Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 22 Jul 1969

Vol. 241 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1969: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ryan

I should like the Minister to give some elucidation as to the meaning of the phrase "as duly calculated" in column 1 of the Table, particularly in relation to savings of old people. We think it very unfair that at this time, when funeral expenses for even a modest funeral are not less than £75 and can frequently be £100 or £125, an old age pensioner should have only the first £25 of savings excluded in the assessment of means. After that, a notional 5 per cent is charged on the next £375 which an old pensioner may have saved. The reality of the situation is that most old age pensioners have their savings institumodestly remunerative saving institution such as the Post Office Savings Bank where the interest rate is only 3½ per cent. To be notionally charging these people with receiving an income of 5 per cent on savings above £25 is causing very real hardship, particularly when most such people are not spending any part of their earnings from interest, small as it is. I hope the Minister will be able to give some promise of alleviation in regard to old people's savings.

This Bill as submitted again places a premium on improvidence. It confers benefit on the spendthrift and gives advantage to the non-saver, to those who have not saved, and it deprives of benefit those who have saved a little. One of the greatest fears of elderly people is fear of a pauper's grave, fear of some real want in the closing days of their lives and to continue to assess their savings with a notional income of 5 per cent after £25 is very wrong. I doubt if it would cost the State much to give relief from all assessment of savings of £100 or under.

Would the Minister also give some information for the benefit of some Deputies, including the former Deputy Booth who, on Second Stage, asked for some guidance as to the manner of assessing means from land and cottages occupied by elderly people? I think that the Department have some rule of thumb which applies to land. If land can be established as having an actual income, that income is taken as being the income which an elderly person receives but where land in some cases is not actually let, some notional value is put on the land and this appears to cause hardship in a number of cases. These are the areas where great benefits could be conferred on people. I hope the Minister will see his way to doing this as I do not think it would cost a great deal.

Finally, may I express the hope that as these increases are being given to old age pensioners and under other sections to other people, the increases will not be taken into account by local authorities in calculating home assistance and disablement payments? I know that the practice has been for the Minister to send circulars to local authorities encouraging them not to take social welfare benefits into account for the purpose of reducing home assistance and disability payments. We are sorry that the Minister has not made it mandatory on local authorities to ignore such increases. I do not think there are many cases in which executives of local authorities deliberately reduce home assistance payments as a result of pension or social welfare increases but there are cases on record, I think, where such payments have not been increased where they might have been increased because, apparently, under the social welfare code other benefits have increased. The tendency in some areas has been in the wrong direction and we hope the Minister will take the opportunity on this occasion again to remind local authorities that the State having assessed the need for substantially increased social welfare payments, these should not be taken into account to reduce the burden on local authorities. I am very much in favour of local authorities having their burden of welfare payments reduced but it should not be done simply because these are increased. It should be done by the State taking over total responsibility but of course that, Sir, is another matter entirely.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Ryan that there may be a case for examining the amount that is ignored in the assessment of capital as means, in view of the increased expense of funerals and so on. I think he is correct in saying that it was originally intended to cover those expenses. I will certainly examine the feasibility of increasing the amount that is ignored. I think it should be due for review now in any case.

In regard to the method of assessing the income from remaining capital— 5 per cent on the first £375 and 10 per cent on the rest—it is a fact that the return from an annuity purchased with a certain amount of money by a person over 70 years of age would be more than that, and that it is, in fact, possible for a person of this age, with this amount of capital, to obtain from that capital a higher income than is assessed under the present system.

In regard to the assessment of means from land, this is done for these purposes on a factual basis. An assessment is made of the actual net income from the land and that is the income that is assessed. It is not correct, as Deputy Bruton thought, that a rule of thumb is applied and that it is assessed on a notional basis, on the valuation. That applies only to the unemployment assistance scheme where the assessment is on the basis of £20 per £1 valuation, irrespective of the actual income that is obtained from the land. So far as old age pensions and widows' pensions are concerned, the assessment is on the basis of the actual net income obtained either from the letting or the working of the land. In many cases this is more favourable than the notional system would be.

I think by now it is fairly well established that local authorities do not take account of increases given in social assistance payments in the assessment of home assistance or disabled person's maintenance allowance. If any Deputy comes across any case in which that is done, I will be prepared to take it up with the local authority concerned. I do not think there have been any complaints about this for a great number of years. It does not appear to me to be necessary to do anything formal about it. Generally the local authorities are reasonable in this matter and do not take these increases into account.

Mr. Murphy

Section 2 deals with the means assessment. When an old age pensioner has money and transfers it to a member of his family, it is not unusual for some social welfare officers not to accept that transfer as genuine. In discussing other matters in this House, we always underline the advisability of aged people transferring means to younger members of their family so as to give them an opportunity to improve their position in life by giving them capital which might be used advantageously in the development of any business they may own. I cannot see, for the life of me, why it should be, as it so often is, that a transfer of money—in many cases by an incapacitated old age pensioner or a person of over 80 years—is not accepted by the Department of Social Welfare. In this measure we should do away with that system.

We cannot treat all these people as dishonest and suggest that they are doing something to circumvent State regulations to be entitled to a pension. My views are very definite on this. Unfortunately, I have come across a number of cases from time to time of old age pensioners with £1,000, £1,500 or £2,000—or whatever sum people in that group may have—who transferred that money to a member of their families and the transfer was not accepted. That should not be questioned. This assumption that so many of our old people are dishonest is completely incorrect. I could cite individual cases.

The determination by the appeals board is scandalous in many cases when they do not uphold the right of a pensioer to transfer any capital which he might like to a member of his family. I am asking the Minister and the House to support that viewpoint. No longer should this be questioned. It should be dealt with in the same way as the transfer of farm property. Once it is transferred it is automatically accepted as being transferred and there is no further question about it. It is not assessable subsequently. The same should apply to capital. I am urging that on the Minister and on the House.

Mr. Boland

The fact is, as Deputy Murphy said, that the transfer of land is automatically accepted and that the transfer of capital is not always accepted, but that does not mean to say that it is always treated as not being genuine. Every case is examined on its merits and, if it appears to be a genuine question of a family settlement, then it is accepted. If a transfer is not accepted by the old age pensions committee as a result of a social welfare officer's report, the pensioner has the right of appeal. It is not a question of deciding in advance that every person who makes a transfer such as this is dishonest. It is a question of fact, and whether or not a transfer of money is held to be for the purpose of getting an old age pension or whether it is accepted as a genuine transfer to a member of the family. The position is that sometimes it is accepted and sometimes it is not.

