I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Second Stage.
Deputies will be aware from the Explanatory Memorandum circulated with this Bill, that the main purpose of the Bill is to increase from £600 to £800 per annum the remuneration limit for insurability under the Social Welfare Acts of persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour. The £600 remuneration limit was fixed by the Social Welfare Act, 1952. By reason of increases in wages and salaries over the last few years, many persons have ceased to be insurable owing to their remuneration having gone above the £600 limit and thus can no longer obtain the benefits to which they were formerly entitled, and for which they may have paid contributions over a long period. Accordingly it is proposed to increase the remuneration limit to £800 to restore insurance cover to such persons. Section 2 of the Bill makes the necessary provision.
Under the Social Welfare Acts persons who become insured remain insured throughout their lives until they reach 70 years of age. Thus, persons whose employment ceased to be insurable by reason of their remuneration having exceeded the £600 limit will still have to their credit contributions they paid in the past. When their employment again becomes insurable on the coming into operation of this Act, there would, however, be a gap in their contribution records which would disentitle them to benefit for a substantial period after re-entry. Provision is being made in sub-section (1) of Section 3 to credit contributions to such persons to enable them to satisfy the contribution conditions for benefit on again becoming insurable.
The only further provision requiring comment is that contained in sub-section (2) of Section 3. I should explain that this of itself makes no change in the law relating to insurability. It merely provides for the crediting of contributions in the event of persons, hitherto insurable for limited benefits only, becoming by virtue of subsequent regulations insurable for a new benefit. Such persons would get credits for purposes of the contribution conditions for the new benefit, just as new entrants to insurance get pre-entry credits under the law as it stands.
I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary clear up one matter for me. It is a particular case and perhaps it is not fair to raise it now. It is the case of a person who was in insurable employment and then his salary or income went beyond the £600 limit. He then died and his widow is being held as not entitled to the widow's contributory pension because, at the time he died, and for some years before that, he was not in insurable employment. Is a case of that kind covered?
This Bill does not affect that issue at all.
Would such a person be entitled to a refund of the contributions paid?
No.
Since we are going a bit of the way, and as this Bill deals with those who are still alive, who, for a period, were held to be uninsurable since their wages went over the £600 limit, could it not also take in cases where persons have died?
The case of the dead?
Yes. It has only occurred during the last two or three years.
The Bill provides to link up the insurability of living people who have gone off because of a raise in their salaries.
It does seem to me reasonable where a death has occurred during the last two or three years, where a person has died not insurable, the contributions paid when he was insurable should be refunded. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might consider the point.
I am considering the point raised by the Deputy, but I do not think it can be dealt with in this Bill. That is my opinion.
I welcome this Bill because I think it is bringing our social legislation into conformity with realities. The Bill provides for extending insurability to those whose incomes exceed £600 and do not exceed £800, but when you remember that the £ to-day is worth less than 8/- then what we are merely doing is extending insurability for social welfare purposes to persons whose pre-war wages or salaries amounted to less than £5 a week. There is nothing very revolutionary in that. In fact, I would prefer to see the ceilling abolished entirely and a comprehensive scheme of social insurance introduced which would provide for our people here some of the benefits which are provided for those who reside in Britain and the Six Counties, where their comprehensive social legislation is much better in scope, and more generous in character than our legislation here.
However, even this small step is welcome. It will enable people with incomes above £600, and not exceeding £800, to cover themselves against such contingencies as the death of a breadwinner, unemployment, and sickness, and these are three scourges which it is not possible completely to insulate oneself against. Any facilities for enabling workers, no matter what their capacity may be, to insure against these hazards is always welcome. There is one point in this Bill about which I am not very clear and I would like to get from the Parliamentary Secretary a definition of what he really means when he talks of providing credits to certain persons "to enable them to satisfy the contribution conditions for benefit on again becoming insurable".
