Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Mar 1964

Vol. 208 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Social Welfare (Resumed).

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

Most Deputies who spoke on this Estimate approached the debate with an obviously sincere desire to obtain improvements in the various schemes from the point of view of the applicants for the different social welfare services. The disbursement of money on different social schemes must obviously be circumscribed by fairly rigid rules and it is only natural that occasional complaints should arise. I appreciate that most of those who spoke—and I can say, from my own experience, all the Deputies who throughout the year showed a continuous interest in social welfare matters—paid tribute to the officers of my Department and the manner in which they carried out their duties. While I know these tributes are well earned, it is to be expected that the Estimate debate will consist in the main of the airing of a number of minor complaints and suggestions for improvements.

I do not object to that. It has been my experience that cases raised by Deputies on every side of the House have occasionally brought to my notice matters that need to be improved in some way and I have, in fact, found these debates helpful in certain respects. I assure Deputies who are sincere in their approach that I regard my duties as Minister in the same spirit. I can see improvements that are desirable and the question arises for me of deciding what the priorities should be and the feasibility of effecting improvements. That is not to say I agree with all that has been advocated. I am quite definitely in favour of the means test in regard to assistance services and if I had sufficient money available to abolish that means test, I should not use the money in that way.

I should have expected the Labour Party to adopt that view also and I was surprised to hear Deputy Kyne refer to the "horrible means test". It is not a horrible instrument but a necessary one to ensure an equitable distribution of the money the community can afford to pay by way of social assistance.

Mr. Kyne

What about children's allowances and the means test?

Mr. Boland

I shall come to that. Children's allowances are available without means test and they are a form of social assistance but you can look upon children's allowances as performing two functions. Without doubt, they are a help to the type of person who would qualify under a means test. They may also be looked upon as an additional way of adjusting the burden of taxation in favour of people with families. The income tax code does it by tax-free allowances in respect of dependent children. The fact that children's allowances are available without means test is a further step in that direction. That is fully justified. The effect it has, as an adjustment of taxation burdens, diminishes as the income of the person concerned increases.

To advocate abandoning the means test is the same as advocating that whatever money is available should be allocated exclusively to the class of people whose need, to say the least of it, is not as acute as the need of those people who qualify under present conditions. To do this, in my opinion, would be a serious injustice to people whose means are so low as to enable them to qualify at present. It was suggested that the cost of abolishing the means test, at least in respect of old age pensions, could be covered by economies in the administration of the Department. The cost of abolishing the means test for non-contributory old age pensions alone would be of the order of £4 million, while the total cost of administration of the Department is only £1,890,000, so it is pure nonsense to suggest that economies could be effected which would contribute to any considerable extent towards the cost of abolishing the means test.

If it were decided to do this it would mean all this money would go to people whose need is less than those at present qualified, and more than 90 per cent of people in receipt of non-contributory old age pensions at present qualify for pensions at the maximum rate. None of those would benefit if I had £4 million available and decided to spend it on abolishing the means test. I find it hard to believe that anybody would seriously suggest I should spend £4 million in that way if I had it available. I prefer to do what I have been doing, to utilise whatever money does become available at Budget time to increase the maximum rate of pensions and to extend the means scale accordingly, bringing in more people for marginal rates of assistance.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Or to lower the qualifying age.

Mr. Boland

That could be considered in the future. A prior thing to consider would be an increase of the maximum rate to a level we could consider satisfactory.

Mr. Kyne

Does the Minister not consider that the means test prevents people from saving, from being thrifty and making provision for themselves?

Mr. Boland

I would not say it prevents them. It is possible that a person who has done that and finds that because he has done it he has placed himself outside the scope of non-contributory old age pension may say it is little encouragement to people to save, and that is something of an anomaly. I do not think it could be got over equitably by abolishing the means test. It might be possible to do something by extending the contributory scheme in some way at some future date, but that also is a difficult problem and I cannot see any prospect of it in the very near future.

