Deputy Sweetman has brought to my notice a case of a widow in Naas whose husband was employed for his working lifetime by the local authority there. He retired in 1961 and from then until he died last year, he was not making voluntary contributions. I think the position in law as it now stands is that such a widow is precluded from getting a contributory widow's pension because the worker had not the necessary qualifying average contributions of 39 contributions per year in the relevant period. If I am wrong in that, I should like the Minister to correct me.
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
The last three or five years.
He has not paid those because he was not contributing during that period. The amendment which the Minister proposes provides that, in lieu of that requirement, where a person is unable to comply with it, if it can be shown that the contributor had more than the minimum of 156 contributions, an average of 48 in a period commencing at the time he first made the contribution and ending when he stops making contributions, the pension may be given. What I should like the Minister to clarify, if he would be good enough to do so, is, for such purposes will the State take into consideration in this particular case the five years during which the man was not making voluntary contributions or will the average of 48 be calculated up to the date upon which he retired as distinct from the date upon which he died?
If it is calculated up to the date upon which he retired, I would imagine that his widow and very many others will not have any great difficulty in establishing an average of 48 but if a person is required to establish that average over a period which includes five years of retirement, and perhaps more, it will become increasingly difficult, with the advance in the age of the person, for his widow to qualify under the average of 48. Really the point which is not entirely clear is whether or not the conclusion of the qualifying period is the date on which a person retires and ceases to make contributions or the date on which a person dies.
We recently had in this House and in the Seanad weeks of debate on the Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill. The Minister has yet to fix a date on which that Act will come into operation. He mentioned in the course of his introduction to this debate that that date will coincide with the dates for other changes which he is making under this Bill. I plead with the Minister not to delay implementing the provisions of the new Bill which will provide double benefits and more for recipients of workmen's compensation because the present limit of £4 10s is utterly and completely and cruelly inadequate. Unless we remedy that great injustice without delay, workers will have good reason to believe that democracy here is incapable of working in their interest.
One appreciates that there are difficulties to be overcome in the setting up of the new machinery. It is our regret in the Fine Gael benches that the increases and benefits were tied to the implementation and setting up of new machinery because we felt that the consequences of tying increased benefits to new machinery would be to have a regrettable delay. We can only hope that delay will be as short as possible and anything the Minister can do to expedite the date of the operation of that Act and the operation of the other benefits of this Bill will be welcomed by us. I do not know if the Minister will be in a position to state in the course of this debate the date on which this Bill and the Occupational Injuries Bill will come into operation. We hope he may be able to give us a date before the debate on the Bill concludes.
We are glad that the Minister is taking the power, which is apparently necessary, to recover from defaulting employers the full value of benefits or assistance given by the State to employees in respect of whom the employers have not made the necessary insurance contributions. It is regrettable that the State is not as alert or as anxious to recover these payments as it could be. It is all very well to say that a worker who has lost his insurance benefit through the default of the employer has the right to proceed against the employer for any loss sustained. The fact is that the people whom this type of insurance social welfare scheme is intended to benefit are the very people who have not got the means or the capacity to instruct lawyers to institute legal proceedings on their behalf. There are very many cases in which people go without the statutory benefits to which they are entitled simply because they have not the means or opportunity to institute legal proceedings against defaulting employers. I should prefer to see the State once and for all taking over this task and with all due expedition ensuring that employers refund to the State the full value of contributory and non-contributory pensions and other benefits or assistance paid. Then the State could in turn be recouped by the persons who might have received some kind of temporary allowances from the State.
It is a cause of considerable regret to us in Fine Gael that the £268,000 which the State has saved this year by reason of the new reciprocal agreement between ourselves and Britain has not been ploughed back into our social welfare code for the benefit of recipients. After all, this House has already voted this money to be expended on behalf of the people in receipt of pensions and allowances of one kind or another and it is being mealy-mouthed in the extreme to take this money back and use it in trying to bolster up the rather shaky Exchequer. This money has already been voted and it is a very small proportion of the total amount spent by the State in social welfare and an even smaller proportion of the amount being spent by the State in all matters. It is highly desirable that this small pittance should be returned to social welfare funds and distributed in the provision of some small relief for some section of the community.
