Is this the same as in the previous Bill?
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Insurance) Bill, 1951—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question proposed: "That Section 52 stand part of the Bill."
Then it must be all right.
It must be—where the two of us can agree.
I take it that at the end of these proceedings the Minister will move a vote of thanks to me for having left him such a good Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 53.
Question proposed: "That Section 53 stand part of the Bill."
This is also the same?
It is. The effect of this section is to enable the Minister to bring cases rather than ask the Attorney-General to do it in all cases.
It is the same as Section 60 in the previous Bill.
It is.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 54.
Question proposed: "That Section 54 stand part of the Bill."
This is also the same as the previous one.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTIONS 55-58.
Question proposed: "That Section 55 stand part of the Bill."
This is likewise the same.
I am not sure, but I think it is.
It is the same as the previous Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 56 stand part of the Bill."
This is the same. Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 57 stand part of the Bill."
This is also the same.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 58 stand part of the Bill."
This is the same again.
It is the same section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 59.
Question proposed: "That Section 59 stand part of the Bill."
This is new, I think. What has the Minister to say for it?
At least part of it is new. As Deputies are aware, it may be that a married woman would be employing people, as where she would be running her own shop or workshop; and under the law as it stands and decisions given by the late Judge Gavan Duffy, an action against a married woman for recovery of amounts due can only be sustained out of her estate and she cannot be made amenable to the law in regard to being imprisoned for not paying an amount awarded by the court. This puts her on a par with any other employer, that she must take her punishment.
At least the Minister has done his best. The courts might think otherwise.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 60.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (2), page 33, to insert "and any expenses incurred by the Minister in carrying such regulations into effect" before "shall" in line 48 and to insert "or expenses" after "grants" in line 49.
This section deals with grants to funds of superannuation schemes. I referred to this section last night. Where persons are employed by an employer or where they belong to the same trade union, and where they have a scheme that is approved by the Minister, the Minister may pay a contribution into their fund instead of treating the members individually. It is a new principle. It was considered wise to keep a separate account, so that when the accounts are published each year every Deputy would be aware of what is taking place under this section.
Would the Minister say what exactly he has in mind? Can be elaborate the section further?
I am dealing with the amendment first.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 60, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
It has often been put to me, and I am sure to Deputy Norton when he was in my place, that it was rather unfair where you had employees getting a pension—as in the case of Córas Iompair Éireann which was often mentioned—that it should be taken into account to their disadvantage for the old age pension. I thought that the best way to deal with that was to take cases where there was a good scheme of that kind by a large employer or in the case of a trade union which had a very distinct membership—a trade union like the printers, where it is fairly obvious that men who go in would always remain and would not change to another union. If they had a scheme of superannuation, the Minister would be empowered to approve of it and then, instead of paying any old age pension to their members, he would make a contribution to their fund and let them pay whatever superannuation is decided upon.
Let us examine that. This is a kind of provision that finds its way here because of the absence of retirement pensions?
That is right.
If there were a retirement pension under this Bill, as was proposed in the previous Bill, the position would be that a person contributing under the Bill would automatically get a retirement pension at 65 if a man and at 60 if a woman; and a man would get a dependent's allowance for his wife irrespective of the age of the wife, and nobody could deny him the right to that pension. Even if he had a pension from his employer, though it might be a small one, he would still be entitled to get whatever rights he had under the scheme operated by that employer. Once he contributed under the previous Bill, he got the retirement pension and nobody had the right to deprive him of it. That provision has been dropped in this Bill. From what I gather from the Minister, he is taking power here to make some grants to bodies for a kind of staff pensions scheme, under an undertaking, or to a trade union. Do I understand the Minister to say that instead of paying the old age pension he would pay the equivalent value into the kitty of the body operating the pension scheme?
Yes.
Surely not?
Yes, that is the idea.
Wait, now. How can he? Take John Brown, who is a printer and who reaches 70 years of age. There is no provision in the Act preventing John Brown from making application for an old age pension.
That is right.
John can make application. He may have a wife, and by halving the joint income he may qualify either for a whole or a partial pension. Does the Minister propose to say to John Brown: "John, you are not getting a pension because we approved of your superannuation fund and I have already put into it whatever you might get as a pension if you were not a member of that fund"? Surely that is not contemplated?
Not exactly that. I would not say to John Brown that he would not get a pension. What I visualise is that the scheme which these people would prepare would give such a retirement allowance to these people that they would be ineligible for the old age pension. It would be higher than the pension.
I hope that is not the way the scheme is going to operate. Those are uncharted seas so far as the section is concerned. No one knows what the position will be. John Brown may say: "I am a member of the superannuation fund with my firm or trade union and I know that when I reach 70 my income has to be divided by two and I know what that will come to for myself and my wife." Looking at the table in the Bill he will say: "In these circumstances I have a guaranteed right to an old age pension," and he can calculate the amount to which he is entitled. Under the Minister's scheme it is left to someone else to try to formulate a scheme with whatever moneys are got from John, plus whatever moneys are going to be given to them. There is a vagueness about the matter and I think the Minister should try to clear it up.
The Deputy must realise that this is merely an enabling clause. It is naturally very vague because of that, but when we come down to the individual schemes the Deputy may rest assured that no Minister would sanction a scheme unless the persons concerned would do better under it than they would otherwise do with a superannuation scheme and the old age pension combined. Suppose an employer comes along and says that he will make provision for a pension of 15/- a week to his employees; in that case, the employees would be entitled to 21/6 under this Act, making a total of 36/6. I might say to such a person that, if he improved the scheme and guaranteed £2 per week, I would give him a contribution. This is a clause that enables the Minister for Social Welfare to negotiate with employers or trade unions. Before a scheme is actually sanctioned any Orders that have to be made will probably require the approval of the Dáil or possibly further legislation before they can be brought to a conclusion. This clause merely provides an opportunity for negotiating schemes. Further legislation will probably be necessary.
If it is desirable to have it vague, then the Minister has hit the high-water mark because the section is delightfully vague. In so far as this makes for any improvement, I am in favour of it. In so far as it deprives John Brown of better rights which he might have under existing legislation, I must stand for John Brown's rights. The Minister should do one of two things. He should require himself to get agreement under this or he should provide that any such scheme must be passed by a resolution of this House.
I do not want to put the Minister in the position of having to come to the House for every one of a dozen or two dozen schemes that he may make in the course of a year, but he should make provision that any scheme devised will not be less beneficial to this legendary John Brown than anything he would get under existing legislation. The regulations made should be made in agreement with somebody who represents John Brown's interests and who can be relied upon to look after them.
It says: "The Minister may make grants." He will not make grants unless the scheme is a good scheme. I do not think the Deputy's argument holds any weight because if John Brown is getting less than he would otherwise be entitled to he will then be in a position to apply for the old age pension. There is nothing to prevent him getting the amount he would be entitled to in old age pension. It may be assumed, therefore, that no Minister would come to an agreement unless he was getting something more than £2 per week because if John Brown is getting less he can apply for the old age pension. I would not mind bringing in an amendment to the effect that any scheme must have the approval of the Dáil and the Seanad.
I am not thinking of approval of the Dáil and the Seanad in the sense that they have a right to repeal something within 21 days.
I am thinking of prior approval.
If the Minister is prepared to get prior approval I am satisfied.
I am quite prepared to do that.
As far as I understand the section, it is introducing something new. It is an encouragement to groups of persons, such as those mentioned in the section, to provide a superannuation scheme of their own. That scheme is examined by the Minister and his experts and, if it is considered to be a good scheme, the Minister can then decide to make a grant towards it. I think that is a desirable thing and I see nothing wrong with it.
It is, if you like, an attempt at vocationalism.
Save us from that.
I merely mentioned that because I thought Deputy Hickey might be interested.
Section 60, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 61.
Question proposed: "That Section 61 stand part of the Bill."