By doing what I have been doing— by extending the means scale every time there is an increase in old age pension rates—we have arrived at the position where the total income of a person on the maximum rate of old age pension and of the person on the minimum rate and the total of the person whose means put him just outside the scope of the pension scheme are all approximately equal.

Since I became a Minister for Social Welfare, the means scales for all the assistance services have been extended in that way. In regard to old age pensions, the means limit has been extended from £104 15s. to £143 15s. In regard to widows' non-contributory pensions, prior to 1962 a widow could not qualify for a non-contributory pension if her means exceeded £130 15s., irrespective of the number of dependent children she had.

Now the position is that £130 15s. is the means limit for the widow with no children. If she has two children, the limit is £182 15s.; if she has four children, the limit is £208 15s.; if she has six children, the limit is £234 15s., with correspondingly higher limits for bigger families. That is a considerable extension of the means limit which prior to 1962 had been £130 15s. irrespective of the number of children. The same has happened in regard to unemployment assistance and I need not to go into detail. The overriding limit prior to 1962 was £100 per annum. Now it is extended to £237 10s. for a man with a wife and six children. I believe that to be the most equitable way of dealing with this question.

There have been other improvements, such as the new and more favourable method of calculating a widow's capital. All this results in the social assistance scheme being extended to embrace a far wider section of the community. I am satisfied that is the proper way to deal with the situation.

Deputy Jones was somewhat indignant about a particular case, which he described, where an old age pension was refused on the ground of means. I admit I very often find myself in sympathy with particular cases, even when I realise there is no possible way of dealing with them more favourably. On the facts as outlined by Deputy Jones, I cannot agree that was a case where social assistance should be made available when we can only pay it at the rates applying at the moment. Allowance is made for necessary labour on a farm and there is, possibly, a case in the future for making allowances for children of families who are still at school, but it seemed to me to be obvious that a farm of the size described by Deputy Jones just cannot provide employment for four adults.

You could not make full allowance for the labour of four adults on a farm of that size. It might be ideal to have all the children of a farmer staying at home and working on the farm, but that is not feasible here or anywhere else. Deputy Jones' constituent could qualify for the old age pension by handling over the farm to one of those children residing at home. That provision that exists in regard to farmers is a very considerable easement of the means test.

While dealing with that particular case I might mention that the method of assessing means is laid down in the Seventh Schedule of the Social Welfare Act of 1952. I want to make it clear that in so far as I am concerned, means must continue to be assessed by the officers of my Department, and decisions in regard to applications for assistance under the Department of Social Welfare must continue to be made by the officers statutorily appointed for that purpose.

I am not prepared to agree that Deputies should be allowed to assume these functions, nor am I prepared to co-operate in creating a situation where Deputies could succeed by threats made against individual officers to force them to disregard their duties. It would be ridiculous to suggest that the Minister should proceed to decide such things as old age pension claims on the basis of recommendations made by Deputies rather than have them decided as at present on the basis of a factual examination of means made by the social welfare officer and a decision made by a statutorily appointed officer.

Mr. O'Sullivan

And the sub-committees.

Mr. Boland

The sub-committees would enter into it also. If the social welfare officer believes the sub-committee have made a decision not in accordance with the facts of the case, he appeals that decision to the appeals officer.

Mr. Tully

Why have the sub-committee at all, if their recommendations do not carry weight?

Mr. Boland

That is a matter that arises, as to whether sub-committees perform a useful function.

Mr. Tully

I believe they do.

Mr. Boland

I have an open mind on the subject. I believe their local knowledge may be of considerable importance some times in deciding cases. But when there is a dispute between the sub-committee and the officer who has investigated the facts, the appeals officer is there to decide that dispute, and he does not always decide in favour of the case made by the social welfare officer. I am not prepared to interfere with the social welfare officer in the discharge of his duty or to override his decisions merely because a particular Deputy dislikes them.