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would take up his pencil for a moment while I put this question to him. Take the case of an insured person who had less than £600 a year in 1955 and was, therefore, insurable. In 1956 his pay went over the £600 mark and consequently he ceased to be insurable in 1956. He retained that or a higher rate of pay in 1957 and he was, therefore, not insurable in 1957. That position carried on and he is not insurable to-day because he has an income exceeding £600 per annum. He is, however, entitled to-day, as he was since 1956, to become a voluntary contributor, not for unemployment benefit and not for sickness benefit, but he could become a voluntary contributor for widows' and orphans' pension purposes. However, there were many such persons who did not avail of that facility, whether through inertia or because they long-fingered the opportunity they had of applying to become voluntary contributors until such time as their rights lapsed. I want to find out from the Parliamentary Secretary what the position of such a person will be as from the 1st January. That person will become insurable again under this Bill when it becomes an Act. What credits will be given to him to enable him to satisfy the contribution conditions for entitlement to benefit? Will he be given credits for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958 or will he be given credits for only one year?
This is my second question. If the person were insured in 1956, not insured in 1957 or 1958 because he had more than £600 per annum, he will however be insured in 1959, what credits will he get and how will he stand in respect of entitlement to benefit as from the 1st January or as from a later date in 1959? I would like specific answers to these two questions and if I got them it would save me from having to make a much longer speech. I do not know whether I can fragment my speech, awaiting answers from the Parliamentary Secretary, with the right to go on. If the Parliamentary Secretary would like to answer my questions now——
The Deputy can give way to the Parliamentary Secretary.
I am most willing to do that. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify those points.
The particular case to which Deputy Norton refers will be given credits for 1957 and 1958.
1957 and 1958?
Yes, that is all he will be given credits for. As the Deputy said in his opening remarks, if he had remained a voluntary contributor he would be in a different category to the man who through inertia, or something else, neglected the thing. The credits he will be given under this Bill will be for 1957 and 1958. The Deputy, as I understand him, is dealing with the man who is insured up to 1955 at a salary which will be over the mark in 1956 and that man will be given credits for 1957 and 1958.
What about his 1956 credits, when he is out in 1956, being over £600?
He gets immediate benefits, of course, for sickness and unemployment.
Yes, I know the Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with a person who comes in completely, that is clear. But what is the position of a person who is a voluntary contributor at present? I want to get his position clarified in respect of entitlement?
The voluntary contributor qualifies under the widows' and orphans' at present.
No, he cannot qualify if he is over £600.
My information is——
Perhaps I put it wrongly. A person with over £600 who is not now a voluntary contributor cannot qualify, or rather his widow cannot qualify. As from the 1st January he can again become a voluntary contributor. Am I right in that?
An employed contributor.
Not necessarily, because he might work in an exempted occupation. Perhaps he is a civil servant or a clerical officer.
Will he not qualify for widows' and orphans' as a civil servant?
Yes, for that benefit, but not for other benefits. Are we clear on that? He does qualify for widows' and orphans'?
Yes.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary mind clarifying this point. He referred to the man reduced in 1955 but not in 1956, 1957 or 1958. What credits will be given to that person? What number of credits?
One hundred and four.
Is that the maximum he can get?
Two years.
Is that the maximum in any period?
Yes.
So he has to get an aggregate of 117 in order to qualify?
Yes.
That saves me from asking any further questions. It seems to be satisfactory.
Like Deputy Norton and others in the House I welcome this change in the social welfare legislation which raises the ceiling for insurable employment from £600 to £800 a year. All of us will agree that there has been a long standing need to have that increase but it is a pity that a Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill such as this should be brought in for this specific purpose because I am sure if the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will look around they will find that the provisions of the social welfare code need to be amended in very many respects.
I notice that the Long Title describes the Bill as one to "amend and extend the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 and 1956." It seems to be useless at this stage to ask the Government to improve the social welfare code to the extent of giving increases to very many people, many thousands of people, who are now dependent on social welfare benefits. At all stages since the Government came into office they have resisted appeals, not alone from this House but from many deserving and well-intentioned associations outside, asking that increases be given especially to old age pensioners and to widows and orphans in receipt of non-contributory pensions and to others who receive benefits through social insurance. As a matter of fact, rather than improve the social welfare code it seems to me that there is a special purge by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to deprive hundreds, aye, thousands, of people from receiving the small pittance of which they are in receipt by way of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit.
