Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Mar 1953

Vol. 137 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 62—Children's Allowances.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £40,000 be granted todefray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for Children's Allowances (No. 2 of 1944; No. 8 of 1946; and No. 12 of 1952).

There is another Estimate for Social Insurance, Vote No. 73, and perhaps I might deal with both together. These two Estimates, as I explained last week on other Estimates, arise out of the Social Welfare legislation of last year. The Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) Act, 1952, widened the scope of the earlier Acts by granting an allowance of 11/- per month for the second child in a family in respect of whom no allowance was previously payable. In addition the allowances in respect of the third and subsequent children were increased by ? per week and put on a monthly basis. It was estimated in June of last year that these enlargements of the Children's Allowances Scheme would increase the cost of the service by £2,120,000 in the present financial year and a Supplementary Estimate for that amount was taken at the same time as the general Estimates for my Department were taken. It now appears that the amount required was slightly underestimated and that a further £40,000 will be needed this year. The under-estimation was mainly due to the fact that the number of second-child claims was greater than was expected.

The second Estimate before the House, that for social insurance, is a new one which has not appeared before in the Book of Estimates. As will be seen, it provides mainly for the payment by the Exchequer to the Social Insurance Fund of the amount by which the expenditure out of that fund exceeds its income. This was the method of financing the new insurance scheme laid down in Section 39 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and this one Exchequer payment now takes the place of the grants formerly made by the Exchequer to the National Health Insurance Fund, the Unemployment Fund and the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund. These former grants were substantial in amount, and have ceased as from the 5th January of this year, when the Social Welfare Act,1952, was brought fully into operation.

The amount provided under sub-head B of the Social Insurance Estimate is a continuation of the provision formerly made in the Vote for National Health Insurance by which the Exchequer paid to the National Health Insurance Fund an amount equal to the interest which would have been received on the moneys expended under Section 21 of the Social Welfare Act, 1950.

Mr. Norton

On the Children's Allowances Estimate I want to raise one or two matters. I can quite understand that since the introduction of the new Act quite a considerable amount of work has been thrown on that section of the Department. It was my experience, and I am sure it was the experience of other Deputies, that there was a considerable delay in dealing with claims for children's allowances. One of the difficulties I experienced was that claimants wrote to the Department in respect of applications they had made, and unfortunately they did not quote the reference numbers of their claims, with the result that identification of the claims was rendered very difficult.

I believe there has been some improvement in the rate of payment and in the clearance of cases which were the subject matter of complaints. What is the present position in respect of the work in that section? Is it now up to date? Can applicants expect to receive payment of their allowances as they become due? I have not got the 1950 Act before me at the moment but perhaps the Minister could tell me what exactly Section 21 of that Act does.

Dr. Ryan

It gives power to the Minister to expend part of the fund on the premises.

Mr. Norton

That is what I thought. How much has so far been spent on the Store Street building as a building? How much has so far been spent on furnishing the building? How much has been indented for in respect of furniture and equipment for the building?

Captain Cowan

I want to raise amatter in connection with the unestablished civil servant who, when he falls ill, may receive a weekly payment of £4. He does not receive national health insurance. Under the old rates he forfeited national health insurance to the extent of 22/6 per week. There is now a deduction of £1 16s. under the new Act because the marriage allowance is deducted as well as the amount he himself receives. Obviously that was not intended, and I do not believe the Minister would sanction that. I have not the exact date before me because I only received particulars last night and I did not know then that I would have this opportunity of raising the matter.

So far as the unestablished civil servant is concerned the increase in the national health is no use to him. There may be some mistake in interpretation. There may be a mistake in the Act or in the regulations made under the Act. I want to take this opportunity of asking the Minister to put the matter right.

An Ceann Comhairle

Minister to conclude.

Mr. Norton

Not to conclude. I have asked some questions and I want to reserve the right to pursue the discussion if necessary in the light of the answers given by the Minister. We are in Committee.

Dr. Ryan

Complaints of delays in the children's allowances section were very numerous after the new Act came into operation and I must admit that they were justified. There was a good deal of confusion for some time after the new benefits became payable. For the last two months or so I have not received any complaints. I made inquiry a few weeks ago and I was told that the work is now up to date and correspondence is dealt with immediately. If there is any complaint I would like to have details of it, because any Minister for Social Welfare, and I am sure Deputy Norton will endorse this, would like to get genuine complaints in order to have them investigated. That is a good way of keeping the work up to a satisfactory level.

The amount spent on Store Street isalmost £900,000 and £8,000 or £9,000 has been spent on furniture. I do not know what the final bill for furniture will be but I will give the Deputy the information if I get notice.

Mr. Norton

Is that this payment of £8,300?

Dr. Ryan

No. When this money was taken out of the fund to purchase the premises the fund naturally lost the interest. The Minister for Finance gained on the other hand by having a premises supplied for which he would not have to pay and he very magnanimously agreed to pay the interest on the amount spent on the building into the fund. This represents only a quarter's interest.

Mr. Norton

That was a different Minister for Finance from the present Minister.