The allegation made here that a particular social welfare officer deprived an applicant of the maximum rate of old age pension for political purposes was a disgraceful charge. It is beneath contempt. Unfortunately, it is a typical allegation by the Deputy who made it. It is ridiculous to suggest that an experienced civil servant would deliberately and wrongly deprive a person of something to which the law entitled him and do so for political purposes. No decent person would believe that allegation. It is silly to suggest that any person of normal intelligence would imagine there was any political advantage to be obtained from behaving in such an inhuman manner. I have no personal knowledge of the case raised, but, from the attitude of the Deputy who raised it, it seems more likely that the officer concerned incurred the Deputy's displeasure not by acting in a political way but by refusing to submit to political pressure and threats intended to coerce him into breaching the regulations laid down by the Oireachtas. The case is now under re-investigation and will be decided by the statutorily appointed officer in accordance with the facts and without any interference by me one way or the other.

There are some Deputies on different sides who criticised the operation of unemployment assistance as it applies to small farmers, mainly in the west. The requirement to prove unemployment was criticised and also the means test, with particular reference to its disincentive effect on production and initiative. I consider a means test in some form an essential feature of any scheme of social assistance. The social welfare officers who administer it are merely doing their duty in accordance with the legislation enacted by this House. It was somewhat unfair for Deputy O'Donnell to describe the social welfare officer as public enemy No. 1, but I do not think he intended the description to be taken literally. I have taken care to ensure that social welfare officers understand clearly it is at least as important a part of their function to ensure that people get whatever benefits they are entitled to get as it is to ensure they do not get what they are not entitled to. I am sure all my predecessors did the same. I am reasonably certain social welfare officers do regard their duties in that manner. It is regrettable that, due to ill-considered statements by people who should know better, they should be misrepresented.

The requirement to report periodically to the local labour exchange or Garda station arises from the fact that this is a scheme of unemployment assistance; in other words, it is a payment made to a person during a period of unemployment. It must obviously be a condition for the receipt of such assistance that the claimant be available for work and be genuinly seeking work. It was represented here on a number of occasions that this requirement to prove unemployment interfered with the work on the farm. If the obligation of reporting once a week to declare a person is unemployed interferes to that extent with the work on the farm, such a person could hardly be regarded as unemployed within the meaning of the Unemployment Assistance Act.

I would be the last to deny that unemployment assistance, as it applies to the smallholder, acts as a disincentive to maximum production on these small farms; but I say unemployment assistance as distinct from unemployment benefit, must be based on need and, therefore, need must be established. This problem—and it is a serious problem—and all the other criticisms of unemployment assistance in this connection arise from the fact —adverted to by Deputy Carter—that the scheme is really designed to cater for people in areas where employment opportunities might reasonably be expected to occur. It is not entirely suitable to deal with the different social problem of people who find themselves located in areas where the holdings are insufficient to give an adequate standard of living.

I have studied this matter fairly closely. While I have made a number of improvements in the scheme, I do not think a completely satisfactory solution can be arrived at by any amount of tinkering with the unemployment assistance scheme. The method of giving this assistance to small farmers could not be made entirely acceptable to the Deputies who have spoken on the matter here, and to the people who share their views, with in the frame work of the present scheme. To meet their viewpoint and to assist in the establishment of schemes, such as the one in Glencolumbkille referred to by Deputy O'Donnell, would involve a completely fresh approach to the problem and a decision to inaugurate a completely new scheme of aid to uneconomic farms, the effect of which would be to stimulate rather than inhibit the maximum effort to raise production on small holdings. This would not be a very simple thing to do.

I suppose it would not be impossible to devise some such schemes, but before deciding to do so, there are a number of other important considerations which would have to be taken into account. These considerations would involve matters of policy which would be the concern of more than one other Government Department, apart from the Department of Social Welfare. Of course, not the least consideration in that matter would be the question of costs, and how the money would be raised. It is obvious to everyone that such a scheme would cost a great deal more than the present scheme of unemployment assistance, since in equity it could not be confined to those who have succumbed to the disincentive effect of unemployment assistance, while their neighbours might with no better opportunity, by their own industry, have put themselves outside its scope.

