Amendments tabled by Senator Fallon have been circulated. I regret that I must rule each of them out of order as they involve a charge on public revenue.
SECTION 1.
Social Welfare Bill, 1984: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides that this Bill and the Social Welfare Acts 1981 to 1983 shall be construed as one. Perhaps the Minister would consider the possibility of having the entire social welfare code updated in one volume.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The amendments that we had tabled on this were meant to try to get the date of implementation of this section transferred from July back to 5 April. It is extremely important that beneficiaries in the social welfare section do not lose benefit for four months, and even though I can see and understand why the Cathaoirleach overruled the amendments I still feel that we should apply the benefits which are available under this section on 5 April and so give a reasonable increase to the people who are genuinely in need. It mentions specifically disability benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity allowance, deserted wife's benefit, invalidity pension, retirement pension, injury benefit, disablement gratuity and disablement pension. If one looks at the rate of inflation and if one looks at the cost of living I think it is disgraceful that these people who are in grave need at this stage should have the implementation of this section postponed or only being implemented on 5 July.
I support that amendment.
The amendment is not in order.
But the thinking behind it is very simple, and it is a feature of this whole Bill that it says that where the people are asked to contribute by way of extra finance and so on it is done immediately: where the Government are giving out extra increases it is done at a late stage of the year. That is a break from the tradition, and certainly we would oppose it and object to it.
I join with the previous speakers in regretting this re-established principle. It was one of the major steps forward in recent times that the date of application of various increases in benefits was brought forward to April. To move it backwards again is regrettable. It distorts a lot of the claims about what are percentage benefits, and indeed it has reflected backwards. Some of the real gains, as distinct from the standing still of people in social welfare, have been lost by virtue of this new principle, and I greatly regret it and I support the last two speakers.
I too would like to support the request for the earlier payment of those benefits. Even the Minister, who is a trade union official himself, will agree that in any negotiating or in any wage-fixing agreements more often than not payments are made retrospective rather than postponing them as has been done under this section here tonight. I see no reason why payments could not be made in April. I know, of course, that it would involve extra work in the Department in getting the payments adjusted and getting books ready for despatch to recipients of social benefit and so on. There are sufficient staff members available there to do this work, and when it was done before in previous years I see no reason why the present administration could not agree to have those payments made in April. It is very hard to explain to people who are in receipt of social welfare that they have to wait until next July or August in order to get the 7 or 8 per cent increase granted whereas in the meantime prices are escalating and we were told recently that inflation at present is running at about 10 per cent. When those benefits come into effect they are no use to those recipients. I would certainly appeal to the Minister to have those payments made in April as requested in the amendment which has been rejected.
I thought I had dealt fairly fully with that question in my reply to the Second Stage. I shall repeat for the benefit of those who were not here at that stage some of the points I made on this aspect of the matter. One is of course the question of resources in the extremely bad recessionary period and the fact that there has been no increase in PRSI contributions to finance the increases now being given. There is also the fact that food subsidies are maintained contrary to the expectations of many, particularly of the Opposition parties that they would be dismantled to some extent. I pointed out that it could be an easy bookkeeping exercise and windowdressing exercise maybe to save something on food subsidies as was expected and give an increase to social welfare recipients but they would not have ended up any better off. They might in fact be worse off, because any removal of food subsidies would have resulted in increased costs overall.
I also pointed out my experience as a trade union official on this point, that when one is negotiating for increases and when one knows there is only so much available in the current year and you know the total sum available and if you decide to accept the increase from a back date or from a current date the percentage rate of increase will be much lower and the longer you can postpone the increase, the higher will be the percentage rate because you will be dealing from the same amount of money. Once you get the percentage increase you hold it and next year there is a percentage on top of that increased amount. For example — I am not making a case for this — if the Department and I were to say that the total amount of money available for increases to social welfare recipients will be deferred until December, then we will grant the total amount of money, I have not done the mathematical calculation but it would probably amount to 20 or 25 per cent of an increase. That would be a great thing because they would hold that 25 per cent of an increase and they would get some more. In times like this when it is very difficult to get additional resources one must use the amount available to the best effect and one could argue for a postponement still if the people could afford to wait. But of course they cannot afford to wait. I agree with Senators who point out that people should get their increases earlier, but it would mean that for the same amount of money it would be a lower percentage. So, it would be in the long term interest — not in the short term interest — of social welfare recipients to defer it further. It would amount to a bigger percentage increase and they would hold that for as long as they were receiving that benefit.
For those reasons I would hope that the House would agree to this section.
There is an amount of money available for payment. Irrespective of when that amount is paid that is what is going to be paid anyway. The person who is going to get the benefit would prefer to get the benefit now, I am sure. I would like to know how it would benefit somebody to hold off payment of benefit from now until 1 July rather than get an increase of 7 per cent now. The Minister did say there is no increase in PRSI contributions. The next section says there is an increase of between 0.1 and 0.4 per cent.
That is for a different reason; it is for occupational injuries.
But the PRSI is being increased by between 0.1 and 0.4 per cent. Mention was made of food subsidies. I did not see the removal or the increase of food subsidies mentioned in any part of the Social Welfare Bill.
Do I take it that the Minister is saying that if this allocation of money is spent in the way the Senator has spoken about it would mean only a 5 per cent increase and next budget, when they would be considering an increase again, it would mean that they only had a 5 per cent increase over 1983, whereas now from next budget time they will be in a position where they had a 7 per cent increase. Is that not the clear answer?
That is the case.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I think that covers the question Senator Hussey raised. Are you satisfied with that?
No, I just wanted to ask the Minister about the payment of unemployment assistance which comes under this section. Because of the different systems of assessing the means of recipients of this assistance many people have lost out. They have either been reduced in the amount of benefit being paid to them or they have been disqualified entirely. I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the changes he now proposes to make in the system of assessing those people's means, if he would go back to those people who have lost their benefit and have them reviewed again under the new proposals he hopes to initiate?
Just before the Minister replies to that I would agree that if there were anomalies under the previous assessment they should be looked at again. Could I ask the Minister for a confirmation or otherwise of something stated in radio recently? It was that in the process of means-testing small farmers in particular one of his officials publicly admitted that if they were not satisfied with the information available from the person being investigated they went next door and asked the neighbour. Surely, if we talk about a supergrass system, that is the supergrass system of all time. If you will excuse the pun, if you are not satisfied with the amount of grass the nextdoor neighbour says he has, you go and ask the supergrass how much grass he has. I hope the system used will be the person's goodwill and good faith in the information avaialble and there should be no spot-checking with neighbours to know if a claimant is telling the truth. I was amazed and quite disheartened that a public official admitted that they do that. I would like an assurance from the Minister that if that happened in the past it will stop forthwith. I certainly do not accept it.