I do not think it is realistic to suggest that we should make a rule that the transfer of money should always be accepted and in all circumstances, irrespective, apparently, of the amount of money involved. That would leave the way wide open for very wealthy people to get a non-contributory old age pension. Generally speaking, the present system works fairly well. In cases where it is believed that a person has been treated harshly, the right of appeal to an appeals officer can be exercised. It just is not realistic to suggest that all transfers of capital should be automatically accepted. There has to be some assessment of the facts in individual cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Murphy

Section 5 deals with the rates of pension and I understand that it also deals with the assessment of income. I want to refer again to a question I raised here before, that is, the differential between the assessment of means of a widow as against that of an old age pensioner. Suppose that a widow has £1,000 in the bank or in her possession. She is assessed on an income of £45. At 70 years of age she moves along to the old age pension. She is getting older, possibly more feeble, but the assessment of that £1,000 increases to £78 15s and, as a result, her pension is decreased. I am surprised that this was not changed in this measure. Unfortunately, I had not an opportunity of speaking when the Second Stage of this Bill was going through the House, but I want to impress upon the Minister and the House the undersirability of retaining that type of assessment. It is unfair that incomes should be assessed at a higher rate in respect of widows once they reach the age of 70 years. Therefore, I am appealing to the Minister to change this on the Report Stage of the Bill, if it is possible to do so.

Mr. Ryan

I agree entirely with what Deputy Murphy has said. This comes back to the point I was making earlier about the lack of reality in relation to present-day money values, that with the present rules in relation to capital and interest thereon, there is a crying need for re-assessment.

A widow with £1,000 and a number of small children is not by any means a rich person and it is entirely wrong to be assessing that unfortunate person with having an income out of what should be a nest egg to be reserved for some almost inevitable expense arising in the course of raising her family. Could the Minister say offhand when was the level of income which a widow could earn before having her pension diminished last fixed?

With the exception of such amendments as may have taken place in the widow's pension, it is a long time since there was any re-assessment made of what that level should be and it certainly does not bear, in relation to present-day income possibilities, the relationship which existed when the level was last fixed.

I do not think it would cost a great deal to bring the figures up to a realistic point. The reason I say that is this: it is common knowledge that there are non-contributory widows in receipt of incomes from other sources which, if they were disclosed to the State, would disqualify them from receiving a non-contributory pension. I think the reason this is not disclosed is that their friends and neighbours know that morally it would be unjust to have the widow's mite that they received from the State withdrawn from them simply because they are trying to supplement income by going out and doing a few hours work here and there. The Minister for Social Welfare may, in his official capacity, hold his hand up in horror that such should be occurring but I imagine that as an ordinary Christian gentleman he in common with other Members of the House would probably rejoice that widows were supplementing the utterly inadequate non-contributory pension by doing a few hours work. If they can do it without harm to their family life, most people will say: "More power to them." Therefore I do not imagine there would be a huge influx of new demands for non-contributory pensions if the income a widow could earn before her pension was cut was to be brought up to a realistic figure.

Mr. Boland

The differential in assessing means arising from capital is in favour of widows, and this is recognition of the fact that a widow, being considerably younger than the old age pensioner, is more likely to have a young family and therefore have far more demands upon her income than the old age pensioner. As I have already said in dealing with section 2, in the case of the assessment of the capital of an old age pensioner, it is a fact that a higher income than that assessed can be obtained by the purchase of an annuity with the capital in possession of the old age pensioner. Therefore, it is not an unrealistic method of assessing the income from a certain amount of capital, because a higher income can be obtained from it than that which is assessed. Deputy Ryan asked when was the income level last fixed. Of course, the level of income entitling a widow or an old age pensioner to a non-contributory pension is extended every year according as there are increases given in the rate of pension.

Mr. Ryan

Apart from that, can the Minister say——

Mr. Boland

Does the Deputy mean when the method of assessing means from capital was changed? It was last changed in 1963.

Mr. Ryan

Apart from such increases that there might be side by side with increases in pensions, has there been any assessment made of what a woman could earn, say, ten years ago and now, relating the income figure to that rather than to the pension?

Mr. Boland

The idea is that the maximum rate of pension is payable to the widow or the old age pensioner with no means, and the rate of pension then decreases in five shilling steps according as the means increases from nil up to a certain figure, and according as the maximum rate of pension is increased the means scale is correspondingly extended at the other end. It goes from nil up to whatever is the appropriate figure, depending on what the maximum rate of pension is at any time.

Mr. Murphy

I agree that circumstances may vary so far as the young widow and a widow of the 70-year mark are concerned, but I see no justification for continuing a law which reduces an allowance for a person because she moves beyond the 70-year milestone. I am just taking this £1,000 capital as an illustration. The income on this amount is supposed to increase by £33 15s just because you move from your 69th year to your 70th year. This is a matter which deserves immediate consideration.

I do not agree with the Minister's statement that it is possible to get dividends on this capital in excess of the assessment made by the Department of Social Welfare. In respect of capital in excess of £400 held by an applicant for an old age pension, the applicant is deemed to have a dividend of 10 per cent from that capital. Very few sources in this country provide a 10 per cent dividend on capital invested. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the position of young widows, particularly those in the farming community and in small retail businesses. The widow of a small farmer, with four or five children, or the widow of a medium-sized shopkeeper, applies for a non-contributory pension. Because of the rates of assessment in operation it is extremely difficult for such a widow to qualify for a pension. I can appreciate the difficulty of the social welfare officer who goes along to a widow, who has a farm carrying 12 or 13 cows, and tries to make her net income less than £5 or £6 a week in order to qualify her for a non-contributory pension. In order to bring her within the scope of the regulations to qualify for the maximum rates he would want to put down "nil". Her income must be "nil" to qualify for the second rate of pension; and £52-odd to qualify for the third rate of pension, with small adjustments in respect of each child. It is an impossible task for any social welfare officer. It is no use talking of 10s a week as an income for anybody. What would 10s per week buy in 1969? What would ten times 10s buy?

Under the regulations, a widow with two qualified children, who is demed to have more than £195 15s a year, or less than £208 15s, gets a pension of 33s 6d a week. That is a widow with in or around £4 a week. She could have £3 17s a week. Because she is deemed to have that income she loses 65s a week pension. That is not equitable. I should like to have the Minister's views on this. I am sure every Deputy has had experience of these cases. It is the regulations which are at fault.

Mr. Boland

I did not suggest that it was possible to get a dividend in excess of ten per cent from capital. What I said was that, in the case of a person over 70 years of age, it is possible to purchase an annuity which will give a greater return than that assessed under the system. That is very different from obtaining a dividend. I was referring to an annuity which would, of course, disappear on the death of the annuitant. It was pointed out to me a number of years ago that that did not apply in the case of younger people and it was as a result of that that the change was made in the assessment of means of widows. That change is now being used in an effort to have the same change made in the case of the person who reaches 70 years of age. I suppose it was inevitable that, as time went on, this easing in the case of the younger widows would be utilised to bring pressure to bear to have the same thing done in the case of old age pensioners. I am merely pointing out now how this arose. The assessment of capital in the case of old age pensioners is a realistic assessment.

Of course, the income from a farm, or a business, is naturally affected when the husband dies. That is taken into account in the assessment of means. The gross income is assessed and allowances made for the expenses that naturally arise. If Deputy Murphy really considers this matter deeply he will see that it would not be equitable, the amount of money available being limited, to give the same amount of pension either to an old age pensioner or to a widow with an income of £195 a year as one would give to a person who has no income at all.

