Before we take up consideration of the Committee Stage of this Bill, I should like to indicate that I have ruled amendments Nos. 1 and 2, standing in the names of Senators Miss Davidson, Murphy and Crowley, out of order on the grounds that they are outside the scope of the Bill. The Senators have been notified accordingly.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1966: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask the Minister—this section covers a widow whose husband had failed to continue his contribution—whether this section takes effect from the date of the retirement of the husband. In other words, will a widow, who has been debarred by virtue of the fact that her husband failed to make the contributions and now cannot draw the pension, be able to get the back money as from the date of the death of her husband or will it take effect only from the time the Bill comes into force?
It will only take effect from the time the Bill comes into operation. The reason such a person failed to qualify up to this was that probably the average test had not been fulfilled over the last three or five years prior to her husband's death. Now it will be possible to assess that average over the whole period of the insured life of the husband. It is quite likely, in the type of case to which Senator Malone refers, that the widow will qualify for a pension either at the maximum rate or, more likely, at a reduced rate but it will only be from the date this Bill comes into operation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".
Would the Minister consider an arrangement whereby payment could be made by post instead of leaving hundreds of people queueing up in inclement weather? When the weather is very cold they have to wait their turn for payment in very uncomfortable conditions. At the moment payment falls due on a certain date. Of course, most people want to be paid as soon as possible. The result is that in areas of large population hundreds of people have to queue for service, without shelter. They have to remain out in the sun, wind and rain waiting their turn for payment.
Something should be done regarding payment of those people. They want to be paid at the earliest possible moment and very few would be prepared to wait for payment until later. There are some people, of course, who, rather than join these long queues and suffer the weather, wait until a later date for payment. I should like to know from the Minister whether it would be possible to have a different system whereby paying orders could be issued to those people in order to avoid this hardship which so many of them have to suffer at the moment, particularly in areas of large population and areas where there is a large number of recipients.
Of course, those people are, in fact, paid by payable orders. They have in their possession an old age pension book which includes payable orders for some considerable time in advance. The stipulation is that those orders may be cashed at any post office nominated by the pensioner. It is essential that it be done that way because there has to be some check, even if only a theoretical one, on whether the pensioner is still alive and still entitled to draw the pension. I do not think it would be feasible to allow those payable orders to be cashed any place at all.
This is the type of attitude that is always adopted where you want to avoid the creation of any kind of abuse. Of course, there must be a check-up on people to see that they are alive but I do not think, in order to have a check-up of that kind, that it is necessary that a person should present himself every week or every month, whatever is the period, at a post office the assistant of which is not in the slightest bit interesed as to who is cashing a particular allowance. I think the point made by Senator Rooney is worth considering, that these payable orders should be cashable in the local grocery store, and if the Minister wants to make sure that the person is alive, that there is no fraud committed, then he can provide that once a year, or whatever the period is, even twice a year perhaps at a time when the weather is more agreeable, not in the winter months but on 1st May or 1st October, or some date like that, these people will have to cash their allowances at a post office. I am quite sure that the number of people who would be parties to a fraud of this kind would be minimal and I do not see why the majority of the widows, who will be honest at any event, should have to undergo this regular routine of going to a post office to get what they are entitled to under the Acts relating to social welfare. I think the Minister should consider some modification to relieve the hardships to which Senator Rooney has referred.
I should like to support that. It is not only a question of hardship but there is a question of cost also. I have a letter I received from a man who, at 69 years of age, is not qualified for the old age pension itself but who is on unemployment assistance at this stage. He has to travel a considerable distance and pay out, I think, 3/8 a week in bus fares in order to present himself at the unemployment exchange to verify he is in existence and also to verify in some way that he is unemployed. It is another example of the extent to which these checks impose an excessive burden. I think the Minister should look at this and see how it can be eased. It seems to me that this whole business of checking is overdone. There must be re-checks but, as Senator O'Quigley said, they could be carried out at less frequent intervals. To expect a man to spend 3/8 a week to verify that he is unemployed and to require a pensioner to turn up at a post office which may be equally inconvenient seems an unreasonable and excessive requirement and one the rigours of which could be mitigated. The Minister ought to look at this. He cannot do so now on this Bill naturally, but it is something which would be well worth his while, and he should come back with legislation, if necessary, or make the necessary orders, if that is all that is required, to improve the situation here now that this has been drawn to his attention, as I am sure it has been previously.