On Senator Hussey's point about the notification that is now being sent to applicants and to people who are about to be reviewed, it is not really a new means of assessment; it is not a new system of asessment. The existing means of assessment remains. It is just a letter that will go to these people in advance of the social welfare officer calling to them, to let them know the particular week the officer will call and to let them know in advance what information he will require. That has always been the case except that now this letter goes also. If any Senator feels that there is any applicant or claimant who has new information that perhaps the claimant overlooked at the time of the investigation, then it is open to that person to ask for a review on the basis of that. I am sure anybody in that position will ask for a review, if there is new information or if there is anything which they feel was not taken into consideration.
On the question raised by Senator Ferris, it is normal practice for an inquiry to be made from a neighbouring farmer or a neighbouring person where there is, for example, a letting of land. If the claimant has land let or is land leasing himself the other farmer has to be interviewed in connection with that. There is no practice other than that. That is the only practice which is followed in relation to calling on neighbours. It is in order to get information relative to the claim only in cases where they have land set or perhaps other dealings of that kind.
I have no objection to that if it is verification of disclosed transactions between neighbours or farmers. But this official publicly said that they use the neighbour for other purposes. I only know what I heard from the officials of the Department.
I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions on social assistance payments. I was going to mention it on the Second Stage but I think it is more a Committee Stage question. I was interested to hear Senator Brendan Ryan speaking about the difficulties of assessing people and the fact that certain people in rural areas now have difficulty which is highlighting this fact. That is true. Anything which can be done for any person who is receiving social assistance to make the system more understandable to them is worth while. Arising out of the proposal for new rates for social assistance payments under section 4 of this Bill, I would like to welcome what the Minister said about his intention to ensure that people — in the western counties in particular who are in receipt of what is termed farmers' dole — will now be given advance warning of the coming of the official to investigate it, even if that warning does not include the exact time. At least he will know the investigation is under way and he should be preparing the information. We should recognise that there is a fundamental difference between somebody whose income is being assessed and who has no income at all and a person whose success depends on proving that the small venture he has — which is a small farm — has achieved a certain level of profitability in the preceding year. The level of information and expertise is obviously entirely different.
The Minister was talking about small farmers' dole. Where re-assessment is made and it is found that the level of assistance will be reduced or even abolished completely because of an excess of means assessed by the social welfare officer, is it intended from this on that the social welfare officer make available to the applicant the calculation of the social welfare officer in arriving at what the actual means was? For instance will there be issued a statement such as, "your income was £5,000; your expenses were A, B, C, D, E, F, G and I assess that you had such and such income and that qualified you at a lower level or disqualified you completely"? I think that kind of information which is essential should be made available.
That is a valid question.
It is not done exactly that way because it is not done strictly on an accounts system. The social welfare officer discusses with the applicant all the circumstances in relation to the claim and the circumstances of the applicant. It is not strictly a bookkeeping exercises, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to spell out in an accounts system to how the figure was arrived at.
I do not agree at all with the Minister. The legislation which forms the basis of the new rates we are putting in under section 4 of the Bill quite clearly states that there is to be an assessment of the income of the individual. The only way an assessment can be made is that somebody estimates a person's income, writes it down, estimates items of expenditure under various headings and arrives at the conclusion that the person's net income in respect of the preceding year was a particular sum and then arrives at a decision whether that is above or below the appropriate threshold. I accept that we are not looking for an audited set of accounts but somebody has to make a mathematical assessment because the answer is mathematical. If a person is in receipt of an estimated income in excess of the threshold he does not get anything. If he is below the threshold he gets the dole. So if somebody arrives at a mathematical conclusion he can only do so in two ways. One is by picking a figure out of the air and the other is by subtracting one figure from another. I should like to ask the Minister whether in those circumstances he will give further consideration to the question of supplying people whose means are being reduced with a statement of what the deciding officer or the social welfare officer's assessment of his means for the preceding year was.
To follow the point further, we initiated legislation last year which brought everybody in the farming sector into the tax net for the first time irrespective of rateable valuation. On 5 April this year by law every farmer in this country from 50p valuation up to the maximum valuation will have to produce evidence to the Revenue Commissioners of what, in fact, his trading income is. Surely that is a sufficient basis to determine whether, first, he is entitled to a medical card, and, secondly, to determine his health and social welfare contributions and entitlements. The whole thing can be done with one clear sweep of administrative readjustment within the Department and we can avoid people going around the country counting the chickens and so on. We can forget all that kind of assessment if we have figures. We have brought everybody into the net, and rightly so. If people's incomes are above a certain level they will pay tax on them. If their incomes are below a certain level and they need a supplement we will give it to them. That is the way to proceed. It is the way to eliminate a lot of the problems that we all have as legislators and it will not discriminate against anyone. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that his Department will look at this seriously in consultation with the Department of Finance which deals with the Revenue Commissioners. That would meet Senator O'Leary's objections.
Senator O'Leary's request is very reasonable. It is only right that people on whom an assessment has been carried out would know exactly where they stand when that assessment is completed. All they get from the Department of Social Welfare is a letter telling them that as a result of a review, their means exceed the statutory limits, which in their case is such a figure. They are not given any breakdown with regard to their income or expenses. Last week I was speaking to a local person who was disqualified. He was in receipt of £67 per week. He is a married man with five children. He was disqualified because he was sending milk to the creamery and he is convinced that the cost of meals and fertilisers to feed those cows exceeded the amount the officer had down as his assessment of income or means. He was completely dissatisfied with the way the matter was dealt with.
I am asking the Minister about this because in reply to the Second Reading of the Bill he said that certain items were being taken into consideration, such as the purchase of diesel, of fertilisers, of meal and of farm equipment as well as all the veterinary expenses. There are many farmers who have been assessed and who did not know they were entitled to submit an account of those expenses. Those who knew and who had those bills available found that the social welfare officr was not interested in them. That is what I have been told. There is no use giving advance warning to these people that the social welfare officer is coming out to assess their means. That will achieve nothing except a week of restless sleep for the unfortunate recipients of social welfare. If they are not to get a breakdown of how they are being assessed of what they are allowed to claim for and so on, the exercise is absolutely useless. I can see no point in giving these people advance warning if there is not some change in the system of assessment.