From the information I got from the Parliamentary Secretary to-day it seems to me that very many more people are being refused unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit than heretofore. It seems from the speeches that we hear from the Government Benches that the majority of people now in receipt of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit are suspect. Some of us do not mind when we hear certain sections of the community describe unemployed people who are in receipt of these benefits as wasters and scoundrels and as people receiving money for nothing and people who have substantial means but still draw money from the State. When we have that attitude pursued by the Minister for Social Welfare, and in many cases by his Parliamentary Secretary, we begin to wonder if it is the deliberate intention of the Government and of the Minister for Social Welfare to attempt to save substantial sums of money by taking from these deserving sections of the community. We had another example of it in the past six months when the Unemployment Period Orders were extended by two weeks and the effect was to save £10,000 to £20,000 at the expense of those receiving unemployment benefit.
I cannot see that the Deputy's remarks have any bearing on the Bill.
I was always told to take my bearings from the Long Title and here, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Long Title says that it is designed to amend and extend the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 and 1956. I am merely trying to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary where he could improve Social Welfare Acts of 1952 and 1956.
The question of improving those Acts does not arise except to increase the ceiling for the insurable categories. The Deputy is talking about unemployment benefit.
I am trying to tell the Parliamentary Secretary what should be in the Bill.
The Deputy must relate his remarks to the general principles of the Bill.
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Government to reconsider their whole attitude to appeals for improvement in the different allowances paid under the social welfare code. I would respectfully ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider another very deserving section—those people in receipt of unemployment assistance, or should I say those people who should be in receipt of unemployment assistance?
I have with me this admirable booklet issued by the Department of Social Welfare which sets out the various benefits available to those dependent on State assistance and those who are insured. So far as unemployment assistance is concerned one of the qualifications is:
"That the applicant is resident in the State, and has, at any time, been resident in the State for a continuous period of at least six months, that he or she is between the ages of 18 and 70 and that his or her means are not more than £98 16s. a year if living in an urban area or not more than £72 16s. a year if living elsewhere in the State."
I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is well-nigh time that the provision in regard to means be radically changed. I have in mind many thousands of people whom one could describe as self-employed, for example fishermen, handymen in the country, men who ply trades as masons or carpenters, people who take task work. These people could earn £98 16s. in three months or in six months, but the very fact that they got £98 16s. in a year and are not insurable means that for the rest of the year, if they cannot find work, they are not eligible for unemployment assistance.
I think that is unfair when we remember that the man who earns £10 for six months of the years is eligible after that possibly for unemployment benefit, but even if not entitled to unemployment benefit, he is entitled to draw unemployment assistance. He may draw £260 for six months. Because he is an insured person, or has been one, he is entitled to unemployment assistance. But if he earns the same sum of money in some employment which is not insurable he is not entitled to unemployment assistance.
I would therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary at least to consider amending that portion of the social welfare code. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle says I may not talk about old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions or children's allowances and I therefore conclude by saying that while this is a welcome improvement I think it is generally rather a pity that the Bill should be introduced merely for the purpose of raising the ceiling from £600 to £800 a year.
I would like to join with the other Deputies in welcoming this amending measure. Owing to the falling value of money it is time this step was taken and I must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the manner in which he sets out to do the job. I think raising the ceiling to £800, under present circumstances, is a reasonable approach and I am sure that in so far as this measure will facilitate insured people in regard to hospital benefits the extension now proposed will be very welcome. From what I can gather from speeches already made I think there is more or less general agreement on this whole matter.
I feel that the scope of the existing organisation, especially in the case of field workers controlled by the Department of Social Welfare, will have to be considerably extended as a result of this legislation. It is estimated, I understand, that income from increased membership will be approximately £130,000 per annum and that in itself will impose a rather severe strain on the existing organisation. If the benefit the insured people are entitled to is to be paid promptly it will be necessary to extend the scope of the Department's organisation. The Parliamentary Secretary might very usefully specially consider one section of his staff that will have to deal with the problems arising from this legislation. I refer to the social welfare agents who were formerly National Health Insurance agents.
Improved facilities are long overdue to these men particularly in regard to remuneration. This legislation will add considerably to the numbers on their registers and I sincerely hope they will be rewarded for the extra duties to be imposed on them. In the rural districts, where these agents come into the picture more than in urban areas, I think the time has arrived when some improvements might be recommended in their office organisation. The men must provide offices at their own expense, except where they work in the Department's offices in the big towns. Most of them work on rather meagre salaries and cannot afford to supply first-class office organisation. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary now has an opportunity of examining the present situation and of coming to the assistance of the agents formerly employed by the National Health Society.