Dr. Ryan

The present Minister has agreed to that. The only thing is, he has raised the interest a bit.

Mr. Norton

He has done that on everybody.

Dr. Ryan

This is a quarter's interest. The interest is somewhere between 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. If £1,000,000 is paid out by the end of this financial year then of course the interest will be the interest on £1,000,000 for 12 months. Any Deputy can make the calculation for himself. The interest last year was £33,000.

Mr. Norton

Does the Minister think it is a good proposition—a scheme by which the Minister pays interest at that rate?

Dr. Ryan

I suppose it is really a matter of book-keeping.

Mr. Hickey

It is more than book-keeping.

Dr. Ryan

Whether the Minister for Finance builds the premises himself and says: "That is your premises" or whether he says: "You can use that fund for building the premises" then I must recoup the fund the interest itwould otherwise be earning. I do not think it makes very much difference except that it gives the Minister more freedom in the building of the premises. Freedom of that sort carries responsibility and trouble. I do not know which Minister gets off best in the transaction.

In regard to the unestablished civil servant the practice is the same as many good employers adopt with their employees. If their employee is out sick, many good employers continue to pay him his full salary for the week less what he receives for national health insurance. If the man's salary was £5 a week, the employer gives him £2 10s.; he receives 50/- national health insurance and he is no worse off as far as income is concerned. The same principle is adopted for the unestablished civil servant. The Minister continues paying the full salary but he does not give him national health benefit. The principle is the same; the payment is made in a different way. It would be hardly fair to ask the Minister for Finance to pay more than the difference because if he did the man would be better off sick than working.

Mr. Norton

That is not the whole story.

Dr. Ryan

As far as I know, that is the story.

Mr. Norton

Some unestablished civil servants get full sick pay less national health insurance benefit for a limited period when they are sick, but there are other unestablished civil servants who get only two-thirds pay less national health insurance when they are sick. Take the case of a civil servant who had, let us say, £6 a week. When he was ill he used to get £4 a week from the Department and he got 22/6 from the National Health Insurance Society. That meant that when he was sick he got £5 2s. 6d., losing 17/6 a week. The Social Welfare Act of 1952 entitled him to 24/- a week for himself, 12/- for his wife and 7/- for each of two children. The Department of Finance put out their greedy hand and said to that particular person: "We are not merely going to deductfrom your pay 24/- for yourself, but we will deduct your wife's share as well; we are not going to stop there because we will also deduct allowances for each of your two children." Therefore, instead of deducting from the officer 22/- a week as previously they are now deducting 50/- a week from that person and he is getting less benefit than the Department of Finance, because the Department of Finance is raiding the Social Welfare Fund. So far as the unestablished civil servant is concerned, the Social Welfare Act might as well have been passed for the benefit of the Department of Finance. He is getting not one penny more, but the Department of Finance is now receiving 50/- a week from him if he has a wife and two children. I think that is a shame, and I have no hesitation in telling the Department of Finance that. It looks like highway robbery to take from the officer his wife's and children's allowances. If the Department of Finance is going to act in that way, in respect of the person who is not in receipt of his full pay through illness but only two-thirds of his pay, I suggest that the Minister is bound to take some steps to make at least the officer's wife's allowance and children's allowances inalienable so that the Department of Finance cannot get their hands on them. It is completely against the spirit of the Act that the Department of Finance should raid the children's allowances and the wife's dependence allowance as well. That is the situation, and the Department of Finance know that well, because it has been brought to their notice.

On the question of the Store Street premises, could the Minister say how much it is anticipated the furnishing and equipment of the building will cost?

Dr. Ryan

I cannot say without notice.

Mr. Norton

It it likely to be high? I understand the staff are likely to move in shortly and someone must have got an account or at least an invoice by now. At least some tenders must have been accepted.

Dr. Ryan

Some staff may move inshortly but that would not mean the whole building would be ready. Only part of the building would be ready.

Captain Cowan

That is the upper floors?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Norton

Have any tenders been accepted for furnishing and equipping?

Dr. Ryan

Some furniture has been actually purchased and some is awaiting delivery.

Mr. Norton

What tenders have been accepted?

Dr. Ryan

I cannot tell you that.

Captain Cowan

Will the furnishing be done by the Department of Social Welfare?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Norton

I cannot understand why the Minister cannot say what tenders have been accepted.

Dr. Ryan

I cannot tell you that without notice.

Mr. Norton

I see.

Dr. Ryan

I would like to add to what I have already said in regard to the unestablished civil servant. I think Deputy Norton is arguing that the Minister for Finance should have continued to give him £4 a week, two-thirds of his salary and give him the 50/- as well. The Deputy would agree that the Minister for Finance should not be asked to give him more than the salary including national health.

Mr. Norton

But the Minister for Finance should not get the sole benefit from the new Act which was intended for the officer. Does the Minister agree?

Captain Cowan

I take it the Minister will look into it sympathetically?

Dr. Ryan

I will consider the matter.

Question put and agreed to.