I wonder if my interpretation of Section 61 is correct? I think it is the same as the provision in the previous Bill. Under this Bill we are repealing the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. Under that Act the position was that money was voted by the Dáil and paid to a fund which administered the widows' and orphans' contributory and non-contributory pensions. That fund was kept at a certain level by means of allocations in order to enable it to meet the demands. We are now repealing that Act, and we are winding up the pensions fund. Consequently there will be no filtering in of moneys to the widows' and orphans' pensions fund to pay the non-contributory pensions. Am I right in thinking that the purpose of this section is to provide that the non-contributory side will in future be paid through the medium of voted moneys?
That is quite right. At the present time both the contributory and non-contributory pensions are drawn from the fund, and the fund is replenished from time to time. Under the new conditions that would seem to be a senseless proceeding. Money will be voted by the Dáil for the Department of Social Welfare, and there is no reason why these pensions should not be paid out of voted moneys.
When the ceiling was raised from £250 to £500 I came across a case where a man had been insured for 33 years, had gone over the ceiling at the £250, was brought in again at the £500 but died in less than a year after that. His widow found that she could not draw a pension because she did not have 156 contributions since the last entry to insurance. There is now an extension from £500 to £600. Can such a situation occur again? If it can I think provision should be made now to meet such a case.
I am afraid the position has not changed as far as that is concerned. When a man comes back again into insurance because of the ceiling being raised he must requalify.
He will have to have the 156 contributions before he qualifies.
Yes.
I think that is very unfair.
The position is not quite as bleak as the Deputy thinks. If a person is at present insured because he is under the £500 ceiling, as it has been until now, or the £600 ceiling in the future, that person can become a voluntary contributor. Once he goes over the £500 ceiling at the present time, or the £600 ceiling in the future, he will be notified that he has gone over it and he will simultaneously be notified of his right to become a voluntary contributor. He is told of his right to become a voluntary contributor. If he exercises that right within 18 months, he can still qualify his widow for a widow's pension by maintaining his membership as a voluntary contributor. The real difficulty in this matter —I am wondering whether some greater emphasis could not be put on it—is that a lot of folk thoughtlessly think: "Well, I am over the £500 mark now and I have not to pay this contribution each week in future," for getting that this small contribution qualifies his widow and children for a widow's pension. They get that entitlement to a pension at a rate of contribution which is absurdly low by actuarial standards.
I would like, if possible, that some greater effort should be made to induce a person who is passing out of insurance, on moving over the £500 or the £600 mark, to continue with his voluntary contribution, because the small contribution which he makes is trifling when compared to the very valuable benefits which he is assuring to his wife and children in the event of death. He certainly has the right to do so, but the problem always has been to get such persons to take a sufficient interest in the matter to exercise that right.
I agree with Deputy Norton that the benefits which are payable for the small contribution that has to be made are very valuable. What I am afraid of is that you will hardly find one person in 100, when they reach that stage, who realises what it means for them not to continue the voluntary contribution. That has been my experience. I agree that some effort should be made to get people to realise that. In fact, it might be well to make them realise it by having to pay some sort of a compulsory contribution for a period. At any rate, I agree with Deputy Norton that some effort should be made to make such people realise what the position is going to be, should they die, as regards the pension payable to their widows and children.
It is a case which should be considered. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Norton that emphasis should be laid on this matter. Whether there should be some concession or not I do not know, but the matter is one which we can consider.
I have in mind the case of a widow who is cut off and will not get the non-contributory pension until she reaches the age of 48.
That problem is not dealt with in the Bill at all. That relates to the non-contributory pension.
Are we not dealing with the non-contributory pension in Section 61?
You are dealing with both.
Take the case of the widow who is getting the non-contributory pension. When her children reach the age of 14, she is cut off, and will not come back to the non-contributory pension until she reaches the age of 48. I know a number of these cases and they are very sad ones. They have to go to the home assistance officer to get home assistance. Would it not be possible to make some provision for them? Take the case of a widow at 45 years of age. When her children reach the age of 14, she loses the widow's pension and does not qualify again for a pension until she reaches the age of 48. At the age of 45, she finds it very hard to get employment, even as a housekeeper. I know one person who is minding her father, a man of 82 years of age. She has no pension because she has not yet reached the age of 48. I think provision should be made for people like her in a Bill of this kind.
There is no change as far as that is concerned, except a slight one. Under the present law, the widow draws a pension until the children reach the age of 14 years, or if they continue to go to school between the ages of 14 and 16 there is the slight concession that she will draw the pension until they are 16. She will also get her own pension. There will, of course, be cases such as Deputy Hickey has mentioned of women going off the widows' pension and coming back again at 48.
The provision in the original Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act was that if the widow did not qualify for a non-contributory pension she held the pension so long as there was one qualified child under 14 years of age. When the youngest child reached the age of 14 years, the widow went off the pension and could not qualify again until she was 55. In 1948, I amended the permanent qualifying age by bringing it down from 55 to 48. Therefore, as a result of the 1948 Act, a person could requalify at 48 whereas previously she had to wait until she was 55. I do not know what the cost of bringing the age down to 45 would be. The figure is conjectural. I imagine it would not be too easy to check it. But some test could, I think, probably be made on what the cost of bringing the age down from 55 to 48 involved. Perhaps the Minister would look into that between now and the Report Stage, and, in the light of the information he gets, see what the cost of bringing the age for requalification down from 48 to 45 would be.
I suppose I must admit that it is desirable to do something about it. If we are going to make any change, I do not see any use in bringing it down to 45. I think the amendment should be that the pension to the widow should continue. That is what I would like to investigate, and see what that would cost.
That is the point that I would like to emphasise. I feel that it is not at all just that because one poor widow, whose husband was unemployed for a couple of years before he died, should be denied the non-contributory pension, while a widow whose husband was employed up to the time of his death should get the contributory pension, and at the same time be free to earn what she could. This is a problem which, I think, we shall have to approach in an entirely different manner from the way in which it is being approached. My opinion is that, when the children reach the age of 14 years, leave school and go to work, the widow should continue to get the non-contributory pension. I think that any other approach to this problem is altogether wrong.
If you do bring the age down to 45, or to a lower figure, it means that if a woman gave birth to a child at 29 years of age, or at any time after that, she is qualified for a widow's pension because of the fact that the child was born. That will qualify her for the pension until she is 45. If you bring the figure down to 45, then she qualifies permanently. It would meet 95 per cent. of these cases.
If I were to accept that, is it not obvious that Deputy Hickey would be telling me about some woman who gave birth to a child at the age of 27?
I cannot agree with Deputy Norton's point of view that that should be a condition for getting the pension.
May I ask what has happened to the Fine Gael Deputies? There is not one Fine Gael Deputy present on the benches opposite.
That is not relevant to the Bill.
Section 61 seems to me to be the same as the section in the previous Bill, with the exception of sub-section (2). In sub-section (2) the words "thirty-two shillings" are inserted instead of "thirty-eight shillings" in the previous Bill. Would the Minister relate this Section 61 to Section 94, and explain why "thirty-eight" is "thirty-two"?
The Deputy is wrong. The Deputy had nothing about increases for non-contributory pensions in the Bill of 1950. It was contributory pensions he dealt with only. This is a new principle, bringing in increases for non-contributory pensions.
Will the Minister look at Section 67 of the old Bill? Sub-section (2) is exactly the same, the words ending on the same lines, as in the previous Bill, with the exception that "thirty-eight" is "thirty-two". Is that so or is it not?
Yes, that is right.
So, the first statement was not correct at all?
My statement was that the Deputy in his Bill did not give an increase to non-contributory pensions.
If you want to get fractious about this, we can all do that.
No; I only want to tell the truth.
That is good. I commend you on that. Will you relate Section 61 to Section 94 and explain why "thirty-two" is here instead of "thirty-eight"?
I am getting into knots here. I cannot follow this Bill on this line of argument. There is a Bill before the House to be discussed section by section and it is being discussed in relation to a Bill which did not pass through the House. Perhaps Deputy Norton will put it in some way that those Deputies who are interested would understand. One certainly does not come to the House to discuss a Bill like this section by section armed with another Bill that has not been passed into law.