I think it was Deputy Corish who referred to the difficulties he alleged exist at present in getting unemployment, assistance and benefit. Of course the purge that the Deputy complained of started, as far as I know, when he was Minister for Social Welfare and has continued under the present Minister and Parliamentary Secretary. I have met many complaints arising as a result of the purge to which the Deputy refers and I think we can say that the worst of it is over. Undoubtedly there are cases of suspicion particularly in connection with unemployment benefit. The social welfare code of 1952 has in some way, I think, influenced a number of people to try to qualify for benefit in a manner they could not easily attempt under the former Act. Cases of suspicion under this heading should be investigated but my complaint is that the investigation takes far too long. Previously I appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to try to make some arrangement to give priority to the investigation of such cases.
The average claimant for unemployment benefit is usually a person, who through no fault of his or her own, is obliged to avail of that assistance during a period of unemployment. It causes undue hardship if the relative claim is held up for any unreasonable period. The general experience is that claims are held in suspense for five or six weeks. That would be the minimum but I have met cases where it is ten or 12 weeks. There is no delay when the claims get to headquarters; they are then dealt with expeditiously. The delay occurs mostly in the country because the social welfare officers are not handling the investigations immediately they receive a claim. I do not know if that is due to the system under which the Department works but if it is I sincerely suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should look into the matter and try to give priority to these investigations.
Deputy Corish referred to certain anomalies connected with insurability of self-employed people and I share his views to a very large extent in that connection. I am only sorry the Deputy did not find it possible to do something about that matter when he was Minister. Sooner or later this very vexed question must be tackled. I hope that this can be done by regulation and I take it the Minister will now look into the matter.
There are many categories excluded from the full scope of insurance. They are described as self-employed people. If they are self-employed, that is not their fault. Indeed, such employment is altogether to their credit. They are engaged in occupations which are not sufficiently remunerative to attract the industrial-minded type of employer and in order to keep themselves in employment, these particular workers have to engage in occupations on a share basis. That refers particularly to fishing and, most particularly, to inshore and fresh-water fishing.
These men are handicapped in relation to the assessment of means for the purpose of unemployment assistance. Any profit they make over a period is assessed purely as profit and that adversely affects their interests. If they were ordinary wage earners they could earn ten times more over a longer or shorter period and such earnings would not affect their position in relation to unemployment assistance. The present system imposes an unfair hardship on these self-employed people and I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will examine the position and try to meet, by regulation if possible and, if not, by amending legislation, the hardships to which I have referred. I am glad that this measure has been introduced at this stage; it will be greatly appreciated by those wage earners in the £600 to £800 category. It will give them much needed protection.
When I read on the Order Paper some time ago that leave was being asked to introduce a Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill I tried to forecast what the contents of that Bill might be. Here, I see that it is described as "an Act to amend and extend the Social Welfare Acts of 1952 and 1956." We know those two Acts cover a multiplicity of problems in relation to various classes of wage earners. When I was trying to forecast what might be contained in this measure my thoughts immediately went to the old age pensioner trying to live on 26/- a week. They travelled from there to the widow in receipt of a non-contributory pension and, from there, to those who are receiving unemployment assistance. All those recipients, and they are numerous, are trying to live at the moment on an allowance which is not sufficient to keep body and soul together.
Here, we have a Bill intended to make the position easier for those who hitherto were able to avail of benefits under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, when their earnings were something in the region of £10 10s. per week, or less. This Bill proposes that they will be entitled to avail of the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts if they are in receipt of £15 10s. per week. Priority should have been given in this Bill to those who are receiving something less than a subsistence allowance. This Bill will be a bitter disappointment to the categories I have mentioned—the old age pensioner, the non-contributory widow and the assistance classes. They were the first who should have been considered when amending legislation was contemplated. Recently, we read that some 40,000 people were obliged to emigrate since the beginning of this year. They were obliged to emigrate because they were not able to meet their responsibilities and commitments —many of them have families and dependants—on unemployment assistance and they had to seek a living wage elsewhere.