The only satisfactory way of dealing with this problem is to increase the maximum rate of pension to a realistic amount and it certainly should be adjusted in accordance with income after that. The case of the widow or old age pensioner who has means of £195 or anything else will be automatically dealt with if we continue the process of increasing the maximum rate of pension and extending the means scale as we have been doing. To advocate giving the same rate of pension to the person who has means of £3 or £4 a week as we give to the person who has no means is to advocate the allocation of a substantial amount of money to the other recipients of social assistance and not give any of it at all to those who are most in need, who have no means at all. To abolish the means test completely would, as I have pointed out here before, cost £17½ million. To advocate the abolition of the means test is to advocate the raising of an additional £17½ million, distribute that to the various social assistance schemes, but to give nothing at all to those who have no means at all. I do not think anybody in this House would seriously recommend that.

Mr. Murphy

I am not advocating the abolition of the means test. I would not believe in that.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is advocating the substantial altering of the means test. The Deputy said, and I felt he had not really considered it deeply, that he would advocate that the widows whose means are assessed by £195 and under £208 should get the same pension as the widow with nil means. That, to all intents and purposes, is advocating the abolition of the means test. I do not think that would be equitable. The only way to deal with this in an equitable manner is to increase the maximum rate of pension as much as possible every year and to extend the means scale as we have been doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ryan

I am afraid I must join issue with Deputy O'Donovan who on Second Stage queried the payment of children's allowances to the first child. He said what, of course, is right, that the child is the cause of great joy and consolation to the parents. That is true of the first or any subsequent child, or it is true in most cases, but where the couple have only one child they have expenses which are much greater than if they had a number of children. Certainly there are no hand-me-downs for the first child, no clothes or school books. The capital expenditure is a once arising case only, a pram, a cot, a coat or anything else. It must be bought once and cannot be used by any other child. In many cases having only one child would deprive that couple of any opportunity in their lifetime of getting housing accommodation, subsidised or otherwise, from the local authority.

The one-child family has considerably higher expenses in many respects than the family which has a number of children. Those families with a number of children have expenses in relation to the first child which deserve the support of the community in the same way as the expenses in relation to other children. While I can appreciate that even if children's allowances never existed the ordinary natural inclination to have children would arise and it is only proper that society should endeavour, by the distribution of income, to ensure that the social standards and opportunities for any children or their parents should not be diminished by reason of children coming into the world. That is the whole purpose of children's allowances and if that is the valid principle it is applicable to the first child just as much as in relation to subsequent children.

It is with some disappointment that we in Fine Gael view the nonincrease of children's allowances in relation to the first child. It should have been increased in relation to the first child even in one-child families. Perhaps there is a greater case to be made for giving an increase in relation to the first child in larger families. The expenses will be very much the same in relation to the first child. They are usually greater because they involve capital expenditure which may not arise in relation to other children. I can appreciate the reason for it is that it would have cost quite a considerable amount and with the limited sums available the Minister felt it better to distribute this in the way it has been done. If the Minister has the figures I would like him to indicate what proportion of families are one-child families. I would expect they would be in the minority. Perhaps, if the Minister has the figures he will give them to me.

Mr. Cunningham

A fairly large additional sum has been allocated for children's allowances. The suggestion that the allowance for the first child should be much greater must be viewed in the context and against the background of the other increases granted. I would prefer to stick with what the Minister has done, increase substantially the allowance for the second, third and subsequent children. We must remember that sometimes we are accused of lagging behind other countries, especially Britain, in our social welfare code, but we must also remember that in Britain there is no allowance for the first child so that this is a case where we have gone one better. I would agree with the Minister in giving a much larger increase for the second, third and subsequent children.

Mr. Boland

The number of one-child families is 91,033 out of a total of 330,101 families which is roughly about 27 per cent, but, of course, they do not all remain static and eventually move on and become two- or threechild families or larger-sized families. I agree with much of what Deputy Ryan said. There are, of course, extra expenses involved in regard to the first child but then, of course, every family must expect to have at least one child. It is the normal thing to expect. However, it is recognised that it is right to give some assistance in cases like that and the Government did, in 1963, provide this 10s per month children's allowance for the first child. Obviously if this were to be increased in the same proportion as the allowances for the other children it would cost a great deal of money. That was one of the factors that had to be taken into account. The increase given for the second child is 14s 6d and for third and subsequent children it is 13s 6d. If an increase of 10s per month was to be given in respect of the first child it would cost almost £2 million I think the money which it was possible to distribute was distributed in the best way by giving these fairly substantial increases for the second and subsequent children. I do agree that at some future stage it would be desirable also to deal with the first child.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Ryan

Section 9 proposes, quite properly, to extend the giving of an orphan's pension where a child is undergoing full-time education at any university college or school up to what we know as 20 years of age, in other words, to the eve of the child's 21st birthday. I would be anxious and the Fine Gael Party would be anxious to see this go just a little further. In cases where it is impossible by reason of the duration of the university or college course to get qualification before the age of 21, a special arrangement should be made to extend it. I imagine the number of such cases would be few and far between but there would be cases in which children would get scholarships and in which they would be attending at university where they would be proceeding towards some particular qualification which would not enable them to qualify until after their 21st birthday. In such cases the pension ought to be paid until the earliest date at which the child in question could have qualified.

In relation to my own profession, most of them qualify just under their 21st birthday, some a few months afterwards. Somebody proceeding towards a BA degree or some degree of that kind must be in the minority these days. The medical profession and I imagine as years go on, other professions, because the tendency is to have longer courses, are going to find themselves in a situation in which young people will not qualify until they are in their early or middle 20's and on that account I would be anxious if the Minister would be so disposed that he would have another look at this and see if some provision could be made so as to enable the pension to be paid until the earliest date at which people could qualify. That is the general intention of the concession being given here but we should not cut off the pension during the last few months or in the last year that a student might be proceeding towards the final examinations because it would be undesirable that at that stage there should be such a distraction or upset in the family circumstances which would require the student to go out to work and thereby jeopardise the years of study which had gone beforehand.

Mr. Boland

It is obviously difficult to arrange this expect by reference to some age limit. What Deputy Ryan is suggesting now is that we should try to work into it also something which would take account of the duration of different university courses. I can see some difficulty in doing that. Twentyone years of age was taken as a fairly reasonable age but I can see that it does not cover every possible qualification by any means. I can only undertake to look into the possibility of making this more flexible for next year. I cannot do it this year.

Mr. Cunningham

Does this apply to children under 21 who are undergoing advanced education or secondary or other education outside the State? We have a situation where children are attending schools in the Six-County area. Does this apply to those who are resident here but attending schools or other places of education in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Boland

I take it the Deputy is referring to people who live in his part of the country and who attend educational establishments on the other side of the border. If we can get verification I do not see any reason why it should not apply there, once they are resident here. These are people who are resident here?

Mr. Cunningham

Whose parents are resident here.

Mr. Boland

It should be possible to cover them.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Murphy

The biggest problem arising from section 10 is the implementation of the benefits conferred by the section. Section 10 tells us that the benefits will not come into effect until the 2nd January, 1970. A similar provision was embodied in previous Bills. I cannot see the justification for withholding payments under the headings covered by section 10 to the 2nd January, 1970. Why not have the same date as is applicable in the case of non-contributory pensions, unemployment assistance and the other benefits in respect of which the additional payments will be made in early August? This is a matter that should be reviewed now. That is the main objection I have.