I have looked into this before and I have failed to find any other satisfactory way of having the necessary checks carried out. I have no objection to having another look at it but, obviously, one cannot require the local grocer to do things we can get the local postmistress, or postmaster to do. I should point out that it is necessary on occasions for one reason or another to issue a stop order on these cheques. There may be for some reason or another changing circumstances by virtue of which the person becomes no longer entitled to a pension. If these orders were freely exchangeable in any place rather than in one particular place there would be nobody to whom we would be able to send notice that further cheques were not to be cashed, on these occasions when that would arise. It would be unlikely to arise in the case of contributory pensions but in the case of non-contributory pensions it might be, for instance, discovered that there had been fraudulent concealment of means and that a person was no longer entitled to the pension which he had been awarded and that person would, in fact, be in possession of a book of orders. If these were freely exchangeable anywhere there would not be much the Department could do except write to the person concerned to send back the book. If he did not do that the Department could be at some loss. I have no objection to seeing if any easement can be made but I do not think there is a great hardship involved here.
I think when Senator Rooney is talking about queues he is not thinking about queues of pensioners, he is thinking about people collecting their children's allowances. Pensioners are not that numerous and the day on which pensions fall due is not the same day as people collect children's allowances. I think there are rarely queues for this purpose. It is important that the pensioner, himself or herself or an agent, should call to the post office to cash the order. It is a post office of their choice. They can nominate whatever post office they like. It is a bit of an imposition but not an excessive one in view of the necessity to keep a check.
I only wish there was some kind of system where Departments when they run into difficulties of this kind could consult with members of the Oireachtas. It is extraordinary the difficulties Departments see in things and how they magnify them and write long memoranda and treat them as major obstacles and at some stage or another they may be able to find a solution to the major obstacles they created themselves and then there is a sense of accomplishment and achievement. In a case of this kind we ought to adopt the dictum adopted by Senator Flanagan this evening—try to suit the majority. I believe 90 per cent of the people are honest all the time and I think ten per cent of the people are honest 90 per cent of the time.
Until they are tempted?
So you are left with a small percentage. This is a fair assumption to go on. Therefore, I think, all this elaborate paraphernalia to catch the criminal that may arise, this would-be widow or pensioner who is lurking around only waiting to defraud the Department of Social Welfare, is quite unnecessary. I believe we could have a much more flexible system. The grocer who would be taking the pension from someone who would be already dead is not such a fool as that. You have to realise there is a check on them. The Minister said this would be a burden on the grocers.
I did not.
I thought he said it would be a burden to put upon the grocer. As long as we agree that that is no burden I want to reassure the Minister that grocers, traders, publicans, and so on, would be quite delighted to cash these orders.
Some of them have been known to try to cash them in kind rather than in cash.
That may be so, but there are not that many fools in the community. If the Minister feels that these allowances, pensions, and so on, can be cashed over a period when there is nobody actually entitled to them there is an easy remedy by using the same kind of legislation in relation to this as there is in relation to Bills of Exchange. If somebody gets a cheque to which he is not entitled and it is a supposed fraudulent cheque, there is the simple remedy, under the Cheques Act and the Bills of Exchange Act, to come along to the unfortunate person and say: "Look, you got money from the bank on the head of that cheque; that cheque is a fraud; now, pay me." That is a simple way for the Department of Social Welfare to get back their money. Presumably the butcher or trader who cashed the cheque to which somebody was not entitled knew the Department of Social Welfare can come along in the same way as a bank in relation to a fraudulent cheque and say: "Look, pay me on the head of that which was a fraudulent cheque " and that would be a suitable way to prevent fraud which, at the present time, may arise as far as the assistant in any post office may know.
