Deputy Brennan was dealing with paragraph (a) of section 8. The words "may prescribe" cause him some concern, and he was asked to report progress while in full flight. The Parliamentary Secretary was present and he did not have an opportunity of replying to Deputy Brennan's submission, and maybe he would do so now. Like myself, Deputy Brennan was concerned about the possibility of the Parliamentary Secretary expanding on paragraph (a) of the section under discussion, and relating it to section 21 in my case but more specifically relating it to Deputy Brennan's own expression of concern.
Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister may—and I underline the word "may"—require a person applying for an allowance under this Bill to be registered for employment. The case Deputy Brennan was making was that a number of people would not be suitable for employment for various reasons, health and so on, and I think the word "may" clearly indicates that it is not a necessary requirement but where appropriate it would be required.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
At the moment the home assistance officer has a good deal of discretion about the way moneys may be disbursed. We are inclined to tie him down too much to regulations and we are going to do away with the discretion the officer has at the moment. I am slightly disturbed about this section.
All the Bill does is to establish the right of the recipient to minimum basic rates, which were not there before. The whole thing was at the discretion of the home assistance officers or the particular authority administering the scheme. An element of discretion is extremely important and it is one that was underlined by people in the area, and by home assistance officers to their union. They emphasised the question of the discretionary element in the whole scheme, and it is a case that I accepted as being valid. While it ensures that recipients have, as of right, a basic rate, it does not do away with the element of discretion, which is a very necessary element. The only difference it makes is that the discretion starts after the floor, and it is still there. In certain cases the officer can exercise his discretion and give additional payments over and above the basic payments provided for in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, to delete the Table and substitute the following:
"TABLE
WEEKLY AMOUNTS OF SUPPLEMENTARY WELFARE ALLOWANCE
|
Classes of persons to whom the amounts of supplementary welfare allowance are applicable |
Weekly amount of supplementary welfare allowance |
|
(1) |
(2) |
|
Person without a dependant |
£7.75 |
|
Person with an adult dependant |
£13.50 |
|
Person with an adult dependant and one child dependant |
£16.00 |
|
Person with an adult dependant and two or more child dependants |
£18.50 |
|
plus, where there are more than two child dependants, £1.90 for each child dependant in excess of two. |
|
|
Person with one child dependant |
£10.40 |
|
Person with two or more child dependants |
£12.90 |
|
plus, where there are more than two child dependants, £1.90 for each child dependant in excess of two.” |
When the Bill was published and the Second Reading took place, the rates embodied in the Bill were the current rates, the rural rate, for unemployment assistance. Since that time there has been a revision of the rates. They have been increased under the general increase that was applied in October to social welfare recipients, and the amendment seeks to establish the new higher rates in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Before passing from section 10——
Let us deal with the amendments first. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 in the name of Deputy Andrews have been ruled out of order.
On what grounds are they ruled out of order?
The Deputy has been informed that they involve a potential charge on revenue.
I appreciate that I have been informed that the very worthy amendments in my name have been ruled out of order. In my opinion the ruling is far too narrow.
The ruling of the Chair in regard to amendments like this may not be questioned. The Deputy is aware of that.
I am not questioning the ruling. I am questioning the interpretation which has ruled them out of order. It is narrow. I appreciate they are ruled out of order.
In that case the Deputy will appreciate that we can have no further discussion of them at this stage.
Question proposed: "That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Will the rates here specified be subject to the changes that social welfare should periodically undergo? In October due to the CPI changes upwards there was a change. Is there any provision for automatic adjustment or will it require amendment before there is any further change in the rates? Deputy Andrews' amendments would have considerably improved the section. I take it that he will be free to discuss the merits of the changes that were ruled out of order. Without actually referring to the amendments I believe the Deputy will be in order to discuss the merits of what was raised in them. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain if adjustments will be automatic and may be made without amendment to the Bill when it becomes an Act. Will any further adjustment, such as that in the amendment we have just passed, be made by simple order or will legislation be necessary for the amendment?