Neither has this been passed into law.
It is going into law. I cannot follow the discussion.
And it was never intended that that Bill would become law.
Let us be serious.
It is time you stopped that cant and humbug. I am surprised at Deputy Carter.
Deputy Norton is quite entitled to ask why "thirty-two" is in the section instead of "thirty-eight".
Yes. It is fair enough.
I cannot follow that. It may be an intelligent question. I am sure it is.
The reason why "thirty-two" is introduced is that the non-contributory widow's pension fixed under this Bill will be 20/- per week. Up to the moment it ranges from 10/- to 16/- a week, according to residence. She will also get allowances for the first two children of 6/- each. That makes 32/- and it is obvious, of course, that anyone applying for pension in future cannot get more than 32/- a week and, therefore, it is put down here.
So that the 32/- here which you are providing now is the maximum?
Yes.
The maximum in the other Bill was 38/-, is not that so?
Yes, and the minimum was 10/-.
The position is that under this Bill the maximum is now being reduced from 38/- to 32/-. Is not that the position?
I would like to say, of course, so that innocent Deputies may understand, that the point is that the widow with two children could not reach 38/- under the Bill referred to by Deputy Norton unless she had a very big family of eight or ten children. Of course, under the new arrangement, when we take the allowance for herself and two children and children's allowances for the rest, she will be a good deal better off.
She got children's allowances under the other Bill too.
To a certain extent.
For every child. Every child was the same under the other Bill for the purposes of children's allowances.
She will get more now.
They all got the same.
Does the Minister make any promise about the non-contributory woman to whom I referred?
I am looking into that. The case the Deputy refers to is a non-contributory widow with children?
Yes.
When the last child reaches 16 years of age she goes off.
Yes.
I am looking into that point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 62.
Question proposed: "That Section 62 stand part of the Bill."
There is a small point on the section. The section provides that if any person entitled to benefit under the Bill is entitled to apply for home assistance and does apply for home assistance, the authorities investigating home assistance will not take into consideration any benefit except so far as such benefit exceeds 10/- a week.
That is right.
In other words, if the person is receiving any benefit in excess of 10/- a week the excess over 10/- a week will be taken into account in connection with the application for home assistance. I do not know whether that is an improvement on the position. It probably is.
It is the present position.
Where a person is an applicant for home assistance I do not think that the benefit that they already receive ought to be taken into consideration at all. That is the point I wanted to raise in regard to it.
This was originally 5/- until 1948. In the 1948 Act it was amended to make it 10/- and it has been 10/- since 1948. Bearing in mind the upward movement of prices since then, and as this does not involve any extra expenditure from a State point of view, would the Minister reconsider the provision with a view to adjusting the 10/- upwards, having regard to the increased cost of living since 1948? It is 10/- since 1948. By keeping it at 10/- the local authority would save certain moneys. The State would not be asked to pay anything additional if 15/-, for instance, were inserted as a sum which would be disregarded by the local authority in assessing a claim for home assistance. Probably it would not be doing any more than bringing the 10/- to its 1948 level. There is no additional expenditure involved so far as the State is concerned.
In the case of the National Health Insurance Act and in the case of the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act it was amended, as the Deputy says, in 1948, but the Children's Allowances Act was not amended and, as far as I know, neither was the Unemployment Insurance Act. They all stand now at 10/-, anyway. Personally, I cannot see very much in this clause at all because the public assistance authority are supposed to give subsistence.
That is right.
I do not see that it makes a great deal of difference.
I have argued this case with local authorities where home assistance officers may want to say: "You have got 10/-," and have been able to argue successfully that they are obliged to disregard that 10/- in the case of necessitous persons.
As a member of a public assistance authority for a long time, I know that when an application comes for home assistance the first thing the officer says is: "You are helped by the State and it is not our duty to intervene. You are already assisted by the State and it is not our function to improve on what the State considers necessary."
The Deputy must be aware that even if a man is earning money the public assistance authority are bound to come to his rescue if he needs it. I do not think this makes any difference.
I cannot see much purpose in Section 62, because the home assistance authorities make their own rules. In County Wexford—the county which the Minister and I have in mind—they get 8/- per person in home assistance. They reckon 8/- is sufficient per person when they come to the assistance of an individual or family and they will not have any regard at all for the section, no matter what the figure is. The Minister said that they are bound to do certain things, but so far as local authorities are concerned, with their alleged interest in rising rates, it is pure theory so far as that type of assistance is concerned. They do not accept the responsibility.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 63 agreed to.
SECTION 64.
Question proposed: "That Section 64 stand part of the Bill."
This is the same as the section in the previous Bill, I take it?
Yes.
Can the Minister say if any reciprocal arrangements have been made in the last 12 months?
No, nothing has come to a head.
It is very necessary that something should be done. I had the case recently of a woman who was getting the pension in England, and who came to live in Cork with her daughter. She is not getting the pension from England or here. I mentioned a case yesterday of a lady who is getting a pension from the Northern Government, but who gets only 10/- because she is living outside what they call the State. Although she is living in Ireland, she does not get the increase. There is also the case of a woman whose husband died in England, having been there for ten and a half years. She is not getting the full pension because she is not living in England. The time has arrived when the matter should be taken up with both Governments so as to arrive at a reciprocal arrangement under which widows will not be deprived of their pensions.
There is also the case of the wife of a person insured in England who gives birth to a child and to whom the maternity grant is not paid by the British Government. They ask the usual questions to find out if the confinement took place in Britain or in the Six Counties. A man employed as a seaman with any British company will not receive the grant in respect of a newlyborn child, unless the confinement takes place in some part of Britain or the Six Counties. There is a case for the Minister taking that type of thing up with the British Government, with a view to seeing whether some satisfactory arrangement can be come to. The husband has paid the insurance contributions, and should be entitled to the same benefit as if he had been working over here. It seems a shame to deprive them of it.
I think the question of confinement has been dealt with.
Only recently?
Yes, fairly recently. I am not too clear on the details, but it has been dealt with satisfactorily, I think.
The Minister appreciates the difficulties that existed?
Yes.
The new arrangement must have been made within the last six months.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Question proposed: "That Section 65 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section which provides for the winding-up of the Insurance Industry Unemployment Insurance Fund.
It is the only scheme of that kind in operation.
Have you resolved the problem of what you are going to do with the staff of that body?
We have more or less come to an agreement on that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 66.
Question proposed: "That Section 66 stand part of the Bill."
This is the same as the section in the previous Bill, but there is one point to which I want to refer, in the light of the discussion yesterday with regard to the people who may now be exempt from the scope of the Bill, according to what the Minister said. The section provides that no person shall after the appointed day be insured or deemed to be or treated as insured (a) under the National Health Insurance Bill, 1911, (b) under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, or any scheme under that Act, or (c) under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, 1935, and this throws us back to the position of the voluntary contributor. If it is proposed, as the Minister indicated yesterday, in reply to representations made, to respect the position of the voluntary contributors who are covered at present under the National Health Insurance Act, it will be necessary to make some provision in this Bill, or in regulations to be made later by the Minister, to carry these people's rights into the future under the National Health Insurance Acts, because they have been voluntary contributors in the past and presumably will continue to contribute for disability benefit and treatment benefit in future.
This really deals with the transition period. The first sub-section says that they are no longer to be treated as insured under the existing Acts. They will come in under the new Act.
That is understandable, because this Act will replace the older Acts.
Sub-section (2) deals with the transition period with regard to people who have been insured under the Acts and how their contributions will be treated. It is proposed to treat them fairly generously by giving them more credit than is due to them.
Will the Minister bear in mind, when considering this matter between now and the Report Stage, the necessity for safeguarding the position of these voluntary contributors whom I have mentioned?
Yes.
And, if they are cut out by this, to see that they come in by some other door?
I have a note of that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 67.