I should just like to ask the Minister if he would look into the practice in other countries in this regard. I have been informed—I have not checked this— that in other countries it is quite common practice for these things to be paid by post, by cheque; that only occasional checks on the continued existence of the people or as to their continued eligibility are carried out and that this operates very well, without fraud of any kind, and satisfactorily. I wonder if the Minister would look into this as regards the various types of social welfare and if he would be kind enough to let us know, in some form, what he finds in this regard. Perhaps a White Paper is asking too much but if he could communicate to those of us interested what the position is in other countries in this regard, it would be helpful because I think that by looking around to see what other people do, we could find solutions which work elsewhere. We seem to work on the basis that we are the most dishonest people but systems which work elsewhere should work here and it is only a question of looking at the systems elsewhere to find something suitable to our requirements, which would mitigate the hardship this involves and which causes people to go considerable distances to collect these small sums.
It occasionally happens that the Department pay too much and, when they discover this, the unfortunate pensioner is faced with a complete stoppage of the pension until such time as somebody makes representations on his behalf. I have a case in mind where that happened. A man was paid 5/- per week too much over a period of months and he was not by any means deliberately frauding the Department. The pension, when the increase came, was given to him, even though he was not entitled to it at the time. When the Department discovered their mistake, they immediately recalled the pension book. This was a man of over 80 years of age living alone. It is hard to understand how the people in the Department could be so callous as to just write down to the postmistress and say: "Collect the book". That man was to be deprived of his pension until such time as they had recouped the amount they had overpaid. Would not it have been much more humane to have written to the man a polite letter explaining the position and saying that a small sum would be deducted in future to recoup their loss? Even with the representations, five shillings per week was deducted until the sum would be recouped.
That matter may not be pursued on this section.
May I raise it at some other stage?
It is not in order on this section.
On a point of order, which section are we on?
Section 13.
That ought to be obvious!
I find myself in agreement with the Minister on this matter because I would not like to see the shopkeepers getting the privilege of changing pension orders. The fact of the matter is that many sub-postmasters have shops and the Department is continually on the look out that the books are not kept as security against debts. If you allow every shopkeeper in the country to cash these pension orders, you will find people saying: "I shall give you credit if you give me your book". I should not like to see that occasion arising and I think we will have to bear with the Minister that there is too much danger and there have been abuses in this particular line where the sub-postmaster had a shop. Let nobody think that these abuses did not arise in such cases. I actually have proof of it myself. I have proof that children's allowance forms were kept in such places. If we allow pensioners to change pension orders anywhere they like, you will find that every pension book in the country will be in the hands of the shopkeepers. For that reason, I must bear with the Minister in this because it is quite natural that anybody who gives credit will try to get security against it.
There was a statement by the Minister to the effect that a subpostmistress would be under an obligation to give information to the Minister regarding people dying and people drawing a pension who are not really entitled to the amount they were getting, on a non-contributory basis. It is the first time I have heard that and I am wondering whether that is the business of the social welfare officer and not the business of the sub-postmistress.
There is no question of that.
Senator McAuliffe must know that most sub-postmasters have shops of one kind or another. I suppose when they cash their orders there in the post office, these recipients do their business in that shop. The Minister quite rightly mentioned that the real picture is shown on the date of payment of children's allowances; that is the day on which there is a big invasion of the post offices. That is the kind of problem I have asked the Minister to consider. It is foolish for anybody——
The problem of children's allowances does not arise on the section.
I merely mentioned it because the Minister had mentioned it.
I only mentioned it to show that Senator Rooney was thinking of something else.