All Members of the House have had representations on this question of announcing benefits, usually in the month of April, in relation to non-contributory pensions and not paying the increases until early the following year. That means that from eight to nine months elapse before the additional benefits are paid to those covered by section 10.

Whatever about this Bill, the benefits in question should be paid at latest in the month of August, the same as the non-contributory pensions are. Is it possible, even at this late stage, to pay the additional rates for which these people qualify at an earlier date? A change must be introduced at some stage and there is no time like the present. I should like to hear the Minister's justification for allowing a continuance of this procedure whereby increased benefits are not payable for eight months after they have been approved, if you like, by the House when the Budgetary proposals have been passed, which usually happens in April. I should like an explanation for this unjust and unfair procedure which should be terminated.

Mr. Cunningham

Does this section apply to a daughter who is a widow and who goes to live with or who remains living with the father or mother or both who are in need of the daughter's care? In the case of an old age pensioner applying for this increase in respect of a daughter——

Mr. Boland

I think the Deputy is on the wrong section.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are discussing section 10 which deals with payment to a daughter or step-daughter.

Mr. Boland

I am sorry. The Deputy is right.

Mr. Cunningham

If the daughter, while remaining at home full time for the purpose of looking after the father or mother or both, has income other than an earned income, does she qualify or is there a means test in her case?

Mr. Boland

No question of income arises in that case. With regard to the question of the date of payment of these increases under the social insurance scheme, it is largely a question of the administrative arrangements that are involved. These involve such things as the necessity to arrange for the printing of new insurance stamps, new pension books and so on. The experience is that it takes up to the end of December generally to have all these arrangements completed. It is just not feasible to have these payments made any quicker than is done. The practice has been to have the new payments made from the beginning of the new year, from January, but since the arrangements are not so involved in the case of assistance payments, these can be made from August. Therefore, it is largely a question of the administrative arrangements that have to be made. In so far as the point raised by Deputy Cunningham is concerned, this deals with the insurance benefits and the question of income does not arise in that case.

Mr. Murphy

That is as lame an excuse as any Minister could give. I was anxious to know why payments were delayed until 2nd January. It is difficult to get replies to this sort of question, but now we are told that the reason why John Murphy down the country must wait for his 10s increase from April until 2nd January, 1970, and why the widow with her family is waiting for her increase for so long is administrative difficulties. In these days when we have sent men to the moon would it not be possible for our Civil Service to overcome these difficulties?

Mr. Geoghegan

We did not send the men to the moon.

Mr. Boland

The House has been given this reason for the past 12 years.

Mr. Tully

It was found possible to send out posters and stickers before the general election.

Mr. Murphy

These proposals were before the House in April. Is it conceivable that our Civil Service structure is such that it takes between eight and nine months before arrangements can be made for the payment of additional allowances? If that is so, we shall have to have a massive overhaul of this organisation.

Mr. Boland

And of the arrangements for the collection of the increased contributions.

Mr. Murphy

There is no justification for the eight or nine months delay. It is a reflection on the Civil Service to say that they are incapable and unable to deal with this minor problem within a lesser time. As Deputy Tully reminded the House, there was no problem in sending out the stickers for the additional children's allowances before the election. Why should contributory pensions and increases covered by section 10 of this measure not be paid at a date not later than 1st August, the date when the increases for the non-contributory people come into force? It is not right to expect qualified beneficiaries to wait until 2nd January before increases can be paid. We should argue this question strongly in the House during the discussion of this Bill because it is something that has given rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction in the past. Admittedly, we did not get a statement from previous Ministers as to the reasons for the delay, but the present Minister has given us a reason which I am suggesting to the House is not acceptable.

Mr. Boland

That reason has been given for the past 12 years.

Mr. Murphy

I cannot accept it and I am sure nobody in the House will accept that, due to administrative problems, these payments are delayed for eight or nine months. It is ridiculous that such is the position.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Desmond

I should be interested in hearing from the Minister his views in relation to the comments he made rather tentatively some few minutes ago on the operation of the contributory and non-contributory social security systems we have now. Perhaps it is that, because the Minister's political experience in this House has been almost exclusively that of a Minister dealing with the affairs of the State, he may be unaware of the tremendous general dissatisfaction throughout the country in relation to the two separate humiliating forms of social security in operation at present, the contributory and the non-contributory.

Surely it is not beyond the capacity of the capitalists in this day and age to devise a general system of social security whereby one could eliminate the £17½ million which the Minister says it costs to operate a non-means test system? Admittedly, we would require extra revenue. But when one considers that in this small Republic we can have an annual Budget in the region of £360 million, when we have a situation in which we have a gross national product of £1,000 million and when it is envisaged that £21 million can be spent on the adaptation of industry over a couple of years, surely this is not impossible?

We have had successive Ministers of State dealing with social security systems, crying on the shoulders of the Irish nation and saying that if we abolish the means test it will cost a further £17½ million a year. The time is long overdue when the Minister should through his Department — there are many social security experts in the Department, men of competence and of ability—recast in toto the social security system. This would be greeted by the Irish people as political maturity.

There is nothing more humiliating for anybody engaged in politics—even those of us who are new to Irish politics—and nothing more destructive to the overall working of any political party or member of it than to have to go to a person in the year 1969 and say: "If your yearly means are not in excess of £195 we can get you so much if you complete this form effectively. You will have the social welfare inquiry officer out to inspect your bank book right down the line. We will argue the case on your behalf and, ultimately, we will get you a non-contributory pension of 25s 6d or 34s 5d." We must come to grips with this problem whether we like it or not. My colleague, Deputy Murphy, has said that he generally favours a means test; I prefer to get rid of it. I prefer to have an open discussion in this House on the best means of getting rid of it. I submit that the tremendous growth of insured employment in this country is one means of abolishing ultimately the means test in the non-contributory section of the population.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that those who benefit from non-contributory pensions could, by and large, make some contribution. This includes the major section of the agricultural community. To bring them in on a contributor basis to the social security system of the State must require a complete revolution in their social outlook. In other words, they must realise the unfairness of getting pensions without making some social contribution. The self-employed sector of the community would, no doubt, respond if we decided to have the complete realignment which is apparently necessary. When I exceeded the £1,200 limit I became a voluntary contributor in order to qualify for certain benefits under the social welfare system. I see nothing different in my social outlook from the outlook which I would expect in any other Irish person in terms of making a contribution to keep himself, in effect, in benefit. I, therefore, submit that in relation to section 10 we are back again on the merry-go-round.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are talking about section 11 which deals with the increased rates of employment contributions.

Mr. Desmond

In relation to the contributory pension involved, I submit that it is necessary to broaden the general base of contributions and it is not beyond the capacity of the Minister to get rid of the political scandal of the need for a means test at a cost of £200,000 in administration.

We could become extremely political on this aspect of the social security system. We could shout our heads off about the raising of the turnover tax and any other measures designed to bring about this realignment. It is within the Minister's province and competence to bring about these changes. I have no doubt that it can be done in 1969.