I have had occasion before, as the Minister knows, to complain in this House about the archaic system under which we oblige thousands of pensioners and other social welfare recipients in Dublin city to queue up weekly and monthly to receive old age pensions, contributory and non-contributory, widows' and orphans' allowances, blind pensions and children's allowances. It seems to be inexcusable that we should oblige mothers of young families to attend in the midst of all their other family problems and tasks at post offices for several hours to collect these measly allowances. In the suburb of Ballyfermot, where the vast majority of the people have young families and where mothers are obliged to bring their children to school in the mornings and prepare midday meals for them, at the same time looking after younger members of the family, 4,600 such mothers are required to attend every month at their local post office to get their children's allowances.
The State may argue that it is necessary to have personal attendance for children's allowances in order that identity may be established. It is quite ludicrous to suggest that any operator in a Dublin suburban post office can possibly know the identity of people attending with their books to collect children's allowances. It is certainly not possible in a post office where 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 mothers have to attend to get their children's allowances. I plead with the Minister once again to do away with that utterly unnecessary imposition on recipients of children's allowances and old age pensions. We know for a fact that there are many people who by-pass the local post office in Dublin suburbs and pay the high cost of public transport to the centre of the city in order to avoid queueing for hours at their local post offices.
The State may say with all accuracy but with little concern for the real, compelling needs of families that there is no need for recipients of children's allowances or pensions to attend on the first day on which the allowance or pension comes due. There may be no legal obligation to do so but there are many cases of really urgent and compelling need to attend on the first day on which the allowances become available. Indeed, the Dublin Corporation rent office would be in turmoil if it could not rely on people being paid children's allowances on the first possible day and in so doing, avoiding the inevitable consequences of eviction for non-payment of rent. It is difficult to see why the Department of Social Welfare cannot arrange to stagger days on which children's allowances are paid and days on which other allowances are paid.
If we are to maintain the system of payment through the local post office, it would surely be better to ensure a steady flow of people upon the days recipients of social welfare benefits become entitled to payment for the first time rather than the situation which operates in many Dublin suburbs of having queues of people not only in the post office itself but outside on the pavement. Some of these people are in such dire financial straits that, notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather or the fact that it may be the day for the payment of children's allowances, they will endure the suffering of standing in the wind and rain and storm, queueing up for hours on end, in order to ensure that they will get payment at the first available opportunity.
The staggering of days could be related to the alphabetical sequence of the initials of the applicants or it could be arranged that a person could get the children's allowance in monthly instalments which would coincide with the date on which application was originally made. Several other rules could be applied to ensure that these days would be staggered and the sooner this is done the better.
There may be Deputies who do not appreciate the gravity of this problem and who may think I am exaggerating. I got these figures last year from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, which clearly indicate how serious the problem is. The reference is column 224 of the Official Report of Wednesday, 30th June, 1965. In Ballyfermot, 4,182 children's allowances are paid on one day.
That is Deputy Seán Dunne's constituency.
It is mine, too. Deputy Dunne does not maintain the whole of the Ballyfermot area under his wing. In Crumlin, 2,380 children's allowances are paid on the one day and in another post office there the number is 1,610. But the total allowances paid there on some days, if you coincide the payment of old age pensions and widows and orphans' pensions, bring the figures up to 2,694 and 2,697 respectively. In areas such as Rathmines, where a smaller proportion of children's allowances are paid and a higher proportion of old age pensions are paid, the total works out at much the same, 2,650.
Does it not concern the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that the postal service becomes disrupted on the days when pensions and children's allowances are paid, on certain occasions? I am certain the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would be quite happy to be relieved of this burden. Why the Department cannot issue payment orders which would be negotiable anywhere is difficult to understand. The requirement of establishing identity is ludicrous in large urban areas where it is impossible for post offices to establish the identity of the multitudinous applicants who come before them.