What I want to mention is this—that, of course, the local shopkeeper or publican, or whoever it may be, knows he will be committing an offence if he accepts one of these vouchers knowing that the person is not entitled to the pension by reason of his previous demise, or otherwise. At the moment when those vouchers go into the bank and, through the bank, on to the Department of Social Welfare, it is the shopkeeper or publican who would be the first to answer for this voucher which had been found to be out of order. It is a very good check. The Minister knows very well that in the larger post offices hundreds of people go in there, draw their money and the shop assistants do not know the person personally who draws that money; it may be a brother or sister of the recipient, or it might even be a messenger for the recipient and the postmistresses apparently are not required to know the people to whom they are giving the money. The voucher is stamped; it is franked by the official post office franking machine and the person signs for payment. There is a solution there and the Minister ought to try it in order to come up to, if you like, modern business methods or a businesslike way of dealing with these issues. In commercial life you would not have the kind of problem you have here and here is a problem which I feel the Minister ought to be able to solve.
I have no objection to looking at the practice in other countries, as was suggested, but I doubt if we shall find anything more suitable than what we have. As I say, I have no objection to looking into it.
I cannot see why Senators assume that the receipt of a cheque every week through the post would be any better than the receipt of a book of cheques which lasts for a year. The cheques will still have to be cashed somewhere. I doubt if that would be any better solution. It would merely be a more costly method of doing this business, so far as I can see.
There is no question of subpostmasters, or subpostmistresses, or clerks in post offices being under any obligation to report as to whether or not in their opinion a pensioner is entitled to a pension. They have no standing whatever in a matter such as that. As I say, I have no objection to looking at this again and seeing if a more suitable method can be arrived at. I do not think this is a very onerous requirement and I think it is the minimum necessary to safeguard public funds in this regard.
With regard to the suggestion that officials in my Department should keep in touch with Members of the Oireachtas, the officials in my Department have been in touch with a number of different members of the Oireachtas from both sides of the House, in the capacity of Minister for Social Welfare, and those Members of the Oireachtas are more in touch with other Members of the Oireachtas than any other Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill".
Would the Minister be good enough to tell us what section 15 is about?
There are a number of existing powers enabling orders to be made in connection with reciprocal agreements on social security matters. The purpose of this section is to consolidate the existing powers enabling orders to be made in connection with reciprocal agreements on social security matters adapting and modifying the Acts involved, and to widen those powers to include schemes which are not at present covered, for example, the children's allowances schemes. At present there is not power to make reciprocal agreements in connection with that.
This is the kind of thing we were dealing with on other Bills. This afternoon an order was laid in draft form before the House, and I am sure the Minister will be heartened to learn that it went through in double quick time. It was a draft order which had to be approved by the House. The Minister for Transport and Power can make an order in accordance with the draft which was approved.
It seems to me that this is the kind of order which, if it is going to be made, should be subject to some kind of approval by the Oireachtas. So far as I can see, it is not the type of order which comes within the scope of the 1952 Act, requiring regulations to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. It seems to be in a different category from the regulations which the Minister is entitled to make under the Social Welfare Act, 1952. We must again demur at this procedure whereby orders of this kind can be made by the Minister without, apparently, as I see it, laying them before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister says this section will enable him to make orders adapting and modifying Acts of Parliament. We must continue to register our protest at the fact that the Minister can, by order, amend legislation.
I should also like to know if this order comes within the category of statutory instruments. If one wants to look up reciprocal arrangements between this country and Britain, America or France, where does one look to find them? On the Occupational Injuries Bill, the Minister referred to the ignorance of a member of the judiciary about a reciprocal agreement between this country and another country in relation to workmen's compensation. I must frankly confess that it is extremely difficult to find these orders and instruments when one looks for them from time to time, and I should like to know from the Minister whether this is a statutory instrument, and whether it will be found amongst the statutory instruments. Will it be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas? Is it a statutory instrument which one would normally expect to find in a volume of statutory instruments?
It is.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to make one short comment on this Bill and I think the Minister will agree with it. If you read this Bill from start to finish, it means nothing to anyone. You will have to get the 1952 Act, the 1963 Act and the 1964 Act, and so on, in order to make some fist of what is intended to be effected by this Bill. Social Welfare Acts which Members of the Oireachtas have to look up from time to time, purely in discharge of their duties as public representatives, should be drafted in such a way that if you look up a particular section, you will know what someone is entitled to.