Mr. Boland

I disagree fundamentally with what Deputy Desmond has suggested. It is true that I said it would cost £17½ million to abolish the means test and to change the maximum rates of payments. I did not suggest for a moment that if I could get this £17½ million I would use it in this scandalous and completely inequitable way. Deputy Desmond is suggesting that the Minister for Finance should raise an extra £17½ million from the community, give it to the Minister for Social Welfare to distribute in the form of a socialistic system and leave the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension at the present level of 75s. and the non-contributory widow's pension at the maximum rate of 73s 6d. He suggests that I should give the £17½ million to people whose means would debar them from getting benefits at present. That is something I could not do. I will make every effort to get the Government to agree to extracting the maximum possible amount by way of taxation for the purpose of social assistance. As I have already pointed out, any extra money I can get will be utilised to increase the maximum rate of these payments and to extend the means scale accordingly.

It may be objectionable to Deputy Desmond that a means test has to be operated, but it is the only way of distributing the limited amount of money in an equitable fashion. So long as I have anything to do with the Department of Social Welfare the money available will be distributed equitably. That is quite apart from the question of opening the insurance scheme to voluntary contributors. The question of making it permissible for anybody, self-employed or otherwise, to become a voluntary contributor under the social insurance scheme is under investigation. I consider that a desirable thing. That is completely different from the suggestion that we should abolish the means test for social assistance. That is something which is an unjust suggestion, with which I will have nothing whatever to do.

Mr. Ryan

We will not settle today whether or not the means test should be abolished. The first avenue of exploration should be the various ways and means in which we could substantially relieve the people of many of the hardships of the present means test. Under section 11, we are dealing with the insurance aspect primarily. I would like to direct my remarks to this section. We, in Fine Gael, regard as unsatisfactory the proposal to retain in the future contributions from employees, which, by and large, are comparable with the contributions made by the employers. There is something slightly less required from the employees. Alone in Europe, we maintain almost parity between the amount which employer and employee has to pay in respect of social assurance. This is absolutely wrong. We should be getting larger contributions from the employer. We should be getting much smaller contributions from the lower-paid workers. It is well established that the greatest percentage of an employee's income which should be related to social welfare insurance should be five per cent. The figures mentioned in section 11 will result, in many cases, in contributions from some of the lower-paid workers in excess of five per cent of their incomes.

We, in Fine Gael, believe this is wrong. It is fair that there should be larger contributions received from those who are better paid than are extracted from the lower-paid workers. On two counts we find ourselves in disagreement with this section. Firstly, because the employers are not paying more and, secondly, because the lower-paid employees are being asked to pay too much. I said absolutely that this is wrong. In relation to our probable commitments in a European community this will not be tolerated. It is one of the few blessings which we can look forward to with any certainty in the European community. Such unjust extractions from employees will not be tolerated and much greater contributions will have to come from employers.

This obligation will not be imposed for the purpose of taxing employers, as was suggested on a television programme when I was faced with the Minister's predecessor, Deputy J. Brennan, when he tried to create unease in the minds of the employers. The employer can feed back his charges through the various processes of collecting compensation for his overheads. Such methods of compensation are not available to employees. I am surprised that the Minister has not taken the opportunity in this Social Welfare Bill of moving towards that inevitable relationship which we will have to operate in a European community.

The present ceiling for social insurance was fixed at £1,200 four years ago. A person earning £1,200 four years ago is probably earning £1,400 or more now. As I said on Second Stage, there would appear to be a case for revision upwards of this figure. In order to revise the figure upwards it is no longer necessary to introduce legislation, as it was up to 1965. All that is now necessary is for the Minister to prepare a draft order and lay it before Dáil Éireann for approval. In fact, it is now only the Minister who can increase this figure. It is not open to Members of the House to initiate legislation on this.

This insurance ceiling can be increased by a simple ministerial draft order laid before the House. I suppose between now and the time we rise for summer recess there would not be an opportunity to do it but I hope when we return in the autumn the Minister will have the necessary draft order laid before the House. There is no need for the Minister to postpone it for the reasons given to me today in reply to a Parliamentary Question in which he told me the purposes other than specific social welfare purposes which have to be taken into consideration in regard to the insurable limit of £1,200.

None of the reasons advanced by the Minister is a justification for keeping the ceiling at £1,200. If other Departments are using a ceiling of £1,200 at the moment and do not see fit to change it that is a matter for them. We can get after individual Ministers to change it. We cannot see any absolute reason why the Minister should keep the ceiling of £1,200 simply because other Departments are slow in moving with the times. Therefore, we hope he will prepare the necessary draft order and when the next Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is introduced the Minister will move with the times and will see to it that the lower-paid workers are called on to pay less and the better-paid workers are called on to pay more.

This, of course, can be dealt with under Governmental proposals, which the Third Programme said had been approved, where we will have wagerelated insurance contributions and profits. We think, apart from that, the matter could be simply and absolutely dealt with in this Bill and we are sorry the Minister did not take the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Boland

It is not correct to say that we are the only country in which the contributions from employers and employees are the same or approximately the same. Certainly it applies in England and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ryan

A bad example.

Mr. Boland

In fact, it is fairly normal practice but it has been established practice here since the foundation of the social insurance scheme to have them the same. I do not see any objection to moving away from that at all. It would be quite appropriate that the employers' contributions should be more. I would imagine employers in general would not object to that. In fact, the increase in social insurance contributions usually forms a part of wage increase claims and employers generally should be prepared to accept a greater proportion of this charge, the cost of social insurance stamps. Personally, I do not see any objection to moving in that direction. I will look into it before the next Social Welfare Bill.

With regard to raising the limit for compulsory insurability of non-manual employees, as I said here last week I would agree that this limit is now due for revision. It has been there four or five years and it is probable that an examination of the position will disclose it should be raised again. As I pointed out, it has implications in so far as other Departments are concerned. So far as this Government are concerned we examine all the implications of those things before we make decisions. That is probably why we have lasted so long. Certainly in so far as this Government are concerned one Minister does not take a decision that affects another Department without having a Government decision on the matter.

As I said, there is no reason, from the point of view of the Department of Social Welfare, to consider in isolation why this limit should not be raised to any given amount. The fact is that the question of insurability under the social insurance Acts is used as a yardstick for certain other services and, therefore, the raising of this limit would have consequential effects in other Departments and those have to be taken into consideration as well. We just do not happen to operate in the manner suggested by Deputy Ryan that one Minister does things irrespective of the implications for other Departments.

Mr. Corish

Is this a matter for the Department of Health?

Mr. Boland

It would affect the eligibility of the middle income group in so far as health services are concerned. It is not alone the cost of those things. There is also the question of the availability of private patients to the medical profession. They also come into it. If this limit were to be raised to a substantially higher figure, and practically every employee was to be compulsorily insured, and if the definition of the category eligible for the middle income group of the health services was not raised practically everybody would be eligible for this and, of course, that would have an effect.