On that score, there was a time, I think, when children's allowance dockets could be cashed by people with bank accounts. It might be argued that such people should not get children's allowances but this is one of the very few social welfare benefits not subjected to a means test. So long as they are entitled to it, it is difficult to see why the Department of Social Welfare brought in a prohibition against the cashing of children's allowance vouchers through banks, if only to relieve the pressure on the post offices and also to avoid the obligation of personal attendance at post offices. I would encourage the Minister to make this small amendment. I think that, as the years go by, an increasing number of people will have bank accounts and ought to be encouraged to cash their children's allowance dockets there rather than imposing a burden on the unfortunate post office clerks.
In the midst of all the industrial disputes and talk about industrial disputes which we have had in recent years, time and again, in this House and elsewhere, protest has been made, and I think justifiably made, about the difficulty of workers in obtaining public assistance when they are on strike or locked out by their employers through no fault of their own. We have had the Minister for Social Welfare on numerous occasions pretending here that no difficulty whatsoever arises in paying public assistance or other benefit to people who are locked out so long as they can establish entitlement to it. The fact is that every possible obstacle is put in the way of people who are locked out in industrial disputes to prevent them and their families from getting very urgently-needed public assistance. This has been called, and I think not incorrectly, the punishment of innocent workers. Apparently it is felt in the Department of Social Welfare that the innocent should suffer.
It is common case that workers do not welcome strikes. They are the people who suffer most in industrial disputes and they are the people who have not put a bit aside for the rainy day. A person on strike, with the approval of his trade union, will receive what may in fact be, and is in most cases, a totally inadequate weekly sum but the unfortunate person locked out may, in some cases, not receive any kind of allowance from his trade union. The erection of a series of barriers and obstacles and personal indignities against people who are involved in industrial disputes, particularly in lockouts, is something we should disturb our conscience about and we should see to it that we ease the burden of these people. Their anxieties and sufferings are already great. We should not add to them by imposing all kinds of indignities and unfair obstacles when they apply for necessary assistance for themselves and their families.
On Tuesday, 28th June, 1966, I addressed a question to the Minister for Social Welfare in regard to the amount of income precluded from being taken into account in the granting of home assistance. I asked him to state the authority for it and the date of the fixing of the amount. The Minister told us that in granting home assistance, non-contributory widows' pension or children's allowance may be taken into account only in so far as each exceeds 10/- a week. He told us that an excess of 10/- a week was fixed by the Social Welfare Act 1948—18 years ago—and in respect of pensions and children's allowances, it was fixed in 1952. Quite clearly, if there is any purpose in this, it is to allow applicants what is regarded as some miserable minimum. If that figure were 10/- in 1948 and 1952, and if it has any relevance to those things, it clearly has no relevance to the requirements of people in 1966.
I think I gleaned from the Minister's remarks and from his reply to supplementary questions that he is a bit bewildered at the existence of this particular requirement at all. He points out rightly that in assessing need for home assistance, the critical matter is the need of an applicant and not what public assistance a person may already be receiving. It is a question of the comprehensive need of a particular applicant. This artificial figure should not have any bearing upon the assessment of whether or not a person is or is not in need of the pauper relief which we call home assistance. If that is the Minister's private and personal view, I would ask him to take an opportunity in this Bill to bring in the necessary amendment to do away with this 10/- altogether. If, on the other hand, it is thought necessary in justice to the recipients of home assistance to keep a minimum figure of this particular kind on the statute book, then, clearly, the least we can do now, to make the figure relevant in 1966, is to quadruple the figure and to put it at a minimum of £2. Either course is clearly necessary and I think I am not misinterpreting the Minister's attitude in the matter when I say he has a certain sympathy with the view I am expressing.
Debate adjourned.