With regard to the adjustment of rates, subsection (3) provides that this can be done by regulation by the Minister.
In regard to subsection (2) of this section, the Parliamentary Secretary from time to time has patted himself on the back in relation to up-dating of recommendations made by the Commission on the Status of Women, a commission set up by us when we sat on the far side. In relation to subsection (2), which specifically deals with adult dependants, it is about time we did away with the naming of adult dependants specifically as it relates to subsection (2), paragraphs (a) and (b). Would it not be better now to consider the possibility of incorporating in one paragraph to that subsection; "in the case of a married man or married women, whichever partner is wholly or mainly maintained by the other?"
The amendment may not be discussed.
The Deputy is making a farce of the Chair.
I am not making a farce of the Chair. The ruling of the Ceann Comhairle gave us very wideranging powers to discuss proposals without specifically referring to amendments. That is what I am doing. I have not referred to any amendment which, according to the Chair on an unfair interpretation, has been ruled out of order. I am not referring to the amendment at all. I have accepted the Chair's strictures in that respect.
I hope the Deputy is not stricturing the Chair in regard to its rulings.
No. I have said what I have said and I do not intend covering that ground again. Can the Parliamentary Secretary on Report Stage introduce an amendment on the lines I have already set out? It is very difficult for me to stand up here and not discuss my amendment in the context of what we are now speaking about. Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that what I have said has some considerable merit and that it agrees with the recommendation of the Commission on the Status of Women? The matter of the child dependant is again raised in paragraph (c) of subsection (2). It states:
"Child dependant" means, in relation to a person, any child not being an adult dependant, who has not attained the age of 18 years and who is dependant on that person for support.
The Parliamentary Secretary will have heard my introductory remarks in relation to the interpretation section, when I asked him if the definition of child dependant, which has the meaning assigned to it in section 10, includes illegitimate children and if in this Bill he envisages the continuation of the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children in the context of the meaning of child dependant as set out? It seems to me grossly unfair that an illegitimate child should be discriminated against by any piece of legislation, including the Succession Acts. An illegitimate child is apparently a child of nobody. It is grossly unfair that a child who is brought into the world——
Is the Deputy referring to something in section 10?
I am referring to the definition of child dependant. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say if it includes illegitimate children?
I explained that to the Deputy this morning. I understood the Deputy sought this information this morning and I gave it to him. Is he not clear about the information I gave?
I am clear about it but the Parliamentary Secretary said that it would arise again on section 10. Could he expand on what he said this morning?
I did not say that. There must be some misunderstanding.
It is a long time since this morning and it is very difficult to keep everything in one's mind without referring to the Official Report. I have no doubt but that the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with it.
If the Deputy thinks it is a long time since this morning he will feel it a long time for some other things to happen.
I do not understand that reference but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has something in mind.
I will not elaborate because I might distract us from what we are at. As I explained this morning—I thought I made it clear because we went into it in some length —as far as payments are concerned— there is no distinction between a child born in wedlock and a child born out of wedlock. The only reference to a child born out of wedlock in this Bill is there for one specific purpose only. I am repeating it because——
It bears repetition.
So long as it does, we will keep repeating it. The only way it arises in this Bill is that it would not be possible for a health board to go to court to recover money from a person who was alleged to be the father of a child born out of wedlock because the board would not be able to establish whether or not the person named was the father of the child. There is absolutely no discriminatory element in this Bill against children born out of wedlock. I believe the Deputy knows that and I cannot fully understand why he comes back to it to suggest that there is such discrimination when there is clearly none. I did not refer the Deputy to section 10 but to an amendment which he has himself submitted and which will be discussed later on this Stage. It might then bear repeating if the Deputy is still not clear that there is no discrimination against a child born out of wedlock. Further, I would not be associated with any legislation that did so discriminate.
In regard to other matters the Deputy raised in connection with the recommendations on the status of women, no doubt there still remain some discriminatory elements in the social welfare code.
And that is one of them surely.