Mr. Murphy

It is true to say in many respects that the Department of Social Welfare issue clearcut statements to applicants for benefits but despite that claim by the Department many applicants are not conversant with the regulations governing qualifications for benefits, particularly the unemployment benefit. An applicant gets back a stereotyped form in a number of instances with something like this stamped on it: "You are not qualified by virtue of the second part of subsection (5) of section 17 of the 1952 Social Welfare Act "—or the 1962 Social Welfare Act, as the case may be. That kind of information is no use to an applicant. He does not know anything about the second part of subsection (5) of section 17 of the Act. I should like that system to be dispensed with. The applicant should be given the sections and subsections of the Act that disqualify him.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on section 11 of the Bill.

Mr. Murphy

Of course it does.

Mr. Boland

If it does happen it should not. If it happens I will see that it does not occur in future.

Mr. Corish

It is widespread.

Mr. Murphy

You pay contributions and this section centres around contributions paid and we must look into what is coming from the contributions paid. It is a very complex matter as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate. I am not finding fault. I am trying to be constructive in order to ensure that this will not happen again.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Furthermore it is put on with a stamp.

Mr. Murphy

Yes, it is put on with a stamp. If you read on then you are told you have not a sufficiency of stamps in a qualifying year.

Mr. Boland

That is the explanation.

Mr. Murphy

This is for another type of refusal. Then you will have to get further information to know what constitutes a qualifying year. The applicant, in some cases a new applicant, could qualify if he had 26 contributions, whereas if he drew unemployment benefit some years ago he could not qualify with that number of contributions except they were put on in 1968 and he started to sign on the 1st January, 1969. This whole matter is very complicated and difficult for an applicant to understand. I am aiming at simplification of the procedure. A man deemed to be self-employed during a period of unemployment under the Insurance Acts, if he earns more than 10s a day does not qualify. However, if he has so many stamps spread over a period he does qualify. It is, therefore, hard to follow that type of procedure. Now, it is not so many years ago that, once you were a licensed vintner and accepted your income from that employment, you would not qualify for unemployment benefit. I am responsible for getting that struck off our legislation. Once you had a licence in your name, even if you did not sell two pints in the week, you did not qualify for unemployment benefit.

Mr. Boland

It shows how much you influenced me.

Mr. Corish

It was a different Minister.

Mr. Boland

No, it was not.

Mr. Murphy

Possibly, this is not the best time to go into these details. I am bringing to the notice of the Minister and of the House that, in so far as entitlements are concerned, we should use the most simple language possible. By doing so, you help the applicant. You enable him to follow the regulations so far as his entitlement, or non-entitlement as the case may be, goes. As well as that, you save him the trouble and the time of calling on somebody to give him information or to make representations on his behalf. If refusals have to be made and if they are justified then, if they were sent out in simple language, detailing the reasons why the application cannot be approved, I think that in most cases the applicant would be satisfied.

As well as that, I believe that information should freely be available at all our employment exchanges and at all our public offices to people who inquire as to social welfare benefits of any kind. I am a believer in having—as of course we have so far as social welfare is concerned—public offices in our towns where people can get information on any aspect of the social welfare legislation that has been enacted by this Parliament. I think that that kind of public information bureau system would be a great advantage. It would free the Department from dealing with what could be termed by them, often, as unnecessary representations. However, you are bound to have such representations so long as the present system continues of, as I mentioned at the outset, informing the applicant that by virtue of subsection so-and-so of section so-and-so the applicant's claim is refused.

Mr. Boland

I agree.

Mr. Corish

The Minister will do something about that—seriously?

Mr. Boland

Yes. I think it should be done as simply as possible.

Mr. Corish

It varies in some cases because the applicant is not genuinely seeking employment but, as Deputy Murphy said, in other cases they just quote the——

Mr. Boland

That should not happen, anyway. I did not realise it did happen.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Ryan

We are not able to agree to this section, which arises out of the incapacity of the Department of Social Welfare so to order its affairs that the contributory and non-contributory pensioners can get their increase on the one day. This incapacity of the Minister and his Department correctly to organise its affairs leads to the ironical situation in which, in law, the non-contributory pensioner receives for a period a greater benefit than would be payable to the contributory pensioner, if this section here were not passed. We think it is wrong that that situation should ever exist. We are not going to be a party to giving approval to the section which is being imported here simply to facilitate the Department which should be capable of organising its affairs so that the contributory pensioners would receive the benefit on the day on which the non-contributory pensioners receive the benefit. As I pointed out on Second Stage, they are called upon to pay the additional tax for all pensioners and for all benefits under this Bill which require tax payments, since the day of the Budget. They will not receive any increases until next January. We consider that to be wrong. They are also called upon to pay other increases—increases in rents, rates and other things—but they will not receive the benefit until next January. This section here asks us to say that, because they are contributory pensioners, they will receive less between 1st August and January than they would if they were non-contributory pensioners. We in Fine Gael cannot stomach that and we are not agreeing to this section.

Mr. Boland

This has been the position last year and the year before as well. It is not necessarily correct to say that the contributory pensioners involved will be receiving less than they would if they opted for non-contributory pensions. That would have to be established on the basis of an investigation of means. We can reasonably be sure that, in fact, it would be true only in respect of a very small number. Neither is it correct to say that the rates of taxes appropriate to the new rates are, in fact, being paid. The rate of tax, of course, is based only on the amount of these increases that will become payable in the current financial year and only a very small period is involved. The difficulty in establishing whether or not these people would be entitled to the higher rate of non-contributory old age pension does not seem to be justified. There are probably very few, if any, that would, in fact, qualify for higher non-contributory pensions.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Would the Minister not agree that the delay in payment of the contributory pension is rather longer than was usual in former Social Welfare Bills?

Mr. Boland

No, it is roughly the same. It has always been from the beginning of the year—January.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It is nine months as against, normally, about three months.

Mr. Boland

I do not know if the Budget was any earlier this year than usual but they are always paid from the beginning of January.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Social welfare benefits?

Mr. Boland

Social insurance benefits.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

No. I think the Minister will find I am right that in other years it seemed to be paid after three or four months, at most.

Mr. Boland

The social assistance payments, yes, in August and the social insurance payments in January.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the section agreed to?

Mr. Ryan

No.

Question put and declared carried.

Section 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Murphy

Nobody was more pleased than I was when this additional allowance was introduced even in the very limited way in which it was introduced because I believe that this type of allowance should be extended. I have said that in this House and on the local health authority down through the years because I believe that, instead of this type of allowance costing the Exchequer additional money, it will lead to a saving in so far as public funds are concerned.

We have a tremendous problem at present, the problem of caring for what are termed our senior citizens. It is impossible in County Cork, and I am sure it applies throughout the country, to get accommodation for elderly people in hospitals and institutions. There are so many long-standing elderly patients in our district hospitals that most of them are utilised exclusively for caring for geriatric patients. I have maintained in this House and on other bodies dealing with this problem that if we gave additional allowances to such people with a view to keeping them in their own homes it would be money well spent. This move to give the 45s and to give the 55s from 2nd January is undoubtedly a good one except that it is too limited. An elderly person must be residing with a daughter or a step-daughter in order to come within the scope of the provision. It could be usefully extended because in our district hospitals it takes from £13 to £16 a week to maintain an old person. Therefore, we can see the justification for being as liberal as possible in making funds available to give our old people a reasonable measure of comfort within their own homes.