I wish to add my voice to the points that have been made by Senators O'Leary, Ferris and Hussey. It is only basic justice we are talking about here. The method of assessment is fair enough, but what we are talking about is a method of rejection. If an application is being refused, it is only just, fair and proper that the assessment on which that refusal is being based is made available. Otherwise we cannot establish that the costs the applicant was entitled to charge against his gross income were fully taken into account. Unless that information is made available, the value of appealing a case is questionable.
I might say, that the experience we had on the old age pension committees was that where smallholders were being assessed for old age pension purposes it was very evident that full acknowledgement and full account was not taken of justifiable costs in the assessments made by social welfare officers in calculating means for pension purposes. I am satisfied that the only way we can ensure justice is done and that full account is being taken of the allowable costs that have been circulated is by the production of the assessment made by the social welfare officer. Unless that is done there is no way we can ensure that justice will apply.
Speakers have raised a very important issue and one that I would be remiss by not commenting on. Can the Minister not at least undertake to assess the whole procedure by which means are assessed, not just for smallholders but in general, because there are questions, issues and principles being raised here about the method by which people are approached, what are allowable expenses and so on? It is a complete snakepit for anybody outside of real experts to determine what is and what can be assessed. Perhaps in the case of smallholders it is simpler but as I said in the case of many other people who have to deal with these similar things the problem is still the same. Ultimately there is the question of the deciding officers. People trouble themselves to appeal but there is still the problem of the inadequacy of information.
Without costing the State any extra in expenditure and without in any way facilitating fraud the information could be made available to people in advance of an assessment of their income and prior to an appeal. Also, information made available to people subsequent to an appeal could be very useful. One cannot help suspecting, when there is this apparent clampdown on what seems like a reasonable demand for information, that somewhere along the line there is an arbitrary regulation that is not based on the real assessment of income but more on some sort of rule of thumb which is used to give people guidelines for what it is admitted is a fairly complex field. Can we not at least have the detailed information made available on the basis on which decisions are made?
I agree with what has been said. How can one find out why a demand is turned down? Are full details as to why a person was turned down for benefit available to him afterwards? To whom is that assessment available? Is it kept within the Department or is it necessary to have legal recourse to gain access to it?
The only point I should like to make at this stage is that I would like the Minister to give an assurance that all these social welfare officers going out would inform the people as to what they should be claiming for. I have known of many cases, and in some instances involving pension committees, where people have acted in a sneaky fashion and got the wrong information. One would think they were trying to justify their existence as officers. I regret the passing of the pensions committees. They were able to make certain discoveries. I would like if we could have an assurance from the Minister that these social welfare officers when they would go out would inform the people as to everything they could claim for. If all of us knew that this was going to be done, we would be quite happy. I am sure there are many people who were refused benefit on the basis of information supplied by the social welfare officer, who never complained to any public representative, but who probably just grinned and bore it, so to speak. It is only when they meet somebody with the same means as themselves but whose application has been successful that they realise there was something wrong in regard to their case.
May I just broaden the section and hope that as a result of this discussion on the situation whereby farm incomes are calculated by several Government Departments each having their own criterion, the Department of Health using two, the Government would set up a committee within themselves to once and for all iron out the exact definition of farm income and let that be the guiding light for the future? Perhaps the Minister will take back that message to the Government this evening.
That last point was precisely the point I was going to make, because a number of Senators have referred to the method of assessment by the Revenue Commissioners. Of course they have their own way of assessing. The Department of Social Welfare operate within the terms of the Acts and within the regulations but these are not the same as the Acts under which the Revenue Commissioners operate. Section 145, subsection (1) (c) of the Social Welfare Act requires that in calculating the means of a person for unemployment assistance purposes account must be taken of the yearly value as obtained in the prescribed manner of any advantage accruing to him from the use of property other than a domestic dwelling or a farm building owned and occupied, furniture and personal effects which is personally used or enjoyed by him. The legislation specifically mentions any advantage accruing, and that is what the social welfare officer has to get information on. The deciding officer then makes a decision on the basis of that information and of course that decision can be appealed to an appeals officer. It has never been the practice to provide details of the expenses taken into account in the assessment. The assessment is not a precise mathematical exercise. The deciding officer estimates the value of the farm and determines the entitlement to assistance having regard to the means that have been furnished by the social welfare officer. Having said that, I will have the points made by Senators considered. That is all I can say at the moment.
The unemployment assistance operates on that specific section which in itself is possibly a bit vague and it may be to people's advantage that that is the case. Would a more hemmed-in provision prove to the applicant's advantage? It would enable perhaps the making available of the kind of information that Senators now require to be furnished to claimants. It is really the deciding officer who, on the information which comes from the social welfare officer, has to decide on the advantage accruing. That is provided for in the Act. It is peculiar to the Social Welfare Act. I wish to assure the House that the observations made will be taken into account.
On the question of the advantage to be gained by owning a property other than the main residence, surely the only way a social welfare officer can judge the gain or the advantage is to get details of whatever stock are on a farm, the value of crops and then to subtract whatever is the amount for expenses. If, as the Minister has said, the situation is imprecise, we have different assessments of what the real value is. The only advantage gained is that of profit. There has to be an excess of incomes over expenses and that surely must be a precise figure. The Minister did not answer the question as to the entitlement of the person being assessed to the information afterwards as to why he was turned down and equally who else is entitled to that type of information if somebody is turned down.
I greatly appreciate the Minister's careful explanation of what the situation is. I do not disagree with him at all but what I am trying to bring about is a new situation. I agree with the Minister that it is a long-standing tradition preceding by a long time this particular kind of assessment of the farmer's dole. It has been built into the social welfare code for many years but I should like to say to the Minister that he should not underestimate the determination of Members on all sides of this House in this matter.
There will have to be a change in the way a farmer is assessed for dole. A farmer after all is a small trader and that is where the problem arises. What is applied to him can be applied in principle to anybody else but in his case there are many different headings of expenditure. When a farmer's dole is being disallowed or reduced, a situation must be brought about where he is entitled to the information on which the decision is based. He is entitled to see the mathematical numbers put by the social welfare officer and used by the deciding officer in deciding the case.
I understand very well that the social welfare officer's figures may not be exact. I am not asking that they should be exact. I understand that there would be an element of estimate in it because the person may not have the accurate information but at least, if the document is available it gives the applicant the opportunity of deciding whether to appeal. One finds in more than 50 per cent of the cases that when faced with the hard facts the applicants have to agree with them. In other cases they will give receipts to the appeals officer to prove what they are saying. I have no objection to the document produced, which must be produced by the social welfare officer and used by the deciding officer, forming the basis of assessment until it is disproved. At least, one knows where one starts from.