Question proposed: "That Section 67 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (4) preserves the right to certain moneys which may be due to the fund immediately before the appointed day and holds these moneys for whatever new fund is created under this Bill. Under the 1945 Unemployment Insurance Act, the State owes to the unemployment insurance fund a sum of approximately £1,500,000 in respect of persons who joined the Army during the emergency. The State undertook to pay into the unemployment insurance fund contributions for these folk in respect of every week they served in the Army. On discharge from the Army, it was contemplated that they would be entitled to unemployment insurance benefit by virtue of the contributions paid on their behalf, so as to give some sustenance until they were able to rehabilitate themselves in civilian life.
What the State did in the 1945 Act was to pay no contributions—the State did not pay the contributions it was liable to pay under that Act—but to send the soldiers discharged from the Army to the employment exchange, where they were paid the ordinary rates of unemployment insurance benefit out of the "kitty" which was already there, but the State did not put into the fund the contributions which it undertook to pay under the 1945 Act. I understand that the position at the moment is the State owes about £1,500,000 under that Act to the fund. I know, of course, that the Finance Department were seeking to escape paying that contribution, and it would surprise me if they will pay it. Perhaps the Minister would say what the position is in regard to the £1,500,000 which the State owes for soldiers' contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
I think the claim made by the Department of Social Welfare on the Department of Finance over 12 months ago was more in the region of £1,200,000. It was for the reason stated by the Deputy that the Department of Social Welfare had continued to cover the soldiers. When they came out, these soldiers drew benefit. That matter is being pursued. I must say that I am not too clear as to what benefit we would get by making the Department of Finance pay up because the fund is being invested and the purpose of the investment is that the Department of Social Welfare will get a certain return from that fund, but the Minister for Finance will have to make up the remainder.
Is there not a contractual obligation under the 1945 Act to pay?
I do not think it would make much difference to the Minister for Finance because it is only a notional thing anyway.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 68 and 69 agreed to.
SECTION 70.
Question proposed: "That Section 70 stand part of the Bill."
As we discussed this matter yesterday in relation to the position of voluntary contributors I do not suppose it is necessary to go over the same ground now. I took the trouble in the meantime to look up the position. There are approximately 2,000 voluntary contributors. It was mentioned yesterday that there were only 400. Actually there are 2,000 and there may be even more. Will the Minister bear Section 70 in mind when considering the position of voluntary contributors under the previous section which we discussed?
Yes. This section, of course, is only continuing their right by giving them a certain time to apply. I have taken a note of the other matter already.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 71 put and agreed to.
SECTION 72.
Question proposed: "That Section 72 stand part of the Bill."
This section is the same as that which was in the previous Bill. There was provision in connection with "the appointed day". The Minister may appoint such day and different days if necessary for the different purposes of the Act or for the same purpose in relation to different cases or classes of case. Yesterday we discussed the question of exempting certain persons from the scope of the Act. What I would call the Minister's attention to is the necessity for making provision to ensure that he does not make an appointed day operative in respect of a class of worker whose position vis-á-vis exemption from the Bill may not have been decided at the time the Minister makes the Order.
Suppose this Bill is passed and the Minister makes the 1st July the operative date for the Bill but at that time has not made regulations clarifying the position in respect of those classes which may be exempt from the scope of the Bill, I want to make sure that whatever rights they have will be safeguarded before the Minister makes the appointed day operative for the purpose of bringing this Bill into operation.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 73 put and agreed to.
SECTION 74.
I move amendment No. 11:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) The Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1948, and Chapter V of this Part of this Act may be cited together as the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1952.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 74, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 75.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (1), page 40, line 41, and in sub-section (2), page 41, line 6, to delete "1948" and substitute "1952".
Amendment put and agreed to.
I should like to mention that it will be necessary to bring in a further amendment on Report Stage to cover the period between July and January. I am only mentioning the matter at this stage. I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (2), page 41, line 5, to delete "allowances" and substitute "allowance".
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 75, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 77.
I move amendment No. 14:—
To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-sections:—
(1) As from the 4th day of July, 1952, the rates of 20/-, 15/-, 10/- and 5/- set forth in the table to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1951 shall each be increased by 1/6.
(2) As from the 2nd day of January, 1953, a pension shall, subject to Section 13 of the Act of 1948 as amended by this section, be at the rate set forth in the table to this sub-section in lieu of the rate fixed by Section 4 of the Act of 1951 as amended by sub-section (1) of this section.
TABLE.
RATE OF PENSION.
|
Means of Claimant or Pensioner |
Rate of pension per week |
|
|
s. |
d. |
|
|
Where the yearly means of the claimant or pensioner as duly calculated— do not exceed £52 10s. 0d. |
21 |
6 |
|
exceed £52 10s. 0d. but do not exceed £65 10s. 0d. |
16 |
6 |
|
,, £65 10s. 0d. ,, ,, ,, ,, £78 10s. 0d. |
11 |
6 |
|
,, £78 10s. 0d. ,, ,, ,, ,, £104 15s. 0d. |
6 |
6 |
|
,, £104 15s. 0d. |
No pension |
I do not think it is necessary to deal with this in detail because it was discussed very fully on the Budget when the old age pensions were increased by 1/6 per week.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 77, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The section provides for the assessment of the old age pension amounts that are to be paid from 21/6 down to 6/6. It relates to means. I have been asked to make an appeal on this section to the Minister to insert a clause or a sub-section in the section to provide that military service pensions will not count as means, and that special allowances under the Military Service Pensions Acts will not count as means either. Under the old Bill, I think there was provision whereby a proportion of the special allowance would not count as means for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Acts.
Would the Deputy look at paragraph (g) of the Seventh Schedule on page 64?
Paragraph (g), to which Deputy Norton has drawn my attention, refers to
"an allowance, special allowance, dependent's allowance, disability pension or wound pension under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1949, or a combination of such allowances and such pensions except so far as such amount exceeds £80 per year."
I would ask the Minister to remove that limitation of £80, so that a military service pension, a special allowance or any other allowances mentioned in paragraph (g) of the Seventh Schedule will not count as means for the purpose of old age pensions. A strong case has been made by members representing the organised Old I.R.A. They have asked me to put that point to the Minister on this Bill and I do so. I think there is no necessity to point out to him why that should be done. I do not think it necessary for me to refer to the services rendered by these men to the State. When they reach the age of 70 and are entitled to the old age pension, I think that everyone would agree that, because of their services to the State, that pension should be paid in full without any deduction because of their receiving any military pension. I feel that, in pressing the Minister, I am pushing an open door. I would ask him to consider this and bring in an amendment on Report providing that such a person should receive the maximum old age pension without any deduction.
I do not want to go back over the speech I made on the Second Reading or on the Budget. I think that we could discuss the proposed increase of 1/6 per week to old age pensioners without heat or acrimony. I have reckoned, and I think that any Deputy in the House will discover, that the withdrawal of the food subsidies will mean increased expenditure of 2/1½ per week from the 1st July next provided that the old age pensioner continues to buy 6 lb. of bread, the ration for a while back, ½ lb. of butter, ¾ lb. of sugar and 2 oz. of tea. It is proposed in this section to compensate him or her to the extent of 1/6 per week. I do not think we are doing full justice to the people over 70 by asking them to pay that increase and offering them as compensation 1/6 per week. Even if we admit for the sake of argument that a gap of £15,000,000 had to be bridged this year to balance the Budget and that the people of the country must make some sacrifices, work and produce more and pay more in taxes, I do not think that anybody in the State would say that a sacrifice should be demanded of the old age pensioners. For that reason I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision to grant a mere 1/6 per week to these people. The 2/1½ I have mentioned is not the whole story; there is the smoke and the drink, which will cost more. The result of the Budget, even taking this relief into consideration, will be that the old age pensioners' standard of living will be affected very much to their detriment. If a sacrifice is demanded from the country I think that there are enough of us to make it without making the old age pensioners suffer. The Minister should at least compensate the old age pensioners who will have to pay more than the 1/6 offered to them.