I believe that there is an obligation on families to care for their parents if at all possible. I believe a boy or girl is obliged to care for his or her father and mother in old age. It is an Irish Christian tradition and irrespective of what funds we make available or what we do to help such people we should not lose sight of that obligation.

We appreciate that financial difficulties make it almost impossible in many cases for people to care for their elderly relatives at home. I believe that in such cases, particularly where the person is bed-ridden or incapacitated, liberal allowances from public funds should be made available and a means test applied. I do not like means tests any more than any other Member of the House but I can visualise the difficulty of administering such a scheme without imposing limitations. We know that money is limited. We know that money has to be taken from one section of the people if we are to give it to another. We know that additional funds for this or any other scheme must be got from the general body of taxpayers. Therefore, we must be, to some extent, conservative in our approach so far as the people who are qualified for such allowances are concerned.

I believe that the people we should cater for are those in the lower income groups who could be cared for within their own home if additional allowances from public funds were made available. I am a firm believer in giving to our elderly, incapacitated people every comfort that it is possible to give them and I would like to see this extended beyond the daughter or step-daughter and some scheme drawn up by the Departments of Health and Social Welfare and the local health authorities to deal with this major question. We have reached the stage where it is impossible for incapacitated people to get accomodation in hospitals in some parts of the country. The problem is a most acute one and to my mind one way of easing it is to give to deserving applicants additional financial help so as to enable them to be cared for in their own homes.

I have visited people in many institutions and even in homes where they are cared for in a reasonable way, where conditions are reasonably good and where the staff are considerate, old people would much prefer to be in their own corners and in their own homes. I never met a person in a public institution who would not prefer to be living at home with a son, daughter, nephew or niece.

Therefore, I want to reiterate my view that there should be an extension of the provisions of this Bill so as to cater for people other than those who are being catered for in this section, those residing with a daughter or step-daughter. It would effect a saving in public funds. It would be money gainfully utilised and it would create a much more pleasant atmosphere for elderly people who could be cared for in their own homes rather than in institutions.

I should like to ascertain whether this benefit will be payable to daughters in insurable employment and those who are not as from the same date? This is a question I want answered, whether it is the same date for both.

Mr. Cunningham

Tá cúpla ceisteanna agam le cur. This is a welcome extension of the social welfare code and I merely want to ask a few questions. This section deals with non-contributory old age pensioners. Why January 2nd? Could it not be brought into operation in line with the old age pension increases which will become operative about 1st August? Does a widow who has children under the age of 16, or over that age and under 21 and are attending a post-primary school, or the old age pensioner whom she is looking after qualify for this increase if there are no other persons in the household than the daughter who is a widow and who has children living with her in the house of the old age pensioner?

If this daughter or any daughter under this section has an income other than earned income—I appreciate that if she goes out to work every day she could not be regarded as a person looking after an aged person or relative —does the old person qualify in this case?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Murphy on this section. The section provides for an allowance in respect of a female relative for looking after an old age pensioner who is incapacitated and it was introduced last year or the year before. It was then a very rigid provision and it was nearly impossible for a daughter or step-daughter to qualify for the allowance. That was demonstrated here by Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Social Welfare and I think he admitted that only 115 people or so had qualified for the extra allowance. That was because it was confined to a daughter or step-daughter who had given up insurable employment and I think that during the previous five years she had to have something like 156 stamps. In effect, it was nearly impossible for a daughter or step-daughter to qualify and a very limited number did so.

I agree that it is highly desirable that old people should be encouraged to remain in their own homes or with relatives and that relatives should be encouraged to care for them. The section we are now dealing with really replaces entirely the section in the previous Act and is wide enough, I think, to cover a niece or cousin or any other female relative that the Minister may decide to prescribe because, in the present section, the Minister will be able to prescribe the degree of relationship required as paragraph (ii) 2 of subsection (5) (a) says ...

there is residing with the pensioner for the purpose of providing that care and attention a prescribed female relative of the pensioner, and ...

I should like an assurance from the Minister at this stage that he will not confine this to a daughter or step-daughter and that he will extend the relationship considerably because there might be many cases where an old age pensioner might not have a daughter or step-daughter available but might have a niece available. The section is wide enough as it stands to enable the Minister to prescribe that a niece will qualify but I should like him to say so.

I should also like him to clarify another point. I do not think it is necessary that a female relative, daughter or step-daughter, should go to reside in the pensioner's house. I hope it is intended that if the pensioner is brought to reside with the female relative in that person's house the female relative will qualify for the additional allowance. It is necessary that should be so because it might result in the old person being brought to the house of a female relative rather than being despatched to an old person's home, or the county home to put it bluntly. If the Minister makes his regulations in this way, not only would he be encouraging relatives to look after their old folk but he would be saving county councils and the State in general a considerable sum because it takes much more than 55s a week to maintain a person in an old person's home.

I agree with the sentiments behind the section. It is a vast improvement on the other section under which it was virtually impossible for a female relative to qualify for the allowance. That is conceded by the fact that the Minister is replacing the other section and I appeal to him to go the whole way and draft generous regulations which will not lead to wholesale abuses or payment of allowances in cases where they should not be paid but which will encourage relatives to look after their old folk either in the old person's home or the relative's home and avoid as far as possible sending old people to institutions.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I want to congratulate my western friend Deputy Geoghegan on being appointed as the man in charge of Social Welfare. I hope and expect that easy as it was for us to get some measure of sympathy in the past it will be easier in the future. We have to hope for the best from Deputy Geoghegan. Like myself he comes from the west and knows what we want. We have seen the result of the election. We all know what we want.

I think it is the Minister for Finance I should congratulate—I am not exactly sure—on bringing in a Budget which gave increased benefits to the people in the social welfare classes. I want to refute the allegations made by the Opposition in their attack on him. I remember back in the period from 1948 to 1956——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that we are on section 16 of the Bill. His remarks must be confined to section 16.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I know it is section 16. Do you think I am dealing with section 17?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is pointing out to the Deputy that we are dealing with section 16.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I am dealing with section 16. If a daughter is living with her mother or father, an old age pensioner, it is possible to make an allowance. I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that this is right. The new law is a little bit ambiguous. In the original Bill the wording was "daughter or step-daughter." I suggest that a step-daughter is no relation to the pensioner. In fact, he could marry her if he wanted to, and he would not be in any trouble with the Pope or the man in the moon.

If a pensioner can prove that a daughter or step-daughter is living with him or her, he or she is entitled to an extra 25s week. Is not that right? An old age pensioner is entitled to have someone to look after him but I think a grand-daughter or a niece should also be included. A daughter living with the pensioner does not have to have stamps. I am not sure if this applies to a step-daughter because I did not have time to read the latest one because of the election. What about people who are in the unhappy position, particularly in my own part of the country, of not having a daughter or a step-daughter but having a niece or a grand-daughter living with them? I want to say to the Minister—I forgot to say it to him privately and I am now saying it publicly—that I think he should have another look at this.