I thank the Minister for stating what the position is but there is nothing in the regulations which forbids what I am suggesting. It is merely a matter of administrative practice but he should not underestimate the determination of Members on all sides of this House and of the other House to bring about a change in the situation. This is a non-political issue and there is no item I have seen in my short time in this House which has untied Members on both sides of the House more than the injustice which has been done to these people because they are being denied the information on which to base an appeal.
Senator Ryan says other people are also being denied this right. Everybody must get the information on which he can make whatever appeal is necessary. When this is done, one will find that most of the appeals will melt away like snow in the month of May because very often there is no basis for the complaints, whereas if one hides behind a cloak of secrecy, the people concerned and their families will go to the grave in the belief that they were done out of money by the Government. I am sorry there is not a Cabinet Minister present to hear what is being said. We are talking about a very serious matter.
In this Bill we are now proposing to abolish the old age pension committees and leaving this matter for the deciding officer as well. Will the old age pensioner be entitled to the same information? If somebody comes to the conclusion that an applicant's means are in excess of what would entitle him to a full or to a reduced pension, he should be given the information as to how the assessment was made. It is not that we think there is a fantastic amount of money to be gained by applicants in this matter but there is involved a sense of injustice which is almost as important as the monetary factor.
Senator O'Leary has said what I should like to say but he has said it with more eloquence. We are indeed united on this issue. I find the whole idea of anybody having his means assessed in this sort of imprecise, indefinable, nonmeasurable way and, therefore impossible to compare by any objective standard, to be totally unsatisfactory. May I appeal to Members of this House not to confine their interest in this issue just to the recipients of what is called farmers' dole? The same difficulties have been experienced for a long time by the unemployed. Precisely the same issues arise. I hope to achieve some significant progress on this.
If we are to make progress on that issue, may I appeal to the Minister that in any attempt to help people he should ensure that what is issued is in language and in a format that are understandable. I have mentioned a document of clarification regarding assessment of benefit-in-kind from living at home. I have read it six times and if I read it another six times I would still be confused. The people for whom it is intended may take a different point of view. There is no point in trying to clarify something in a way that confuses us further. The duty of large organisations, particularly large Government Departments, should be to clarify matters in a way that is clear to those who understand them already. We should try to remember that we are clarifying matters for people who do not understand them and who may well take a different point of view. Therefore, the clarification should be written in simple English and in ways that people with reasonable intelligence can understand. I appeal to the Minister to look at the document of clarification which was issued to Members of the Oireachtas on that particular issue last year. It is a model of how not to do things.
It is obvious from the Minister's response to all the pleadings from each side of the House that in addition to income which can be assessed in a mathematical way, taking input and output costs and subtracting one from the other, there is an advantage accruing from owning property with the exception of the home or otherwise.
To bear out Senator Ryan's point, this applies to the unemployed children of people living in urban and rural areas, who are themselves assessed as having some advantage by reason of living in their parents' home. That is even applied in different ways, depending on the kind of home one is living in, for example, whether one is living with four, five or six children, or if one's father is better off than others. It is all in the hands of the deciding officer. Because of this peculiarity in the Social Welfare Bill which allows the assessing officer to give an advantage accruing from the ownership of property apart from the income from it, the anomaly has arisen. It does not need an amendment to this Bill to set it right. Senator O'Leary started off on this and I tried to tease it out — by having it done on accounts. Apparently under the present legislation you cannot just do it on accounts because you must take into account this other section. We are asking the Minister that at least the applicants are advised under what grounds they were either given the pension, it was reduced or increased. If they knew that they would then be in a position either to appeal it or otherwise. It is not unfair of the Members of this House to ask the Government to ask for this. It can be taken as the unanimous wish of this House that we are asking the investigating officers to help people and not to actually go out with the intention of disqualifying anybody but to help them to get what they are entitled to. If that is the attitude of officers, they will be welcomed in people's homes. They will be able to sit down and explain what is required of the applicant and the decision, when it is finally made, based on the income and the advantages. If all that is set down, the people will accept it, otherwise, we could be doing an injustice to a lot of people.
There are two points I wish to make. One will be re-emphasising something which I said earlier, but a new element, as far as I can see, has come into the calculations since I spoke last, that is, the Minister has told us that the social welfare officer must take account of what will appear to be an advantage. Therefore, I am concerned that not alone were we earlier trying to establish the right of an applicant to know on the question of means why his claim was rejected but now there is an element that is totally new to me brought into the scales here. This is the apparent advantage. How does an individual, social welfare officer or any of us, measure an advantage? We have got to be clear on this. Is there some standard set of guidelines set for doing it or is it left to the individual assessment or opinion of each social welfare officer to measure what would appear to be an advantage? If it is, obviously there will be wholesale inconsistencies there. My attitude is that not alone are we looking for a disclosure of the calculation on which an applicant was refused his entitlement, as it were, but we would also want to know, if this advantage element is brought into the calculation, how this is measured. Is it measured because, for example, there is pride about a home, a yard, outoffices, the appearance of the family, if they have, for example, the appearance a well-kept home can give? Would that seem to be an advantage element? I have got some information which I think more or less helps me on that point.
Could the Senator pass it over to this side as it might help us?
It has helped to clarify what I was seeking but it does not alter the basic argument that I am making, that is that the measuring of this advantage is very much a matter for the investigating officer and, therefore, we would need to have a standard approach to this.
The other point is reiterating something I said earlier. There is little point — this is probably being done with the best goodwill in the world — in the applicant receiving a notification a week ahead of the visit of the social welfare officer informing him that he is entitled to put into the balance sheet the following allowable costs. There are 18 or 20 of them mentioned on the list. There is no point informing him he can do that if, at the point of refusal he is not in a position to be satisfied that what he submitted was genuinely taken into account. The only way that that fear — it is a genuine fear — can be satisfied is by a disclosure of the assessment on which the refusal is based.