There are in the City of Dublin and I know in my own constituency certain old age pensioners who live alone. There are also many old pairs, both receiving the old age pension, living in one room and paying rent. That type of person which we have in Dublin finds it more difficult to make ends meet than the pensioner who lives with a son, daughter or any other relative and who is not paying rent. Where the old age pensioner is paying rent and obtaining fuel, even though he can obtain it through the machinery for cheap or free fuel under the board of assistance, he has great difficulty in making ends meet. Some arrangement should be made—it may not be necessary to make it in the old age pension provisions—to supplement his old age pension to enable him to pay rent, to buy fuel and meet the ordinary demands of existence.
It may well be of course that this amendment has its roots rather in the Budget and its consequences than in social welfare; at all events we will meet the problems here in this Bill by the amendment which proposes to grant 1/6 per week to old age pensioners to compensate them for the effects of the Budget. I think of course that 1/6 is absurdly inadequate having regard to the impact of the Budget on the lives of these unfortunate people. Everybody knows that the old age pensioner lives in the main on tea and bread and butter. That represents fish for him and it represents meat for him. His invariable meal is tea and bread and butter. He is lucky enough if in his circumstances and at his age he can do anything more than that. You might say that, in the main, these are the staple articles of diet of ordinary old age pensioners, particularly those who receive no assistance from better-off relatives. What we are doing under this Bill is giving effect to a proposal made in the Budget speech to provide 1/6 a week as compensation for the effect of the Budget on the old age pensioners' domestic budget. We are saying that, in our view, 18d. is sufficient to compensate him for the increased price which he will pay for 21 meals in the week by reason of the fact that in the future his tea will be dearer, his butter will be dearer, his sugar and his bread will be dearer. If he is a human being who smokes cigarettes or smokes tobacco or likes to take a drink, to which perhaps he was accustomed in his more youthful life, then he must compensate himself for the additional charges in respect of tobacco and liquor plus all the additional charges in respect of these four or five items of foodstuffs which represent his means of subsistence.
Nobody will attempt to say in fairness that offering 18d. per week extra to an old age pensioner to cover the cost of a higher price of 21 meals in the week, plus the additional cost of tobacco and liquor, represents fair compensation. The Minister ought to take back this proposal to the Government with a view to securing a substantially higher increase for old age pensioners in particular, because, in the main, no exertion or ingenuity on their part is ever likely to result in their being able to increase their present income. The allowances provided for in the Bill are absurdly inadequate in view of the impact of the Budget on the lives of these unfortunate people. The Minister and the Government generally ought to provide for the payment of a higher allowance to old age pensioners.
In regard to the point raised, first of all by Deputy Cowan as regards special allowances, disability and wound pensions, and so on——
And military service pensions.
——I will leave that to be dealt with separately. Such persons are covered to the extent of £80 per year. I am not sure of my authority on this, but if a person has no other income I do not see why he would not get another £50 means test allowance. He is entitled to an allowance up to £1 a week without having his pension reduced, so that if the Deputy has in mind a wound pensioner or disability pensioner who has no other means, he could actually draw up to £130 a year and get an old age pension. He is the only person who has no other means who would be entitled to £80. Such people are definitely getting £80 more than anybody else.
With regard to the other points raised, I have no desire to revive the discussion on the Budget because I am very anxious to get through this Bill, but I cannot agree that 1/6 is not sufficient to cover the increase in cost of the four items—tea, sugar, bread and butter. These figures have been given more than once. I have not got them with me now but they could be produced. If the person is drawing his ration only the increased cost would be between 1/6 and 1/7. If he is drawing less than the ration the increase will not be so much.
Certainly I do not feel that an old age pensioner will draw less than the ration because I agree with Deputy Norton that the old age pensioner is depending to a great extent on tea, sugar, bread and butter. If he draws more than the ration his case is a bit better because, if he was drawing more than the ration of, say, bread, tea or butter, he was paying more for the extra ration than he will be paying under the new circumstances. Consequently, it is the man who is drawing exactly the ration, neither more nor less, who will be suffering most on account of the increased food prices; and even taking that man who is drawing exactly the ration, his increased cost is somewhere between 1/6 and 1/7.
Listening to the Minister, I am confirmed in the belief that both this Government and the last Government have a similar attitude in regard to the old age pensioners. I could never understand why we were so niggardly in regard to these people. The maximum benefit they received is 21/6. Two weeks ago we were informed by the Taoiseach that the £1 to-day could only purchase 9/9 worth of goods as compared with 1938 and 1939. We can discuss this matter for a week or a month, but it will not alter the fact that the individual old age pensioner has to live on 21/6 per week for the seven days of the week. To divide that 21/6 by seven gives you 3/- a day, as Deputy Cowan says, to pay rent to provide heating and light, food and clothing. Surely it is time we concentrated our minds on that consideration rather than on the compensation he will have by giving him another 1/6.
It is amazing how these things can be brought home to every one of us. Last Saturday I met an old age pensioner on the street; he held me up, and his comments as to how the Dáil were treating the old age pensioners were anything but complimentary. He pulled ½ oz. of tobacco out of his pocket and he said: "Here is what I got for 1/-, ½ oz. of tobacco." That is the reality of the situation as far as the old age pensioner is concerned. If he wanted to go out and get a pint he would have to pay 3d. more for it. I am not stressing the subjects of tobacco and drink, but I know cases of men and women who are over 70 who have to live on the old age pension, and I can never understand why either this Government or the last Government were so niggardly about giving something more to them.
Surely, if they got another 2/6 or 5/- they would not be putting it in the post office or the bank. It is money that would go into circulation. It would not be misspent, but would be used in the service of the community. We do not want to be scoring points on one side or the other, and I would appeal to the Minister to ask the Government to consider increasing the old age pension. It is time we faced up to that problem.
I would ask the Minister to deal, first and foremost, with the point I made in regard to the matter of special allowances and dependents' allowances, etc., as set out in paragraph (g) of the Seventh Schedule. I would say it to the Minister that his interpretation that £130 can possibly be received by one of those applicants without affecting his old age pension—and that may be so— makes the case all the stronger for treating the complete amount received in those allowances as not being means for the purpose of this Act. I would ask the Minister to consider that. I know it would have a very good effect if those persons who had served with the old I.R.A. and, as a result of their services, had qualified for pensions, would get this special credit now for those services. I would also impress on the Minister, what has been strongly put to me, that military service pensions should not count as means for the purposes of this Act. I would ask the Minister also to indicate that he will consider that between now and the Report Stage.
I wonder whether it would be possible for the Minister to give some allowance to the old age pensioner who lives alone or with his wife, and is not receiving any assistance from a relative? It would be a great help if these people could be given some special allowance to cover rent and fuel—a charge that would not be upon an old age pensioner living with a son, a daughter or some other relative.
I do not propose to pursue this argument to any great lengths, because I know that the Minister and the Government have made up their minds with regard to the proposed increase for old age pensioners.
They could change their minds.
Deputy Briscoe assured us and the Taoiseach assured us that the new price of tea would be 5/- per lb. When the new prices come into operation, the old age pensioner will have to pay 4d. extra if he wishes to buy an additional 2 oz. of tea; it will cost him 5d. extra for ½ lb. of butter and 1¾d. extra for ¾ lb. sugar. I think we are agreed on both sides of the House that bread is the staple food. When the new prices come into operation, 6 lb. of bread will cost 2/1¾d.
I agree with the Deputy's first three figures, but what does he calculate that 6 lb. of bread will cost?
I cannot say exactly, but I have calculated that the increase will be 2½d. per lb.
That is not correct. The increase will be 3d. for 2 lb.
That brings my figure down to 1/7¾d.
That is right. My calculation was that the ration of bread was not as high as 6 lb. I put it at 5 lb.