If a pensioner has a niece, a grand-niece or a grand-daughter living with him this ensures that he does not have to go into the county home. He should get the same concession as the man whose daughter or step-daughter is staying with him. I do not think any Deputy would disagree with that. It is perfectly fair. I know the Minister has done more than any previous Minister but I want him to go a little further. Where possible people should be enabled to live at home instead of having to go into a county home. I remember a doctor saying to me on one occasion that, if we built a county home from Castlebar to Blacksod, it would be filled, and he was probably right. If an allowance would keep people out of county homes, we should give it to them. I am sure the rich men on the other side of the House would agree with that. There is a new elite, a new crowd, in the country today who have no respect for the old or the enfeebled. This is a sad reflection on our times, but unfortunately we older people have to accept it. The Minister should give every incentive possible to them to keep old people out of county homes and in their own homes.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I conceive this section to be for the purpose of encouraging people to look after those for whom they are responsible and to endeavour, as far as possible, to keep them out of institutions. We are all very much in favour of this and its extension I have a feeling that this could have been made even wider. Subject to the Minister's clarification on the point, to a certain extent this seems to me to be fairly restricted, in fact, to relations. Some speakers have said it may be restricted to a daughter, step-daughter or near relation of some sort. We all appreciate the great tragedy when an old person finds himself forced to break up the home and move away from the surroundings to which he has been accustomed all his life.

This section operates in the opposite direction to keeping people in their own homes. If a person at the age of 70 has no relatives left—everybody belonging to him may have emigrated to America or Britain or may have died—he has no choice, under this section, but to turn the key in the door and go into the county home or some other institution. That is undersirable and defeats the ends which, probably, the Minister and those who advise him have in view. Therefore, in a case like that, if a person has no relative and is unable to look after himself, he should be permitted to draw the allowance and get some female help even though she is not related to the old person.

The section says a person must prove he requires someone to look after him. Most people who are drawing the old age pension, unless they happen to be particularly hail and hearty, need somebody to look after them. It is undesirable that they should live alone. The Minister could very easily extend the scope of this Bill. I believe it would find universal agreement in the House if a person over the age of 70 who requires someone to look after him, could employ female help even though the person employed was not related. Deputy Lenehan raised the point about the step-daughter not being a relative. She would not be a blood relation but there would be some ties with the old person.

In many cases the families of old people are dispersed. They may not have emigrated but they may be living in a different county. The parents may have daughters who are married and because of the husband's employment are unable to leave their environment. In such cases there is justification for paying the allowance to the pensioner concerned so that he may employ somebody to look after him.

We all deeply appreciate what it means to an old person to break up his home and go into an institution, apart from the more materialistic view of what it costs. It costs about £16 a week to maintain a person in an institution. The sum of money required to deal with this situation would cost the country very much less than if these people go into an institution.

The Minister should give this problem his full consideration. It should not be hard to check on cases where an old person gets someone to look after him. There is nothing simpler. Everybody for miles around, particularly in rural Ireland, knows if somebody is living alone or has somebody living with him. The Minister should give this problem his full consideration.

Mr. L'Estrange

This is a very good section and it is worthy of our wholehearted support. I also agree with other Deputies who said it should be extended. I am in favour of this section because it encourages our people to keep their old or incapacitated parents or relatives at home. Any additional help we can give to encourage the keeping at home of these people is money well spent. It costs anything from £10 to £20 to keep our old people in county homes or other institutions. We all know that if the relatives of old people got anything like half of that sum they would only be too glad to keep them at home. It is also agreed by everybody that old people are much happier in their own surroundings, and I quote from Goldsmith's Deserted Village:

And as a hare whom hounds and horns pursue

Pants to the place from whence at first he flew,

I still had hopes my long vexations past

Here to return and die at home at last.

I am in favour of an extension of this scheme in order to keep old people in their homes and keep them out of county homes where, unfortunately, far too many of them have to go at the present time.

Mr. Boland

This applies both to contributory and non-contributory pensioners. It is intended to operate from 2nd January. It was brought in in January last year. It is intended to apply to a prescribed female relative and this makes it possible to extend it beyond the categories of daughter and step-daughter. Admittedly, it will still have to be a relative; a step-daughter will be considered a relative for this purpose at any rate. I have no doubt that all Deputies would like to see this considerably extended—in fact made payable to every old age pensioner—but that does not happen to be feasible. There is a considerable extension of it being made in this year and it may be found both desirable and feasible to extend it further in future years.

It is quite true that this provision was very rigid intially, but of course it was introduced initially to deal with a specific problem, to deal with the case of a daughter who left insurable employment because it was necessary for her to stay at home to look after an aged parent and who, although she had sufficient contributions to qualify for either unemployment or disability benefit, could not receive either of these because she was not fulfilling the conditions. She could not be held to be seeking employment. Neither could she qualify for disability benefit. It was to deal with that case that this provision was brought in originally. It is now being extended to cover a prescribed female relative, irrespective of whether or not she left insurable employment or ever was in insurable employment. That means that a new aspect is introduced in that an inducement is being given to people to keep their aged relatives at home rather than have them go into institutions.

This really developed out of a decision to deal with a particular problem. It may be desirable to extend this in the future but this is as much as it is possible to do at present. It is a considerable advance. My interpretation of the section is that it will apply equally in the case in which the old age pensioner goes to reside with the prescribed female relative for the purpose of receiving full-time care and attention just as it applies in the case of a prescribed female relative who goes to reside with an old age pensioner. There is not a means test in the case of the female relative. The condition precedent is that the old age pensioner must be receiving full-time care and attention and the fact that the female relative who provides the care and attention receives some unearned income of her own will not, in fact, be taken into consideration.

Mr. L'Estrange

Would a second, third or a fourth cousin come within the category of "prescribed female relative"? Could the Minister elaborate, too, on the conditions which may have to be fulfilled?

Mr. Boland

What female relative will be prescribed is something that will have to be decided. The reason why it is put in that way is to enable an extension of the category.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Would a daughter-in-law fulfil the condition?

Mr. Boland

I think a daughter-inlaw could be considered. This has not been decided yet. It is put in this way so that it can be extended as and when extension appears to be necessary in the light of experience. Living alone will also have to be defined. It is put in this way to give a certain amount of flexibility and enable unforeseen cases to be dealt with by an amendment of the regulations.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I have already pointed out that a step-daughter is no relation at all and it is grossly unfair to extend this to a step-daughter.

Mr. L'Estrange

What about an adopted daughter?

Mr. Boland

These will be prescribed.

Mr. J. Lenehan

It is grossly unfair to extend it to a step-daughter when a grand-daughter, a grand-niece, a niece, or someone like that, will not get it. If the Minister is going to prescribe a step-daughter why not give it to the others I have mentioned?

Mr. Boland

It is not intended to confine it to daughter and step-daughter. It is a prescribed female relative and the intention is to cover relatives other than a daughter or step-daughter.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

Would a sister be covered?

Mr. Boland

I think a sister should be covered.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.