There is another group of people who are being discriminated against here, that is farmers' sons who apply for this unemployment assistance. In their case they are being assessed with the value of board and lodgings on their fathers' farms. In many cases they finish up with maybe no dole at all or else they are granted a sum of £2.50 a week, which I have seen, whereas, a pal down the road, who is the son of a building contractor or a shopkeeper, can come out with £24.50 a week. That is entirely wrong, because if the farmer's young son could get employment he would not have to depend on his father's farm to provide him with board and lodging. A serious look should be taken at that because it is discriminating against those young fellows who are not needed on their fathers' farms. If they could get jobs away from the farm they would be gone, but because they cannot get employment what are they to do? They have to stay at home and hope that their father and mother will provide them with the wherewithal to live. They are being deprived of the dole because of that.
Is there any liaison between the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Agriculture in assessing the number of stock a particular farmer has when this assessment is being carried out? Some of those social welfare officers arrive on farmers' doorsteps armed with figures as regards the number of stock they have, the cattle that have been sold at a mart and so on. They are getting that information from the Department of Agriculture or there are many supergrasses around on whom they are relying to give them this information. I would like the Minister to clarify that.
As I said previously, the points raised by the Senators in relation to the issue of information regarding assessments will be considered. I should point out that the section of the Act I quoted is there since 1933. It was included in the Consolidation Act in 1981. I am sure Members of this House and the Dáil gave every consideration to those Bills when they were before both Houses. I take the point that the passage of time gives rise to new situations and consideration will have to be given to the points raised here. In relation to the point raised by Senator Hussey, in the case of matters like the headage grants, official information is available to the Department of Social Welfare.
Official information regarding the number of stock owned by a particular farmer.
Taking the case of headage grants that kind of information would be available.
It would be up to the farmer to disclose that. Is that not the case?
He would certainly be asked that. It would be reasonable to assume that official information of that kind would be available.
The Department of Agriculture always maintained they did not pass that kind of information to the Department of Social Welfare. It was not the case.
I have no objection to any information being available.
It can create problems. Farmers should be informed if the Department of Agriculture are going to pass on information regarding stock numbers from their files. They have the herd numbers, they know the number of cattle a farmer owns. Is that information going to be passed on to the Department of Social Welfare? If it is it is a new development and farmers should be told that.
The farmer should be told that there is now a special branch in the Department of Agriculture.
The Minister is saying that information about the amount of money which has been paid by the State to a farmer is available to the social welfare officer. It is an inevitable consequence of this. I do not see anything wrong with it so long as the information is restricted to being used for a relevant purpose. The assessment of a person's entitlement under the Social Welfare Act is a relevant purpose.
There is no general rule, but one can envisage a situation where a social welfare officer, in pursuance of his duty, will need to get receipts from farmers of any grants, any subsidies they received. It simplifies the matter if he goes to the local agricultural office and gets the information before calling on the farmer. He then just has to have it verified. I assume in that situation he would not look for documentation from the farmer. I would not foresee any major problem in that area. In fact, it may be helpful in particular cases. There is not a general rule that they should do this.
I would have no objection to the officer being made aware of the amount of money being paid in headage grants and so on. That can be verified without any problem. I would have serious reservations about the Department of Agriculture giving information on the number of stock owned by a farmer at any particular time. I know that they refused to do that some years ago in relation to the health boards. The health boards, in assessing a farmer's means for qualification for a medical card, asked for that information. I am surprised to hear that this system has been changed.
As I said there is no general practice but I cannot deny that some social welfare officers may, to help in their investigations, do that.
I want to go back to the original question as to who is entitled to get information after an assessment is done. Is the proposed beneficiary entitled to it? Would a Member of the Oireachtas be entitled to it? Is the information available to anybody? Reference was made to the farmers' dole. We should try to get this whole area away from the Social Welfare Bill and treat the income supplement that a small farmer gets as an income supplement because he lives on a small farm and much of what we are discussing here tonight would be taken out of the realms of probability, possibility or advantage gained. It is a complex area which is not suitable for discussion in terms of other social welfare benefits. We must decide whether we want to keep people on small parcels of land which are totally uneconomical or do we want to have those parcels of land amalgamated into ranches and do away with what was the basis of the growth of our economy in the beginning? Unless we do that in the end we will be continually arguing here as to what should or should not be given to small farmers. That is for another day. I would like to know who is entitled to get details of asessments which have been made.
It has not been the practice to give the information. The claimant gets the result of the assessment and is told the amount of means assessed against him or her. That is then subtracted from the fixed figure of benefit and the difference is got. Consideration will be given to everything that has been said here. It is not generally the intention to have the assessments changed with every fluctuation of income that the applicant would have. Unless the claimant applies for a review, having regard to some significant change in the person's circumstances, or alternatively, if the social welfare officer discovers something that should be reinvestigated. As a general rule the assessment lasts for approximately three years. The practice that the House is advocating would give rise to many changes. If the system has to outline everything in detail — I am not arguing against that — I am merely pointing out that it will entail another layer of administration in the social welfare system in order to do that. I am not arguing against the points made. From what Senator O'Leary said I am well aware of the feelings of Members of this House and the other House on this subject. I am sure all of these matters will get full consideration to see if the views of Members can be met in some way and at the same time would not create another administrative bottleneck and backlog. We are trying to get rid of backlogs in the Department not create further backlogs and bottlenecks in administration. It is certainly the intention of all of us to improve the system.
I would be happy, arising from the discussion, if the Minister would bring back to the Government what I said on the whole area of farm income and the criteria with all the different Government Department's involved, Education have one system, Health have two systems, and Environment have another. It should be established and defined once and for all how farm income is defined. I want to make the point, arising from this discussion, that the farmers' dole is a misnomer in many ways because the people concerned are not unemployed. They are small farmers in need of money to keep them ticking over. There is a very valid case that what they should be getting is not social welfare but a Department of Agriculture subsidy. That is worthy of consideration.
In fairness to the Minister of State he has been as forthcoming as possible on this. I take it from what he said that he is bringing back all the views of this House to the Government. Would he also bring back to the Government the view that something must be done in this area? I do not accept that it will create any administrative problems. The information is available to the deciding officer and all he has to do is communicate it. In the form of the decision he gives a person be might as well write down: "You are disallowed because...... or disallowed because......" All Members of this House should get together in a motion to request that this is done if that would facilitate the Minister of State. It is not his fault that the Act is worded in the way it is. He now knows the problems and this is our desire and if it does not happen we will be warning the Department of Social Welfare that this is how we would like to proceed. I propose that we move to the next section.
I must apologise to the Minister on this one. He said that an assessment has not generally been given to the person looking for the benefit. Is there a rule whereby the details of assessment cannot be passed on or is it just a practice that has grown? That is my final question.