It is 6 lb., which will cost the old age pensioner 1/7¾d. after 1st July. Two ounces of tea does not last a man or a woman of 70 years of age very long; these people make tea four or five times per day. Neither does ½ lb. of butter last them very long. I would say that 6 lb. of bread might be adequate, but ¾ lb. sugar would not. Again, we cannot ignore the fact that an old age pensioner requires an ounce or half an ounce of tobacco, a bottle of stout or, as I said before, even a small whiskey or a Baby Power the day he draws his pension. Again, let me repeat that if the Government demands a sacrifice from the taxpayers of this country, they should not inflict the hardships brought about by that demand on the people of 70 years of age and upwards. If the Government made a demand on me to pay an increase for this, that or the other thing, I would say to myself that I could bear that demand because I am a reasonably young man. However, it is not fair that the old age pensioner should have his living standards depressed at the present time. I feel that the Government and the Minister should indicate that, in view of the proposals contained in the Budget, they will consider giving another shilling or two to the old age pensioner so as to compensate him for the increase in the cost of living that will take place from the 1st July onwards.
I agree with what Deputy Corish and Deputy Cowan have said as regards this increase to old age pensioners. We in the Fianna Fáil Party have a lot of sympathy with those people. I am sure that the Minister and the Government will do anything they can for them to alleviate their hardship. They are the one section of the community, I would not like to see suffering. I would like to see them helped out, and would be glad if anything could be done.
I asked the Department of Social Welfare to investigate the possibility of differentiating between the old age pensioner living alone and the other type of old age pensioner— the one living with a son, a daughter or other relative. When I got the report, I said to myself that it would be impossible to try to differentiate.
Will the Minister consider what I put to him regarding military service pensions, as distinct from the allowances?
I am inclined to regard a military service pension in much the same light as retiring allowances for a teacher, a civil servant or anybody else. We must regard it as being in that category when considering it as means when it comes to an application for an old age pension. I cannot see how we can differentiate in that case, or take it out for special mention.
The only point that would be against that was the point made by Deputy McGilligan when Minister for Finance. We were pressing him very strongly to give an increase to military service pensioners at the time when other pensions were increased. He said then—I think he made the official case—that military service pensions were not pensions in the sense of retiring allowances; that they were just allowances paid to a man because of special services and, because of that peculiarity, he would not consider increasing them in any circumstances. I say that that being so, it would give an interpretation to the military service pensions that would entitle the Minister to consider leaving them out as means for the purposes of this Bill.
I must admit that that is a good point. We can consider it.
That section can be looked at through the Seventh Schedule. In the Seventh Schedule there is a provision made for exempting disability and wound pensions from means, provided that such means do not exceed £80 per annum. In the previous Social Welfare Bill I broke new ground by putting in that provision. It was the first time that wound or disability pensions were excluded from the point of view of calculating means for old age pension purposes. I think the calculation which I then made was that the provision covered approximately 75 per cent. of those who were at the time in receipt of wound or disability pensions. I do not regard the provision as absolutely ideal. Personally I would welcome an extension of that amount, but at all events it is the first time a move was made to exclude these pensions for the purpose of the calculation of means on application for an old age pension.
Similarly I notice that the Minister has embodied in sub-sections (h) (1) and (h) (2) a liberalised means test produced by me in the 1948 Social Welfare Act. That will continue to operate in future. Likewise I notice that in sub-section (2) of that schedule he has also given effect to the proposals which I indicated on the previous Social Welfare Bill would be introduced which encouraged the assignment of land by farmers to sons or daughters so as to encourage early marriages and at the same time assure the father who owned the land that on such assignment an old age pension would be virtually guaranteed to him. These things, taken together, represent quite a substantial liberalisation of the means test as previously applied. In that respect they have everything to commend them. I do not say that we ought not to go further; I think we should go further as circumstances permit. But from my point of view I am glad to see that these provisions which were previously announced are being copied in the schedule.
On paragraph (g) of the Seventh Schedule, there is a point I should like to raise. This makes provision for excluding amounts under £80 per year from means where that sum is received by way of a disability pension, but the exclusion is only made in respect of persons who served in our Army. Cases were brought to my notice, and I must say that I sympathised with them to such an extent that I proposed in my Bill to meet the claim where persons who served in the British Army and were receiving small disability or wound pensions approximately equivalent to the types of pensions granted by our own Army, were denied their entitlement to an old age pension simply because the British Government paid them a pension in respect of the maiming or other injury which they sustained in the war.
Quite frankly, I felt it was a bit unfair that because another Government paid an Irishman for having been maimed in the war, we should say to an estimable citizen of our own country: "We will give you nothing because the British pay", the inference clearly there being that if the British paid him nothing we would have to pay. If the British merely paid him for the injuries sustained in the war, perhaps permanent injuries, it seemed to me unfair and unreasonable that we should say to that person: "Because the British Government have given you a disability pension in respect of wounds you have suffered, we will give you no old age pension."
There are statistics available of the number of persons who might come under a clause of this kind if it were extended to cover, say, wound or disability pensions from the British Army, and I do not think that the cost would be very considerable. I proposed to meet it when the matter was raised with me on the previous Social Welfare Bill. I suggest that in a matter of this kind where we are dealing with human beings who have been disfigured or otherwise maimed, it is not reasonable that we should make a discrimination between one and the other. I ask the Minister to look at that aspect of the matter with a view to the introduction of an amendment on the Report Stage.
I considered the matter and I found it impossible to meet it, but not for political reasons. It is a very difficult matter to cover.
In what way is it difficult to meet it?
For one thing, I think we should at least expect reciprocity. It would be hardly fair to expect this country to make provisions dealing with those who served with British forces if the British Government were not prepared to do the same thing for our I.R.A. pensioners.
I do not know whether that presents an insuperable difficulty. I take it this matter was not discussed with the British Government.
Not officially.
In any case, from that standpoint the people who would be effected would be only those working in Great Britain. If they work in Great Britain, they qualify for retirement pensions as a matter of right, and there is no means test whatever. What you are trying to do now is to compare a situation in which we operate a means test with a condition of affairs in Great Britain in which a person contributes and no means test operates. There is a completely different set of circumstances there. I do not know of anybody who would leave here to live in Great Britain on the wound or disability pension he gets from this Government. If you look at the wound and disability pensions which are being paid, you will see that, with the exception of people who held very high rank, the amount of the pension in many cases would not keep a person on a coconut island. Anybody in Great Britain who has an I.R.A. pension is in a job. The fact that he is in a job gives him the right to a retirement pension. Firstly, it proves that he is not 70 years of age; secondly, it proves that, if he is working there, he is entitled to a retirement pension without a means test. That is not a substantial reason for closing your ears or your sympathetic mind to the proposal which I make. I urge the Minister not to allow that reason, which I think is purely superficial, to influence him against the suggestion which I make.
If an Irishman served in the British Army or Navy—the reasons which prompted him to serve are not my business or anybody else's business as he had a perfect right to do it—and was maimed as result of the service and survives until he is 70, it seems to me harsh and unfair to say to him; "Because you have a British wound or disability pension, we will give you no old age pension." If he were to ask the British Government not to give him the wound or disability pension we would then have to give him an old age pension. Why should we put him in that position? He has paid dearly and probably is continuing to pay dearly enough for the pension he has got in respect of his past army service. Why should we heap a further burden on him by applying a very rigid means test which is modified in respect of the pensioners of our own Army? There is not much involved from a financial point of view and from a humanitarian point of view we ought to try to meet it.
I support the appeal made to the Minister in this matter by Deputy Norton. I am personally aware that a number of my constituents have been affected by the existing penal legislation in regard to the payment of old age pensions. The number of persons who would be affected if the Minister could see his way to respond to Deputy Norton's appeal is very small, and the cost would not be very much. Those who would be affected are mainly those who joined the British Forces in response to the appeal of the leaders of the Irish people at a particular period. I am certain it is not the desire of the Minister in a matter of this kind to penalise people who responded to the call under the circumstances which obtained at that time. I have seen the details of the figures. I believe that the figures which were submitted to me are on the Minister's file.
I was informed by the leaders of the British Legion that the Minister received a deputation in connection with this matter. I hope he will not close the door to the appeal that has been made by Deputy Norton to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover the small number of people who are concerned at the moment. I ask the Minister not to close the door and to give the matter further consideration.
