These are just changing the maximum?
Social Welfare Bill, 1971: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Yes, increasing the rates of old age pensions.
"Two hundred and sixty pounds and seventy-five new pence" that is the maximum means which a non-contributory old age pensioner can have. That is £5 a week. How would that compare with the British equivalent?
It is not as good as Britain but not very far behind. If he has dependants he gets more.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Is this the one which the Minister said equals the British code?
They have no equivalent there. It is practically all insured. But this is entirely financed from Exchequer funds.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
These are the aspects of the code that the Minister says are as good as the British ones. Is that correct?
Mr. Brennan
Yes.
The section states that for a:
Person entitled to an increase in respect of a qualified child but not entitled to an increase in respect of an adult dependant...
the weekly rate is £4.10p. How would that compare with the equivalent person in Britain?
I think it is about equal to it. I have not got the British rates before me. It could be better actually.
It could be worse.
I do not think so.
Certainly one good thing about the Bill this year is in regard to something which was mentioned last year to the Minister, that the date of implementing the increases is a little bit nearer to the date of levying the increase.
It was brought nearer last year. This is the second year. It used to be October and January but this year it is August and October. It was the same last year.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister give us any idea how much it would cost the Exchequer if, for instance, the entire means scale there were to be doubled? It would mean £500 a year maximum which would be £10 a week. It is not a great amount to allow a widow and still give her the minimum pension.
The means test?
Yes.
It would cost a considerable amount to wipe out the means test, but there are many widows getting no pension at all.
To double it. A maximum means of £500.
It would more than double it. Rather than cut out the means test, I would rather improve the rates on the existing means.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Section 8 has to do with the crediting of contributions that have not been paid by the employer.
This is the point about bankruptcies, where you could not recover from the employer.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 deal mainly with the penalties where there is non-payment.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I would like the Minister to explain this in some detail. This is the penalty section.
I was a bit at sea about this myself. I did not know what it referred to.
The section provides for increased penalties and for imprisonment. A fine of £50 or, at the court's discretion, imprisonment for any period up to three months, or both fine and imprisonment.
For not stamping cards?
For not paying contributions. This provides for an increase in the penalties.
I more or less understood the Minister to say, either here or in the other House, that there was also provision for having the erring employer pay not only the fine but the equivalent of the benefit which——
We have that power always. That power is in the Principal Act.
That is where the employee disposes of——
If an employee is at the loss of benefit as a result of an employer failing to stamp his cards he has an action against the employer to recover the amount lost. If he himself is not in a position to take the action and requests me to take it, I take it on his behalf. That was the law before now.
When I was speaking I meant something else. Is there a part in this Bill or any other Bill whereby an employee could dispose of his benefit under the Social Welfare Act? Could he sell for benefit anything that might accrue to him?
No. Unless he sold his card. This might happen sometimes in England where they use different names but that is a serious offence.
It is not covered in the Bill.
Yes. That is covered in Common Law.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
This increases the rate of contributions?
Yes.
The Minister said that I had complained about the level of the payments and finished by complaining about the level of the contributions. I went out of my way to point out that to have increased payment one must have increased contributions. My complaint was that there should be increased contributions this year allied with the contributions which will be necessary with the implementation of the Health (Contributions) Bill. I think the Minister agreed with me that the level of stamp payments and of the health contribution payments are probably coming near saturation point. Perhaps I did not emphasise as clearly as I should have that what I was really referring to was what the Minister touched on in his reply, that is, extending the net for compulsory insurance.
They will benefit to some extent now by the raising of the insurable limit to £1,600.
Could the Minister state what is his objection to extending it to an even higher income scale than £1,600?
Mr. Brennan
I see none. I wish to abolish it altogether and have no limit. One of the reasons why I did not abolish it this year was that health grants for the medical scheme were based on the limits. On the education side, many education grants were based on the limit we used also, so that one could not throw the whole system out of gear too easily. Since then, as the Senator knows, the Department of Health have moved on to their own system, the Department of Education will find a new basis and we will abolish the limit.
And again the Department of Local Government have got a different scale.
Yes. The Department of Local Government have loans based on the limit.
There is one bit of good news. The Minister intends abolishing the limit completely in the foreseeable future?
Yes. I intend to do it this year.
Little by little.
I am always willing to consider any suggestions made.
I think the Minister must read our policy document from time to time and he is becoming convinced that there is some merit in it.
I could mention many schemes that have been examined.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Section 13 is the section that I referred to specifically. This is to increase the amount allowed for each child. It has gone up 100 per cent; if the Minister wants to turn to percentages, it looks very generous.
It was £39. It is now £78.
That is 100 per cent.
Although it is a 100 per cent increase it still represents only 30s a week. I would urge the Minister to consider making it a figure of the order of several hundreds, because it is the sort of help that a woman in this position really needs.
It is in respect of each qualified child.
Nonetheless, it is still only an allowance of 30s per week even now. I appreciate that it is a 100 per cent increase.
It enables a widow to earn up to £6 without having her pension taken into account.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
This section is intended to overlap this short-term change from contributory to non-contributory?
Yes. It is to prevent people opting in for a short time.
That is fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for Final Consideration and passed.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 13th July, 1971.