It has not grown. The practice of not doing that is always there. If he studies the section of the Act which I quoted there, the Senator will appreciate that it would be difficult to spell out in exact detailed figures what one is looking for. That is what we have to consider. That is what I said over and over again on the section. It is one of the things that I will have to consider fully to see if there is any way in which it can be done.
I thought we were getting to some kind of conclusion on this until the Minister got up. There is nothing in the Act which forbids the Minister giving the details to people. If the Act imposes an obligation on the social welfare officers to put a value on — that is what it is — a benefit which somebody is getting, somebody has to produce that catch. Somebody has to say that living in that house is worth £5 a week to the person or it is worth £4 a week, or owning that piece of property is worth £1 a week. Somebody does that. It is purely an administrative decision and we want the administrative decision changed. Otherwise, whether they are or not, people do not think they are getting justice. It is as important sometimes to think you are getting justice as getting the money in your pocket.
The point is taken. I repeat that consideration will be given to that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
This section increases the PRSI contribution. I mentioned the point that that alone will affect job creation prospects. It is something the Government should consider. I also note that it comes into operation next Friday week.
The section states that the contribution to be paid by the employers is to be increased by between .1 and .4 per cent and the occupational injuries fund is entirely financed by employers' contributions and by fund investments. Could I have the details of the employers' contributions for last year, the income from fund investments and why this fund is in danger of going bankrupt as it just says to maintain the solvency? Is it because last year the funds in which the moneys were invested did not come up to scratch or was it because there was not enough money put in by the employers in the first place? To say that it is financed by fund investments is not something that I would accept without knowing what these funds are. I would like to know where the money came from last year, how much came from the fund investments and how much came from the employers.
Obviously in any fund of this nature the contribution to it has to fluctuate from time to time. Section 6 provides for an increase of .1 per cent in the employers' contribution to the occupational injuries fund, as announced in the budget statement of 25 January last. On the introduction of the PRSI contribution system in April 1979 the rates of contribution was fixed at .45 per cent. The rate temporarily decreased to .3 per cent in April 1981 in the light of accumulated reserves in the fund.
It is now found necessary, in order to maintain solvency in the fund, to increase the contribution rate by .1 per cent. If no change was made in the rates the fund would be virtually exhausted by the end of March 1985. The increase will take effect from 6 April 1984 and will yield £3.7 million. The investments that finance the occupational injuries fund amount to £1.253 million. The total fund is £24.469 million. Those are the 1984 figures.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill".
It has been said that in each year the floor for pay-related benefits is increased and that this year it is necessary to increase it from £36 to £43. This means that a certain number of workers will lose benefit. I would like to know is the rationale, apart from just increasing it — it has been increased before — just to save money?
When the pay-related benefit scheme was introduced in 1974 the proportion of the reckonable weekly earnings used in calculating the rate of benefit was disregarded. This disregard or floor was set at over twice the prevailing rate of flat rate benefit at £14. It remained unchanged until 1981, even though the rate of flat rate benefit was significantly increased in the meantime. If the floor had been increased in line with the formula used in 1974 it would now stand at £74 per week. Under the 1981 (Amendment) Act the floor was automatically linked to the maximum rate of flat rate of DB and UB rounded to the nearest pound at the beginning of January each year. This provision was removed under the Social Welfare Act, 1983 when the floor was set at £36. It is now being increased to £43 in order to keep the overall level of benefit in proportion to the earnings they are intended to replace.
The change will apply to periods of interruption of employment commencing on or after 2 April 1984 so that no existing claimant will lose benefit and it will only apply to the periods of interruption commencing on or after 2 April 1984. It will result in savings of £2.8 million in 1984. There is no increase in the level of the earnings ceilings up to which pay-related benefit is payable. At present this is set at £220 per week or £11,000 per annum.
I asked this question on Second Stage and I am sorry I was not here to hear the Minister's reply. I asked why, when a person has lost a job and starts another job or enterprise within a couple of weeks, he is not allowed to get the enterprise allowance scheme whereas if he stops working and does not go back to work for 13 weeks he becomes eligible for the enterprise allowance scheme.
I should like the Minister to elaborate on the rationale for the maximum of 26 weeks. It seems a little restrictive and discouraging for what should be an open and possibly a very promising idea.
The scheme itself is a matter for the Department of Labour.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with the leasing of land. The present system of assessing means from land favours short-term letting. Under this section the means of the lessor for social assistance purposes is not going to be calculated by reference to the capital value of the holding but on the basis of the profits from the lease. I wonder if this will be any advantage, because we have experience before of the EEC farm retirement scheme which was a complete failure because the pension that he got from the Land Commission for his land was assessed against him, he was disqualified from social benefits and also lost his medical card and so on. Could anything further be done under this section to encourage elderly farmers to hand over the land to younger farmers? Unless there is a guarantee to those people that in the event of their handing over their land for a number of years to a younger more progressive farmer they will qualify for their old age pension, medical card and so on, the system will never be a success because the old age pension, free travel and the medical card mean a lot to them. If they think for one minute that they are going to lose those benefits by handing over their land to younger and more progressive farmers we will have a problem in trying to encourage them to do so.
This section should be gone into in great detail to ascertain if there is anything further that could be done to encourage farmers who are no longer able to work their land to hand it over to younger and more progressive farmers.
We should welcome this section. It is an exact replica of the argument we are putting up in relation to the other case. I am surprised that Senator Hussey feels that it might be a disadvantage. The real advantage in this section is that it does not add this advantage to the ownership of the land that is leased on a longer term. It stimulates longer term leasing and the benefits accruing from it are the genuine profits arrived at from its leasing. It is the argument we were making in the previous section which delayed the Minister for an hour or so. It is no disadvantage for the owner of the property.
I did not say it was a disadvantage.
It is an incentive in its own right. I hope that in the legislation coming before the House next week when the whole principle of land leasing will be dealt with the question of the mobility of land to younger, more progressive people from those who are unable to use it will be dealt with properly. It is important to deal with it in this legislation too, because we have been using a different way of assessing the ownership of that land up to now and this is a breakthrough. I welcomed it in my contribution on the Second Stage and I commend the Minister for it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill".
Section 10 extends to mothers as well as fathers a concession contained in the principal Act whereby children's allowances are paid to children who live outside the State and in respect of fathers and mothers who are employed in the service of the Government outside the State, who are employed by the State outside the State or who are employed by an international organisation outside the State. I fail to understand why this country should pay children's allowance to men and women and their children in the service of an international organisation who are living outside this country. It is bad enough to be paying children's allowance to people who do not need it besides paying it to people who are working in the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations. That is absolutely crazy. I am certainly not going to ask the Minister to change it at this hour of the night but he should take a note of it. I do not think we should be paying social welfare payment in respect of somebody who is not being paid by the State and who is living abroad. We will be paying it for President Nixon's children next, or somebody like him.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill".