Rising costs have deprived many people of benefits to which they were entitled hitherto. Rising costs and the subsequent rise in wages put them in the position that they could not avail of benefits available to those receiving less than £11 10s. per week. The ceiling is now being raised to approximately £15 10s. per week and those people will, to a certain extent, be able to avail of the benefits provided under the Social Welfare Acts in future. I know that many of these people are living under very difficult conditions. They have large families. They are trying to meet commitments, such as purchasing their own homes, liability for rates and other charges which apply to them. Their liabilities are heavy and, with the passing of the years, their liabilities have increased.
Some of these people were obliged to meet hospital charges in relation to members of their families. There was a discretion for the purpose of enabling such people to get some kind of help under the existing Social Welfare Acts but, unfortunately, that was entirely discretionary. It was not written into the Acts specifically. The result was that the moment they went over the £600 ceiling they were immediately faced with the obligation of meeting all these costs themselves.
There are tragic conditions amongst families earning between £600 and £800 a year just as there are tragic conditions in families earning only £6 or £7 a week or families living on subsistence allowances. There are tragedies in families of all classes. The Act, so far as the limit of £600 applied, very often demonstrated the real hardship that can come upon a family where there was a chronic invalid child or children requiring hospital attention and who were excluded from its provisions. Such people had been making contributions and were deprived of the benefit of those contributions when the income limit of £600 was exceeded.
Deputy Moloney referred to the position of persons who are described as self-employed and because of that description are unable to avail in full of the benefits under the Social Welfare Acts. It occurred to me that such persons should be given an opportunity to qualify in full provided that they make income-tax returns annually. If their income did not exceed the limits prescribed in this Bill, it would be fair to permit them to avail in full of the provisions of the Act.
In so far as this Bill brings relief to quite a number of persons who have heavy responsibilities, I welcome it. I feel the Bill was overdue having regard to the fact that there were so many persons who had gone over the £600 limit and who were finding it difficult to make ends meet and, in particular, finding it difficult to make up for the social services which they could have obtained before their income exceeded that figure.
This Bill merely deals with a category of persons whose incomes are between £600 and £800. It brings them into insurance. We all know the hardship that can occur when the bread-winner of a family is taken away and the widow is left with a noncontributory pension. This Bill enables the widow to get a contributory pension. That is one of the benefits of the Bill before the House.
Deputy Corish was very severe in his criticism and went outside the scope of this Bill. I shall be brief in my reply to him. The Social Welfare Acts lay down the conditions to be fulfilled by persons claiming benefits. It is the responsibility of the Department to ensure that those conditions are complied with. Persons who do not satisfy the conditions cannot be allowed benefit.
Deputy Moloney referred to the social welfare officers in the Department. I do not know whether he was critical of them or not. They are as fine a set of men as there are in the Civil Service. They have a most unpleasant job. The means test is there and they have to carry out the rules and regulations given to them and, by and large, they do it fairly and honestly. Nobody envies them their position. Consequently, if the reference to them is in the way of criticism, I resent it very much. I repeat, that they are conscientious officers who do their duty fairly and well.
Deputy Moloney also advocated an increase in the number of national health agents and officials of the Department. We estimate that the number of persons who will come in as a result of this Bill will be about 18,000 and of them at least one-half will be State employees so that the amount of work that will devolve on the 260-odd agents will be very small. This is not the place nor is this the occasion to deal with the remuneration of national health agents but I must say en passant that in the majority of cases it is not their only ocupation. Many of them have other means of livelihood. There are very few established in the Department outside the cities.
Deputy O'Higgins was dealing with the case of people who died within the last two years. When a person dies, any question of benefits accruing to him under the Social Welfare Acts must be determined by reference to his record at the time of his death. There can be no question of applying the provisions of this Bill retrospectively in such a case. Contributions can be refunded only where they are paid in error. They cannot be refunded by reason of the death of the insured contributor.
One of the things that Deputy Corish advocated was an alteration in the means limit under the Unemployment Assistance Act. This Bill does not deal with that but, if I may take the liberty in debate to deal with that point, I may say that if there is any set of people who receive social welfare benefits who need consideration it is those who have no income or means whatsoever, the people at the bottom rung of the ladder, and before anyone should attempt to raise the level of income of beneficiaries under the Act, that category of people would need to be examined first of all.
But they were not.
This Bill brings in the people with incomes of £600 to £800 and in that way it brings them into benefits for widows' and orphans' pensions. It is an advance in social legislation and on those grounds I recommend the Second Reading to the Dáil.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.