Section 11 of this Bill provides that the Second Schedule to the Act of 1952 is amended by the insertion of " 2A " after " 2 " in paragraph 1. It provides for ‘the substitution of "7s 5d" for "7s 4d" (inserted by the Act of 1965) and "6s 4d" for "6s 3d" (inserted by the Act of 1965) in paragraph 1(a)' and so on. You are really in a jungle, and this is legislation which affects the poorer sections of the community who, if they want to look up what they are entitled to, should be able to find out in one section in an Act of Parliament, what the latest position is. The Minister should insist upon the parliamentary draftsman drafting a Bill which will be intelligible to members of the Oireachtas. On this occasion I have great sympathy with the Minister. This is a case of parvum in multo. The Minister had little to give and thought it desirable to have all this rigmarole so that the littleness would be hidden in the multitude of amendments he is effecting in this Bill.
The Minister should give us at some stage figures to show how much is actually being contributed by employers and how much by workers towards the payment of these increased benefits. The amounts involved in social welfare cards have increased several times and have reached a record figure. It is expected they will increase still further. An employer with a large staff who has to deal with these cards knows what a big job it is. His contribution is a very substantial one. Many employers pay the full amount of the stamps themselves. Whether they do or not, they are involved in substantial contributions towards old age, widows' and other pensions. The public should be told exactly how much the contribution is from employers and from workers towards the various social welfare schemes.
In my opening statement, I referred to the fact that a Bill of this kind is necessarily confusing and I explained the object of it in the explanatory memorandum which was circulated and which I hoped would help to dispel the confusion. I deprecate that it is necessary to put this legislation through in this way, as Senator O'Quigley does, but I cannot offer any solution to the problem. Apart from issuing the explanatory memorandum, we also publish advertisements in the national and local newspapers explaining the increases in benefits and contributions that are being provided in this legislation. We also issue a booklet explaining as briefly and clearly as possible what benefits are available and this is brought up to date when changes are made. That has been done in every year of this Government's term of office.
On Senator Rooney's point about the contributions of employers and workers to the benefits provided in the social insurance scheme, I agree it might be no harm to refer to them, particularly since the position in this regard is so much different in this country from what it is in others. I have taken the figures from a paper issued by the Economic Research Institute on Social Security in Ireland and Western Europe. The figures are for contributions paid by employers and workers in terms of the percentage of the average worker's wage. The contributions by workers for this country and a number of western European countries are as follows: Ireland, 2.3 per cent; Belgium, 9 per cent; France, 6.1 per cent; Germany, 12.5 per cent; Italy, 5.8 per cent; Netherlands, 11.1 per cent; United Kingdom, 5.3 per cent. If we take the total contribution of both employer and worker in the form of a percentage of the average worker's wage, we find : Ireland, 4.6 per cent; Belgium, 18 per cent; France, 21.6 per cent; Germany, 25 per cent; Italy, 29.8 per cent; Netherlands, 17.6 per cent; United Kingdom, 9.9 per cent.
Therefore, the position here is that we take less of the worker's wage in the form of contributions towards social insurance than any of these other countries, and this of course means that the State participation here is correspondingly greater. In Table 10 of a paper Cost of Social Security 1958-1960, issued by the International Labour Office, we find the figures for State participation in social insurance and family allowance schemes according to source: Ireland, 73 per cent; Austria, 13.2 per cent; Belgium, 26.2 per cent; Denmark, 52.5 per cent; France, 6.6 per cent; Germany (Federal Republic), 16.5 per cent; Italy, 17.3 per cent; Norway, 15.2 per cent; United Kingdom, 27.7 per cent.
When this Table is taken in conjunction with the figures showing the percentage of workers' wages which is taken in contributions, the position here is that there is a much greater contribution by the State towards social welfare generally and a much smaller percentage contribution by both workers and employers. Obviously, in any effort to make further substantial improvements, consideration will have to be given as to whether it would be feasible for a country such as this to make worthwhile improvements in these schemes on the present basis of contributions by workers, employers and the State.
Question put and agreed to.