Full-time employment only means a person engaged in full-time employment and it excludes self-employed. I do not want to go into that again with the Minister as he has fairly covered it but why must it be full-time employment? There are many part-time people on very poor wages. It would be a help to them and that is the aim of the section.
There is a very narrow definition of the family involved here which seems to exclude single parent families from the benefits. The section refers to a person who is engaged in full-time employment, where such a person is a married person living with or mainly maintaining his or her spouse and the child. Does that mean that a person who does not have a spouse and is maintaining a child is excluded?
Single parent families are included.
Subsections (a) and (b) refer to this but (b) only applies where such a person is married. It does not apply if such person is not married. Do you understand what I mean? It refers to a person who is engaged in remunerative full time employment and where such a person is married. It only applies where such a person is married.
I am satisfied it is a family income supplement whether it is a one or two parent family. It is based on the family unit and I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that when this comes into force, is it the gross pay or the net pay after deduction of PAYE or PRSI?
The limits are set at gross pay. To clarify the previous point, I should say that payments under this scheme will be made to families with children where at least one parent is engaged in full-time employment. Accordingly, where a single parent, such as a widow, a deserted wife or unmarried mother, is working and the family income including any social welfare payment other than children's allowance is within the limits of the scheme, that family will qualify for a family income supplement. In the case of a two parent family who are unmarried the supplement would be payable to whichever of the couple is receiving children's allowance in respect of the child or children. In that situation any income of the other member of the couple would be ignored because the definition of family does not include persons other than the claimant's spouse.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill".
This is just a routine protest. Could the Minister tell me what this section means?
This section enables the Minister to adjust payment of a family income supplement where it is payable concurrently with unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, disability benefit or retirement pension. The concurrent payment of family income supplement with, for example, unemployment or sickness benefit would be contrary to the objectives of the scheme ensuring through the family income supplement that recipients are better off working than claiming social welfare benefits. However, illness can occur at any time and does not normally result in the termination of employment. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to terminate the supplement immediately a worker claims disability benefit. In any event, the frequent adjustment of family income supplement payments arising from short spells of sickness or unemployment would give rise to considerable administrative difficulties for the Department. The precise arrangements for withdrawal of supplement in the event of qualification for unemployment or disability benefit have yet to be determined. It is proposed by the insertion of a new subsection in section 130 of the Consolidation Act to give the Minister power to adjust family income supplement payments in cases where it is concurrently payable with the payments mentioned. The regulations will require the approval of the Minister for Finance.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill".
I did not speak on Second Stage but I want to state that I do not agree with the doing away of the local pension committee. I accept Minister Pattison's long service in local government and at national level but I do not know who advised him to put in this section. I know him for some time and he is a man who does his own thing. Knowing the service these people give and listening to the long discussion on section 3 — layers of administration to get a report back to the person to tell them why they were knocked — here we are doing away with the vehicle that the person had to go to, their local representative.
The Minister, Deputy Pattison, spoke about the cost involved. Would the Minister say what system he is replacing these pension committees with? He gave figures of what it costs now and what it cost previously. These local committees cost nothing. The people who served on them for a number of years were all voluntary members. They did not even get travelling expenses, just in case we are accused of getting them a few times over. I oppose doing away with these committees. I do not think any politician who served on them benefited in any way or used them. I never saw party politics being played on those committees.
I think Senator Howard will bear me out on that with regard to Clare. He knows the men who served on those committees for a long number of years. I will go so far as to have the cheek to say that the Minister made a mistake in doing away with them. It was a bad decision. There were ordinary county councillors, those elected by the people, on those committees. Could the Minister tell me who is going to do the work of these committees? They were on a one to one basis with the person who had a problem. In all my 34 years in Clare I never saw party politics being played with that committee. I am sure the position in other constituencies was the same. I think this is a mistake. It is not a good enough reason to say that because they are a long time there they are wrong. Perhaps if we held on to some of the things we had in different legislation we might be better legislators today. We were confused a short while ago about voting at Second Stage. If I was the only person on this side of the House to vote against doing away with those committees I would be here on this side of the House doing so.
To a certain extent, I agree with Senator Honan about old age pension committees. When I sat on one of these committees on Monday, it was said that we had no power and that is true. However, it did not cost anything. People came along, not necessarily from the county council, but from different parts of the county. There was always somebody who knew a Mr X or a Mr. B as the case may be and was able to give some information. During my time of over 20 years on a pension committee there were times when perhaps the wrong information was given to pensions officers and people were rejected. When we appealed it again we found that these people in fact got their pensions. Strangely enough, some applicants for old age pensions do not want to give the true story to a pensions officer. I have known people who made out that they were better off than they were. I am sure many people have had that experience. People did not want to disclose how poor they were. I have had cases where people gave the wrong information to pensions officers, disclosing certain earnings which debarred them from a pension.
Perhaps the Minister has his own good reasons for abolishing these committees but they were not costing anything and so long as people were prepared to turn up of their own free will and give whatever information they had in relation to the people who were accepted or rejected as the case may be, there was a lot to be said for it. It is not good to abolish them at this stage. We are not saving money by doing so.
I admire Senator Lennon's spirited contribution on behalf of these committees. I know he has been a member of one. I have an open mind about the subject. I spoke on it earlier today. I have heard the pros and the cons regarding the system. I object to people having to degrade themselves in front of politicians and baring their soul as part of a process. Members of the committee purported to have some function which they really did not have, as statutorily they had no function. The only function they performed at times was to delay the actual allocation of the pension. We took steps to make payments subject to the approval of the committees at one stage, but even then the appeals system which we triggered off created a problem. Local politicians and others gave their services free on behalf of applicants, and it did not cost the State anything.
There is another cost factor involved, the tying up of officers within this framework. It costs about £200,000 a year and we must ask whether that sum is justified. After today's discussion we will have the information we are looking for — and as long as there is a safety valve for us or for somebody in the community whether it is a social worker or community service officer to enable them to approach somebody in the Department to make sure that information is properly processed and that all relevant information is available we should do away with the charade of purporting to be able to do something for people. I do not think there has ever been a case where somebody got more by going through this process. If the Leas-Chathaoirleach is aware of cases of that nature I would like to hear of them. I have been involved in this for a long time and I have never seen a case where we could influence the deciding officer unless the person withheld information which they rarely did especially if it was going to benefit them. They always try to withhold information which will be to their detriment.