Deputy Cunningham seems to have the wrong idea about the specific point he raised. Income from a farm would not be assessed against a son or a son-in-law living on the farm when applying for unemployment assistance, except to the extent of a nominal assessment for residence and maintenance and this would not debar him from receiving unemployment assistance. If the Deputy has some particular case in mind I suggest he should bring it to my attention.

Deputy O'Donnell mentioned the question of share fishermen in that connection. He quoted a case—I do not know whether it was an actual or a theoretical case—of two brothers, one who had been working for a wage, and the other who had been share fishing. That case shows some of the anomalies that can arise, and I think Deputy O'Donnell would agree that it would be difficult to solve. That question is under examination in the Department at the moment, and I hope it will be possible to devise some way of improving the position, without creating further anomalies, and without breaching fundamental principles. Obviously it is not feasible to ignore the earnings of people who are selfemployed, in the same way as the earnings of people who have been working for a wage.

The question of the increase in the cost of living was raised, with particular reference to the effect of the turnover tax. That matter has been debated on a number of occasions, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into all the details we went into before on the Budget debate, and on the Private Members' Motion on which it was debated. I think it was also debated on this Estimate last year. It is a fact that the minimum increase given in the Social Welfare Bill last year, to any class of people in receipt of social welfare benefit or assistance, was eight per cent. Taking into account the maximum possible effect of the turnover tax and the increase in the cost of living since the last increase in social welfare payments was given——

Mr. O'Sullivan

Including today's?

Mr. Boland

I would say even increases since then. However, I am dealing with the position up to the granting of the last increase in social welfare payments, and the effects of the turnover tax and increases in the cost of living up to that time. The result of the increases given last year was that there was a net improvement in the position of every recipient of social welfare in any shape or form. Deputy O'Sullivan may not agree with me, but I think the cost of living has not in fact caught up with that yet. It is a question that cannot yet be established definitely because of the fact that the cost of living figures are always somewhat out of date when they are published.

This Government have been implementing a policy of effecting improvements in social welfare payments relative to the cost of living. That has been shown clearly on a number of occasions, and I do not think it is necessary to go into the whole matter again. We have a stated policy of ensuring that the position of social welfare recipients improves according as the national income improves. In the implementation of that policy eight Social Welfare Bills have been passed in the past six years. The question of whether circumstances justify a further increase will be considered at the appropriate time, when all the relevant factors can be taken into account.

In view of some of the things that were said in this debate I should point out that it was never claimed that the turnover tax was for social welfare purposes only. It was also necessary to continue the policy of development which has been so successful. Deputy Tully said we were being over-optimistic in our estimate of the number of people who would be insured in the coming year. The number of people in insurable employment has been increasing. On 31st March, 1960, the number was 710,567 and on the same date in 1962 it was 712,302. It is obvious that that trend is continuing.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is there any impact on the 100,000 new jobs? Are they on record?

Mr. Boland

I do not think there is any need to go into that now. It was gone into often enough.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Quite.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Treacy painted a very adverse picture of social welfare benefits from the point of view of this part of the country as against the benefits available in Northern Ireland. It should be pointed out that the contributions there by insured people and by employers are much greater than here. Government contributions towards the cost of the social insurance scheme are considerably higher here than they are in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and they are higher here than in any other country I know of. Here the average contribution by the State over the past ten years has been 38.5 per cent. In Great Britain, the average over the same period has been about 16 per cent which is less than half the contribution made here. As far as I can see the comparision is even more favourable in the case of most other European countries.

Deputy Jones said it was not known to the public generally that for a person to leave his employment without good cause incurred disqualification from the receipt of unemployment benefit. I find it hard to believe that the ordinary person does not realise that that is obviously a disqualification. Certainly, the Department does everything possible to draw people's attention to it. I cannot see how it could possibly be otherwise. I do not think we should make it possible for a person, who possibly has other means, to get insurable employment and retain it for a sufficient length of time to qualify himself for benefit and then to throw it up for no reason other than to obtain benefit.