I should like to support that plea, in addition to the one which I have already made, on the grounds stated by Deputy Davin. Quite a considerable section of the people in my constituency occupy ex-servicemen's houses. They would be affected by the Act as it stands. I support the request that has been made to the Minister to consider this matter between now and the Report Stage. The Minister will probably find a way of meeting the case that has been made to him.
Yes.
Section 77, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 78.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (1), page 42, line 6 and sub-section (3), page 42, line 21, to delete "Section 76" and substitute "sub-section (2) of Section 77".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 78, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 79, 80 and 81 put and agreed to.
SECTION 82.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 43, line 22, to delete "1948" and substitute "1908".
This amendment is similar to one which I moved earlier.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 82, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 83.
I move amendment No. 17:—
Before Section 83, but in Chapter II, to insert a new section as follows:—
83. Regulations may apply any of the provisions of Sections 29 and 43 to 48 of this Act to pensions, and any such application may be either with or without modifications and either in addition to or in substitution for existing provisions of the Acts.
There are three or four amendments like this which bring unemployment assistance, old age pensions and so forth into line with the type of administration under the Bill.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 83, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 84.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (4), page 44, line 20, to insert "or sub-section (2)" before "of this section".
This is the same again.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 84, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 85 and 86 put and agreed to.
SECTION 87.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (1), page 45, at reference number 1 in the Table, to delete "over the age of 18" and substitute "aged 18 years or over" and to insert "by virtue of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922," after "entitled".
This amendment is for the purpose of bringing the wording of the section into line with the existing provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 87, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 88.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (3), page 46, line 6, to delete "National Health Insurance" and substitute "Unemployment".
The reference here to "National Health Insurance Fund" is an error. It should be "Unemployment Fund."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 88, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 89 and 90 agreed to.
SECTION 91.
I move amendment No. 21:—
Before Section 91, and before Chapter V, to insert a new section as follows:—
Chapter V.
Amendments of Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1948.
(1) In this chapter—
"the Acts" means the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1948; "the Principal Act" means the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933 (No. 46 of 1933);
"the Act of 1935" means the Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Act, 1935 (No. 38 of 1935);
"the Act of 1940" means the Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Act, 1940 (No. 4 of 1940).
(2) This chapter shall be construed as one with the Acts.
I think there are six or seven clauses here. It is merely bringing in the unemployment assistance, making certain changes and increasing the benefits. I will mention, roughly, two or three matters which I think are the big points in it. We are making two categories instead of four. The first category is all urban areas ——.
Mr. Norton rose.
I am taking the amendments together because I think it is just as well to do so.
All right.
We are making two areas —urban population of 7,000 and over and then the rest of the country— instead of four, and we are increasing the benefits. We are making the same change as we have in national health and unemployment—that is, a certain benefit for the recipient, a certain amount for the wife or dependent female relative and a certain benefit for the first two children. They are set out in the various clauses. They necessarily raise the means test higher than it is at the moment. That is a very rough outline of the changes that have been made. I do not think it necessary to go into detail at this stage.
No.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
Before Section 91, and before Chapter V, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Principal Act—
(I) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (a):—
(a) that he is, at the date of the application, resident in the State and has, at any time, been resident in the State for a continuous period of at least six months;
(II) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c):—
(c) that his means, calculated in accordance with this Act, do not exceed, in case he is resident in an urban area, £98 16/- or, in case he is resident elsewhere in the State, £72 16/- per annum;
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall come into operation on the 25th day of June, 1952.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:—
Before Section 91, and before Chapter V, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In paragraph (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Principal Act (being the paragraph inserted by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1940), the words "any urban area" shall be substituted for the words "such urban area" in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii).
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall come into operation on the 25th day of June, 1952.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
Before Section 91, and before Chapter V, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In paragraph (a) of Section 19 of the Principal Act the word "three" shall be substituted for the word "six".
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall come into operation on the appointed day.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:—
Before Section 91, and before Chapter V, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In the Principal Act, there shall be substituted as the Schedule thereto, in lieu of the Schedule inserted by sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act of 1948, the following:—
SCHEDULE.
RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
|
Classes of persons to whom the rates of unemployment assistance set out in this Schedule are applicable |
Rate of unemployment assistance applicable to persons resident in any urban area |
Rate of unemployment assistance applicable to persons resident in any other place |
||
|
per week |
per week |
|||
|
s. |
d. |
s. |
d. |
|
|
Person without a dependent |
18 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
|
Person with an adult dependent |
28 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
|
Person with an adult dependent and one child dependent |
33 |
0 |
24 |
0 |
|
Person with an adult dependent and two or more child dependents |
38 |
0 |
28 |
0 |
|
Person with one child dependent |
23 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
|
Person with two or more child dependents |
28 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall come into operation on the 25th day of June, 1952.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:—
Before Section 91, and before Chapter V, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The following sub-sections shall be substituted for sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act of 1935:—
(1) During the period beginning on the 25th day of June, 1952, and ending on the day before the day specified by order under sub-section (1A) of this section, for the purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1952— the expression "adult dependent" means—
(a) in the case of a married man, his wife if she is living with him or is being maintained wholly or mainly by him and is not in receipt of unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1952, or in receipt of out-of-work benefit under the insurance industry unemployment insurance scheme established under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1948, or in regular wage-earning employment otherwise than as having the care of his child dependents or engaged in any occupation ordinarily carried on for profit.
(b) in the case of a married woman, her husband if he is prevented by physical or mental infirmity from supporting himself and is being maintained wholly or mainly by her, and
(c) in the case of a widower or an unmarried man, any female person who is residing with him for the purpose of having the care of his child dependents and is being maintained by him and is not in receipt of unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1952, or in receipt of out-of-work benefit under the said insurance industry unemployment insurance scheme or in regular wage-earning employment otherwise than as having the care of his child dependents or engaged in any occupation ordinarily carried on for profit;
the expression "child dependent" means, in relation to a person, any child who has not attained the age of 14 years and is maintained wholly or mainly at that person's cost or who has attained the age of 14 years and has not attained the age of 16 years and is so maintained and is under full-time instruction in a day school; references to dependents shall be construed as references to adult dependents or child dependents, as the case may require.
(1A) On and after such day as the Minister may specify by order under this sub-section, for the purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1952— the expression "adult dependent" means—
(a) in the case of a married man, his wife if she is living with him or wholly or mainly maintained by him,
(b) in the case of a married woman, her husband if he is incapable of self-support by reason of some physical or mental infirmity and is wholly or mainly maintained by her, and
(c) in the case of a widower or an unmarried man, any female person (being a person who has attained the age of 16 years) having the care of his child dependents and wholly or mainly maintained by him;
the expression "child dependent" means, in relation to a person, any child who has not attained the age of 16 years and is ordinarily resident in the State and is not detained in a reformatory or an industrial school and normally resides with that person;
references to dependents shall be construed as references to adult dependents or child dependents, as the case may require;
any question relating to the normal residence of a child shall, for the purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Acts, 1933 to 1952, be decided in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Children's Allowances (Amendment) Act, 1946 (No. 8 of 1946), and the rules under that sub-section.
(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall come into operation on the 25th day of June, 1952.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:—
Before Section 91, and before Chapter V, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where a house owned by the corporation or council of an urban area is situate outside such area, a person resident or ordinarily resident in such house shall, for the purposes of the Unemployment Assistance Acts 1933 to 1952, be deemed to be resident or ordinarily resident in such urban area.
(2) The following are hereby repealed:—
(i) Paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Principal Act as amended by sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act of 1948,
(ii) Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1948.
(3) Sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section shall come into operation on the 25th day of June, 1952.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:—
Before Section 91, and before Chapter V, to insert a new section as follows:—
Regulations may apply any of the provisions of Sections 29 and 41 to 48 of this Act to unemployment assistance, and any such application may be either with or without modifications and either in addition to or in substitution for existing provisions of the Acts.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 91, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 92 and 93 agreed to.