The investigating officers already have the power to go to banks and anywhere else to get all the information they need to make a decision. I do not have very strong views one way or another but we should streamline the system, because the sooner people get their pension when it is due to them the better.
I have no strong feelings either on this matter, but in abolishing the old age pension sub-committees we might be making the system more bureaucratic and making it most difficult for the applicant to get in touch with the officials of the Department to find out the situation regarding his application for old age pension. The old age pension committees have very little power. I served on one for a number of years and I can truthfully say that during my time the committee never succeeded in granting a pension to any applicant unless the social welfare officer had already recommended it, so I could not claim credit for getting a pension for somebody who had not already been granted it by the social welfare officer.
There are certain cases where information which is not readily available to an officer could be made available to some member of the local committee. Since they were not costing a lot of money to maintain they should be left there. I do not think they are going to speed up the granting of pensions to anybody because the social welfare officer has to investigate them, and, in some cases, as Senator Ferris pointed out, the pension committees could be a means of delaying the granting of the old age pension because if they go against what the social welfare officer has granted and grant a greater pension than that the next step is an appeal by the social welfare officer which will delay the pension for a further period. In some cases they will grant whatever rate of pension the social welfare officer has recommended and if the applicant is not satisfied he has the right to appeal after six months. That happened very often. I see no reason why they should be abolished. There were no expenses except for the clerk's salary, which was not very large. A few years ago it amounted only to a couple of hundred pounds per year and I suppose it is much the same since. I am afraid that the abolition of these committees would make the present system more bureaucratic. The Minister should seriously consider this before he abolishes them.
I also regret the abolition of the old age pension committees. My experience in these committees has been that they serve a purpose and achieve results. In my ten years' experience I have never seen an applicant demeaned by coming before an old age pension committee to discuss his situation. If the disclosure of assessment by pension officers bears fruit then perhaps the situation will not deteriorate to the disadvantage of the applicant. I saw results being achieved by old age pension committees when committee members could ensure that allowable costs were admitted. On every occasion it met following a discussion with the applicant at least something emerged which could affect the assessment made. If the Minister can succeed in delivering what he virtually promised tonight, that he will work towards influencing the Government to ensure that there is a disclosure of assessment by social welfare officers, we will possibly compensate for what will be a loss to the community.
Could the Minister say where the deciding officer will be based? There are many supervisory welfare officers throughout the country. Will they be deciding officers or will it be somebody working from the Department of Social Welfare in Dublin? I may be wrong, but my calculation is that the compensation being paid to clerks of committees is something like £150. If that is the case it is a paltry sum indeed. Am I right in assuming that the compensation to each of the clerks of these various committees will be in the region of £150?
The first point is regarding the deciding officer. There is a long-established procedure for dealing with other claims. I suppose the nearest kind of a claim to a non-contributory old age pension is the non-contributory widow's pension. The new provision will mean that the non-contributory old age pension will be subject to the same procedures as a non-contributory widow's pension. The deciding officers are based in Dublin. The case will be investigated like a non-contributory widow's pension and then go to Dublin for decision by the deciding officer.
On the other point, I mentioned figures earlier in the debate as to how compensation for clerks will be calculated. It will be calculated in accordance with the agreements laid down for similar categories of people in the service.
From the figures the Minister, gave I calculate the figure at less than £150, which I think is a very paltry figure.
It depends on their ages and their service. They would differ because some would have very short service, while others would have very long service. It would average out at possibly what the Senator is saying.
Does the Minister not think I have a fairly valid point in asking that the deciding officers be based in the country? After all, we are eliminating the pension committees which are rural based. There is a very strong case to be made for allowing the various supervisors down the country to act as deciding officers in this case rather than send everything back to Dublin. It is something the Minister might consider. It is a fair request, even at this late hour.
Why is the Minister so convinced that these bright boys in Dublin are going to get the results back faster to us in the country than the system we have now? I am amazed at the Minister. He is a solid Carlow-Kilkenny man and I am astonished he should think that the bright sparks in Dublin are going to solve our problems. The Minister gave a figure of £190,000 but I do not know what he was talking about. I was in the Chair at the time and I had to stay quiet. What is the change going to cost? As a sensible Minister, why is he convinced it is going to be better? I think the Minister is wrong.
The Council for the Aged have been examining in detail all aspects of the aged, their conditions, their incomes and everything affecting the services for the aged, and their report will be out soon. They who have studied the whole situation and have put in a tremendous amount of work recommend that the committees should go. One has to take some account of a specialised council who devote much of their time and energies to the matter and who have carried out considerable research. We have to take note of their recommendations.
As I said earlier, the cost of the old age pension committee system at present is £190,000 a year. Staff will be needed at the headquarters to take over the deciding function and the cost of that staff will be £74,000, giving a net saving of approximately £116,000. In the first year there will be the necessity to offset the cost of compensation to the clerks of the committees. I think the compensation figure there will be £50,000 to £55,000. The method of compensation is in line with what applies to part-time, non-pensionable officers in the Civil Service. It is one week's remuneration for each year of service up to 15 years and two weeks for each year in excess of 15 up to a maximum of 78 weeks. The total will be £55,000.
I am amazed at this late hour of debate to be told there is a report and that the findings of the report are as outlined by the Minister. While I am not disputing the findings of this report I am amazed that we should be told about it at this late hour. I would have thought it would have merited a key paragraph on Second Stage by the Minister. It would have given us all the extra piece of information that we are trying to get.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 19 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."
We should express our appreciation of the excellent explanatory memorandum. We often criticise when we do not get a good explanatory memorandum but this is a very good one and the Minister should be congratulated.
Section 27 provides that all decisions relating to old age pensions will be decided by a deciding officer appointed by the Minister. We should not leave the situation without re-emphasising to the Minister that the information on which the deciding officers will make their decision will be information collected by the social welfare officers whose employment is sanctioned in section 19. I would not like to leave it without emphasing to the Minister the importance of making the information available to the applicant in the event of the applicant not receiving the full benefit. The information must be made available to the applicant, and this is absolutely vital.
Since we have unanimously asked the Minister to consider the whole area of information, he could with great benefit look at the whole area of social welfare appeals because many of the problems extend to the area of social welfare appeals and procedures.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 28 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.