Deputy Kyne referred to an applicant's having to prove he was genuinely seeking employment. He referred to a particular case where a person was asked to produce written evidence to that effect. I should say it was only in a case where there was reason to suspect that the person was not genuinely seeking employment that such proof would be demanded.

Mr. Kyne

I had no objection to his being asked to produce it, but I objected to the fact that when he produced the evidence, it was not accepted.

Mr. Boland

I did not realise that. However, if he produced satisfactory proof that he was seeking employment——

Mr. Kyne

Written proof.

Mr. Boland

——obviously, if it was satisfactory, it should be accepted.

Mr. Kyne

One would think so.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Tully objected to the insurability of a person being questioned when a claim arises after a number of years during which stamped cards had been accepted without question. I think such an incident would be very exceptional. After all, there are also cases in which it had been decided many years afterwards, where cards were not stamped, that the employment was in fact insurable. In those cases late contributions have been accepted and benefit paid. Therefore, I think that must work both ways. If it is reasonable that the employment shall be declared insurable afterwards in order to qualify a person for benefit, it is also reasonable in cases where cards have been stamped and in which the employment was not in fact insurable that it should be possible also to question that.

A number of Deputies spoke about delays that are alleged to take place in the deciding of claims and appeals. I think the position generally in regard to the making of these decisions is satisfactory. There may have been occasions when there were delays but my experience is that the position has greatly improved. I shall always investigate any case of an alleged unduly long delay, if Deputies will let me know it. There is an obvious difficulty in always having sufficient staff to deal with a sudden and unpredictable increase in the volume of claims and there may be temporary periods when decisions may take somewhat longer than it would be reasonable to expect, but generally speaking, I am satisfied claims are dealt with expeditiously and that the situation is closely watched to ensure that sufficient staff is available for this purpose. In most cases of unduly long delays, it will be found that the reason is that the available information would result in an adverse decision and the delay is probably in the applicant's interest.

I think I dealt with the question of the provision of extra payments for the children dependants of contributory and non-contributory old age pensioners on a previous occasion. I dealt with that, I think, on the Supplementary Estimate a short time ago and it is hardly necessary to go into it again now; but it is one of the improvements that I have in mind for the future. I do not know when it will be possible to introduce it but according as the prosperity of the country grows, we shall be able to effect more of these desirable improvements.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley referred to a difficulty with regard to widows who are in receipt of widows' pensions and who, when they are approaching the age of 70, are told to apply for the old age pension and stated that in some cases this had resulted in a period during which neither the widow's pension nor the old age pension was payable. It is obviously wrong that that should happen. It may have happened in the past but there is a new arrangement now whereby widows approaching the age of 70 are visited by the social welfare officer approximately four months before reaching 70 and their means investigated and an application form for the old age pension completed then and there, so that there will be no delay.

Deputy P. O'Donnell said there should be no need for Deputies to write continually to the Minister about social welfare matters. I think there is not. It is comparatively seldom that cases arise where there is really necessity for Deputies to make representations. The fact that there is a large volume of correspondence in these matters is, I think, due to the fact that there is competition between Deputies representing the same constituencies. Sometimes I feel they are trying to outdo one another in making it appear they got these benefits for people when in fact people get them because legislation has been enacted to provide them.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They have been well got before the Deputy is informed.

