is an indication of the future attitude and policy of the Government, is, if anything, a retrograde step. As far as I can gather, the actual proportion of tax revenue which is devoted to social welfare has been reducing steadily since the Government took office in 1957. I estimate that the proportion expended on social welfare benefits in 1957 amounted to 24 per cent. Last year that figure had dropped to 20 per cent and it is clear from this Bill that the proportion will be lower still in 1964.

Those figures speak volumes. They say a lot more than we could say this afternoon on this aspect of Government policy. I conclude by saying it is hardly evidence of any serious intention on the part of the Minister and his Government to move to the left. There is plenty of room for improvement here in social welfare benefits and I strongly urge on the Minister the necessity for improvement by not, in fact, taking, if anything, more out of taxation and applying less of it to necessary benefits of this kind for the people who need them most.

I should like to thank the Senators for the expeditious way they have dealt with this Bill. I respectfully agree with what Senator Dooge said regarding section 11 being overdue. It is, in fact, bringing the case of old age pensioners into line with the general practice. As Senators may be aware, no matter how long it takes to investigate an application for an old age pension, when the pensioner does get it, if he succeeds, it is retrospective to the date of the application. The same holds good for an appeal but for some reason or other this aspect of the code was neglected but it is being put right now. For many years there has been agitation about share fishermen. Outside the hardship of their application they suffered also because they could not get qualification certificates. In the case of many of them, their earnings for the whole year would have been taken into consideration. This matter is being put right now, at least to the extent of relieving them of up to £80 of that income.

We do not say that this is the end of our social services charter. We are not in any way complacent about these amounts but so far as the economy can afford it, step by step we are improving our social services and bringing them up to date. I shall give some figures in a moment to show Senators, or remind them, of what has been happening every year, except in 1958, since this Government came into office. In regard to Senator Jessop's point about people being in hospital who do not need to be there, I shall have his suggestion passed on to the Department for examination. I believe many people are in hospital who should not be there but the reasons why they are there is another matter. In some cases I feel families in this age are not inclined to take the interest in the old folks they took long ago. It is a wide social question.

A case was made by Senator Desmond about reduced rates of unemployment benefit paid to a widow in receipt of contributory pension. It is a principle of the social insurance schemes that payment of two benefits simultaneously should not take place. I am informed, for instance, that in Britain a widow in the circumstances mentioned by the Senator would not be paid unemployment benefit at all. The present arrangement was a concession introduced by Dr. Ryan when he was Minister for Social Welfare in the Social Welfare Act of 1952. There is no question of a means test as such involved. Taking the position generally, with these improvements and the renewing of them annually in each year and each Budget so far as practicable, we are improving the whole social welfare code. For instance, the increases given to all classes last November more than covered the cost of living increase due to the turnover tax and what we have here now is still a further increase that more than covers the 12 per cent increase given in wages, with one single exception in which I believe I worked out the percentage increase as 11 per cent.

In the Social Welfare Act of 1957, the operative date of which was 15th May, 1957, the noncontributory old age pensioners received 1/-; the assistance applicants received 1/- for themselves—I am speaking of increases— and 1/- for an adult dependant; 1/- for the first child dependant. The non-contributory widows' pension under this Act was increased by 1/- for the widow herself and 1/- for the first child dependant. Under the Social Welfare Act of 1959 which became operative on 1st August, 1959, there was an increase of 2/6d. for old age pensioners and for persons receiving assistance there was an increase of 2/6d. for those with an adult dependant. In widows' pensions there was a 2/6d. increase for the widow herself.

Under the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1960 an additional 1/- increase was given to the old age pensioners and assistance recipients got an extra 1/- for themselves; an extra 1/- for an adult dependant and an extra 1/- each for the first and second child dependants plus 1/- for each child in excess of two without restriction as to number. Prior to that, payment for children was restricted to two children. Non-contributory widows got an increase of 1/- for themselves; 1/- for each of the first and second child dependants plus 3/6d. for each child dependant in excess of two without restriction as to number. Prior to this, payment for children was restricted to two.

Under the 1961 Act an extra 1/6d. was given to the old age pensioners: an extra 1/6d. to the assistance recipients for themselves; 1/6d. for adult dependants and 1/- each for first and second child dependants and 1/6d. for each child dependant in excess of two without restriction as to number. Non-contributory widows got an extra 1/6d. for themselves and a 1/- each for first and second child dependant and 1/6d. for each child dependant in excess of two without restriction as to number. In 1962 another 2/6d. was given to the old age pensioners and the assistance recipients got an extra 2/6d. for themselves; 2/6d. for adult dependants; 2/- for the first child dependant in urban areas and 3/- in rural areas. They got 3/- for the second child dependant in urban areas and 4/- in rural areas and 2/6d. for each child dependant in excess of two in all areas. The non-contributory widows' pension was increased by 2/6d. with an extra 1/- for the second qualified child where there were two or more qualified children.

In 1963 there was a further 2/6d. increase for old age pensioners, non-contributory, and the unemployment assistance classes also got a 2/6d. increase for themselves, 2/6d. for an adult dependant. The non-contributory widows were granted an extra 2/6d. for themselves.

From that it will be seen that in each year except in 1958, a steady extra amount is being provided in each Budget for social welfare classes. It has been made quite clear by the Taoiseach that as far as the Government in the future are concerned, so far as we can improve social services, it is our intention to do so. We find at Budget time that while everybody argues for increases in social welfare of this kind very many of these people are most reluctant to agree to provide the wherewithal by voting for the necessary additional taxation involved. The true test of belief in this principle is publicly standing over the provision of the additional moneys which such improvements in our social welfare involve. I have emphasised that we are in no way complacent about these figures but, in so far as this Bill deals with an improvement in our social welfare, it is the amount we feel the economy can afford at the moment. I am confident that my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, will continue to improve the benefits step by step in the future. I am grateful to the Seanad for the expeditious way they have dealt with this Bill on this Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share