SECTION 94.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (3), page 49, line 7, to delete "no" and substitute "not".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:—
Before sub-section (5), page 49, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Where a claim for a widow's (non-contributory) pension is made during the period beginning on the 5th day of July, 1952, and ending on the 4th day of October, 1952, by the widow of a man who died before the 4th day of July, 1952, and the claim is made after the expiration of three months after the death of the man, the pension, if granted, shall commence to accrue on the 4th day of July, 1952.
In the ordinary way, if a non-contributory widow applies for a pension within three months of the death of her husband, and if it is allowed, she gets the pension from the date of the death of her husband. If she applies for a pension when a period of more than three months has elapsed since the death of her husband the pension, if awarded, is given from the date of application. Under this amendment— on account of the changes, and so forth—the pension will apply backwards whether or not the application was made within a period of three months of the death of the husband.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In sub-section (5), page 49, line 45, to insert "and the claim is made after the expiration of three months after the death of the man," before "the pension."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 94, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I think that there should be no difference between the non-contributory widow's pension and the contributory pension. It is a great injustice to penalise the widow and orphans of a man just because he was not in benefit at the time of his death. Consider the plight of the family of a man who, during his lifetime, suffered a good deal of unemployment. Because he was unemployed or was only in casual employment, he was not in benefit at the time of his death. The penalty is passed on to his widow and his orphans. That does not happen in the case of the widow whose husband was in permanent employment at the time of his death. We find that there is a difference of 4/- in the case of a widow, 5/- in the case of a widow with one child, and 6/- in the case of a widow with two or more children. I should like to know why that penalty should be passed on to the widow and her orphans because her husband was not in benefit when he died. I would appeal to the Minister to see that the widows of workers who were not in benefit at the time of their death through no fault of their own, are not penalised. It is unfair that the punishment should be passed on to the widows and orphans. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, and have all widows and orphans put on the same basis.
I think I promised the Deputy that I would look into this matter.
This is different from the case of a widow with children over 14.
I shall consider it, anyway.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 95 to 97, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 98.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (1), page 52, to delete lines 27 to 33 and substitute as follows:
(3) Where a child would be a qualified child but for being ordinarily resident in an appointed country, he shall be treated, for the purposes of Part II of this Act, as if he were a qualified child.
This amendment deals with a child in an appointed country. It is taking power to pay in respect of children in an appointed country—that is countries which have the same arrangements as our own country. These countries are Great Britain, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 99.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In sub-section (2), page 52, line 38, to delete "section" and substitute "sub-section".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 99, as amended, agreed to.
Section 100 agreed to.
SECTION 101.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (1), page 52, line 55, to insert "and who normally resided with her or the husband immediately before the death of the husband or, being a child or step-child of the husband, became normally resident with her subsequent to the death of the husband" after "her".
This is similar to the case I mentioned with regard to children in an appointed country.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 101, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 102.
I move amendment No. 35:—
In sub-section (1), page 53, line 9, to add at the end of paragraph (b) "and the substitution in that sub-section of the words ‘Section 20 of this Act (inserted by Section 94 of the Social Welfare (Insurance) Act, 1952)' for the words ‘this section'."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 102, as amended, agreed to.
Section 103 agreed to.
SECTION 104.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In sub-section (1), page 53, line 23, to add at the end of paragraph (b) "and the substitution in that sub-section of the words ‘Section 25 of this Act (inserted by Section 95 of the Social Welfare (Insurance) Act, 1952)' for the words ‘this section'."
This is merely to ensure that where a pension is increased, decreased, or ceases, that will operate from the day of the week on which the pension started.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 104, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 105 to 107 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 108.
I move amendment No. 37:—
In sub-section (2), page 54, line 8, to delete "1952" and substitute "1953"
This is to correct a typing error.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 108, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 109.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In line 15, page 54, to delete "42 to 49" and substitute "41 to 48".
This is another correction of a typing error.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 109, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have not looked through this section, especially with regard to the regulations, but the first impression I got in reading the Bill was that the Dáil's rights in regard to a number of these regulations were not clear. I take it, however, that provision will definitely be made in the Bill to bring these regulations under review by the Dáil and that, in respect to some of them, they will require positive action by the Dáil.
Yes. It is provided that in certain cases they must have the approval of the Dáil, and in all other cases we shall lay them on the Table of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 110.
I move amendment No. 39:—
After Section 110 to insert a new section as follows:—
Regulations may apply any of the provisions of Sections 29 and 41 to 48 of this Act to supplementary benefit under the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Act, 1942 (No. 7 of 1942), and any such application may be either with or without modifications and either in addition to or in substitution for existing provisions of the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Act, 1942.
This amendment has reference to the Wet Time Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 110, as amended, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 55, to add at the end of Part I the following paragraphs:—
6. Employment as a member of the crew of a fishing vessel where the employed person is wholly remunerated by a share in the profits or the gross earnings of the working of the vessel.
7. Employment as an outworker, that is to say, a person to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished or repaired, or adapted for sale in his own home or on other premises not under the control or management of the person who gave out the articles or materials for the purposes of the trade or business of the last-mentioned person.
There are two types of workers who give a certain amount of trouble— fishermen who are share workers and outworkers—people who do part-time work at home. This amendment will enable us to make regulations covering them.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
We discussed yesterday the position of those employed by the State, either in the Civil Service, the Defence Forces or the Gardaí, of those employed by local authorities, and their relationship to the Bill. The Minister indicated his own view was that they would be exempt subject to making a provision that a voluntary contributor could maintain the right to continue in insurance for the purpose of widows' and orphans' pensions. Is there any hope that the Minister can get the position clarified before the Report Stage?
As to whether they will be exempt or not?
Yes. Can he get a decision on that principle?
I shall try to. We may not be able.
I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms.
Question put and agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 41:—
To delete paragraph 1 and substitute the following paragraph:—
1. Disability benefit or unemployment benefit.
The contribution conditions for disability benefit or unemployment benefit are:—
(a) that not less than 26 employment contributions have been paid in respect of the claimant in respect of the period between the claimant's entry into insurance and the day for which the benefit is claimed, and
(b) that not less than 50 employment contributions have been paid in respect of or credited to the claimant in respect of the last complete contribution year before the beginning of the benefit year which includes the day for which the benefit is claimed,
but, as respects unemployment benefit, employment contributions under paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to this Act paid in respect of the claimant shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of each of the foregoing conditions the number of employment contributions which have been paid in respect of the claimant.
I discussed this question on an earlier amendment. This is the way we propose dealing with women who are in domestic service or in agriculture to decide whether they would be entitled to unemployment insurance or not.
A most difficult thing in connection with this Bill and the previous Bill was to explain to people why it was necessary to have 50 contributions to credit in order to be entitled to benefit. Most people thought that that was an unreasonably high number of contributions to require and it was almost impossible to explain, without having the Bill before one, that it was a relatively easy condition to fulfil since when you worked you got your contributions marked up and if you could not work, because you were sick and there was no work available, you were credited with contributions in respect of the weeks you were ill or the weeks you were not working. In that way it was not too difficult to fulfil the condition of having 50 contributions. For the purposes of the record, I want the Minister to confirm that that is the manner in which this Bill will operate.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:—
In paragraph 4, page 59, to insert "(contributory)" before "pension" in line 1 and "(contributory)" before "pension" in line 2.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:—
In paragraph 5, page 59, to insert "(contributory)" before "allowance" in line 23 and "(contributory)" before "allowance" in line 24.
Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth and Six Schedules agreed to.
SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In page 64, line 22, to delete "1948" and substitute "1952".
This is a formal amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
On Tuesday week.
When will we see the ministerial amendments?
We will not take the Report Stage on that particular day unless Deputies have had at least four or five days to see the amendments.
Perhaps the Minister would make it Wednesday?
Very well.
If we do not delay long on the Report Stage on that day, it may be possible to pass the final stage shortly after the Report Stage.
Maybe the next day?
Perhaps.
We want the Bill to go to the Seanad the following week.
The Minister will endeavour to get his amendments out early?
Yes.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 21st May.