Mr. Boland

However, that appears to be an unavoidable feature of our electoral system. In fact, I think that for Deputies to make unnecessary representations about clear-cut cases has its disadvantages. Obviously, if a Deputy appears to have a system of getting to know of every claim made in his constituency and of writing about each claim, then such representations are unlikely to make any great impact on either the Minister or the officers of the Department, but if you know that a Deputy writes only when he has a particularly involved or difficult case to deal with it is more likely to get particular attention.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley also raised the question of a widow in receipt of a widow's pension being unable to cash the pension except at a particular post office. There are obvious difficulties in making these orders payable at any post office and many advantages in having payment made at a particular post office. The officials will generally know the person cashing the orders. It enables them to deal expeditiously with the claimant when she calls to cash the pension and it discourages the cashing of orders by unauthorised persons. It also facilitates the renewal of pension books and the early notification to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs of events affecting the payment of pensions, such as death, changes of address, remarriage and so on. In the case of a pension book that has been lost, such books are cancelled by the issuing of a stop notice to the post office of payment and if these stop notices had to be circulated to each post office, it would be much more difficult to implement them. Therefore while I can see Deputy Mrs. Crowley's point, it would be a difficult matter to deal with and the present system appears to be the best.

Mr. Kyne

Has the Minister anything to say about workmen's compensation being payable to Irish residents working on British ships?

Mr. Boland

That is a point Deputy Kyne has raised on a number of occasions. He was particularly interested in the case of Irish seamen employed on British ships and referred to a decision given in a court case in Cork which appeared to put these people outside the scope of workmen's compensation. I mentioned to Deputy Kyne on one occasion when he raised this matter that this decision was under appeal. The Supreme Court has decided on that appeal from the Circuit Court, and as a result the case was referred back to the Cork Circuit Court. It was heard by that court on 29th November, 1963 and it has now been ascertained from the workman's solicitors that on the matter being referred back to the circuit court, the court awarded workmen's compensation at the maximum rate for the periods of the workman's incapacity.

Mr. Kyne

So that the difficulty has been overcome.

Mr. Boland

The difficulty was due to the fact that nobody drew the court's attention to the existence of a reciprocal agreement in that respect, but that matter has been cleared up now.

Deputy Tully referred to the fact that in some cases a person on workmen's compensation would be entitled to some disability benefit in addition. It is a fact that a man who has a wife and two children or more, and who is on the maximum workmen's compensation would be entitled to disability benefit also because of the fact that the amount of disability benefit which would be appropriate would be higher than the amount of workmen's compensation. That does not mean, however, as Deputy Tully suggested, that insurance companies are being subsidised by the social insurance fund because the premiums paid to cover workmen's compensation insurance are related to the level of compensation that is payable and naturally if the rates were increased, it is only to be expected that premiums would go up also. I do not think there is anything else I need refer to.

Mr. Jones

I wonder if the Minister would tell me whether the Seventh Schedule to the 1952 Social Welfare Act, which he says is the relevant one, lays down that there is a maximum amount of family labour allowed on a small farm? Secondly, I would be obliged if he would inform me if a person who has to go a long distance to his employment and where family circumstances require that he should be nearer home, is in certain circumstances to be deprived of benefit? I had in mind a case where there was not any wilful attempt to do so, but family circumstances dictated it.

Mr. Boland

With regard to the first point, allowance is made for necessary labour.

Mr. Jones

What somebody considers to be necessary?

Mr. Boland

Of course somebody has to decide.

Mr. Jones

Are the family not allowed to live on their farm?

Mr. Boland

They are, but if there is not full work for four adults on the farm, you can hardly expect an allowance to be made at the rate of a wage for four people.

Mr. Jones

But where there is no work available—there is no industry in the constituency—what are they to do then? Leave and go to England?

Mr. Boland

It is surely an accepted fact—it may not be a pleasant fact—that a farmer cannot keep all his family at home to work on the farm all their lives unless——

Mr. Jones

But at 19 or 22—that is not all their lives.

Mr. Boland

I think the Deputy quoted 32.

Mr. Jones

Yes, the eldest.

Mr. Boland

In regard to the other point raised by Deputy Jones regarding offers of employment, a person is expected to accept a reasonable offer of employment but if in the circumstances the offer is not one you could reasonably expect a person to accept, then he should not be deprived of benefit

Mr. Jones

That was the cause of my complaint.

Mr. Boland

I will look into the case if the Deputy forwards the details to me.

Mr. Jones

I shall.

Vote put and agreed to.