A number of them, indeed most of the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of Women in relation to social welfare have already been implemented. In one case we even went beyond the recommendation in the commission's report. It is fair to say that the discrimination, built up over the years with the Deputy's support, was introduced into this House by Fianna Fáil Administrations. Deputy Andrews and others in the Fianna Fáil benches who are now expressing great concern about this discrimination not only did nothing to remove it but during their political lives supported such legislation and perpetuated it. It is not possible within two-and-a-half years to remove all elements of discrimination built up under Fianna Fáil over a long period, but it is our aim to remove them and we will achieve that aim.
The record in regard to removing discrimination in the social welfare code is a good one: two thirds of the recommendations made by the commission in regard to social welfare have already been adopted in a comparatively short time, the life of this Government. But Deputy Andrews and Fianna Fáil Deputies bear reminding that the discriminatory elements are there because they put them there. By their political support inside and outside the House they made it possible to enshrine them in legislation and Fianna Fáil now have the audacity to charge others as if it were their doing. We recognise they are there. We do not like them, we are committed to removing them and this we will do.
The Parliamentary Secretary's effort to put me in my place in particular and Fianna Fáil in their place in general was delivered with his usual self-righteousness, based on the touching of some sensitive nerve by my previous submissions. I do not concede that Fianna Fáil were not concerned over the years with the abandonment of discrimination. The setting up of the Commission on the Status of Women was a recognition that there was something there that needed to be dealt with and something to be rectified and that commission was set up by this party because of their awareness of the situation.
The Parliamentary Secretary seems to reserve to himself all the concern for the present situation which now exists specifically under section 10 (2) of the Bill. He now has an opportunity to abandon what we consider to be a piece of discriminatory legislation, and he agrees that it is. I shall not refer to my amendment, but if the Parliamentary Secretary is as concerned as he purports to be—he has shown himself to be concerned with this matter—there is only one thing in his concern which might worry us on this side of the House and it is that it appears he would like to think that he has cornered the market on concern in relation to the less well-off members of our society.
Over the years Fianna Fáil have shown awareness of and a willingness to deal with the underprivileged section of the community. Certainly, some areas remained untouched and we concede that: if we had been given the opportunity to deal with them we would have dealt with them. Certainly, Fianna Fáil were 16 years in office and while, only in recent years have the community become socially aware of and committed to the alleviation of the lot of the underprivileged section of the community, Fianna Fáil have done much in other areas. It has been a priority of this party to tackle the problem of social deprivation. Over the years, no doubt, specific areas have not been dealt with but the Parliamentary Secretary is engaging in an odd and dangerous form of exclusiveness and élitism in taking to himself the whole concern for the underprivileged sections of the community. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It has been alleged that my party did nothing in relation to this matter but as far as I am aware the Parliamentary Secretary, while in Opposition, did not articulate as fully or as fulsomely as he would have us believe he did. Indeed, his party did not do as much as he wants us to believe they did in highlighting this problem. It is no harm to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that at no time during my contribution on this element of the Bill, particularly in relation to the matter of child dependence, did I say that the Bill discriminated specifically against children born out of wedlock. I wanted a clear definition, a clear statement of whether the interpretation of child dependent included children born out of wedlock. The Parliamentary Secretary has given me that undertaking twice but if he gave it to me ten times the message still might not get public awareness. On occasions things bear repetition.
The Bill should be drafted in such a way that those affected by it can understand it. If such people cannot understand the Bill it fails in a small way. When people read an account of this debate in the national newspapers, or in the Official Report, they will be left in no doubt, arising out of the contribution from this side of the House, as to the meaning of the Bill. The contribution from this concerned Opposition was fair and I urge the Parliamentary Secretary not to be so darned selfrighteous or exclusive about his concern. All Deputies are concerned about the Bill and what it means.
The Parliamentary Secretary made reference to Fianna Fáil's discrimination in the past. I am not sure if he was referring to discrimination written into legislation or to what he might call "discrimination by omission." I do not know of any legislation which discriminated deliberately against any section of the community. It is true that some sections of the community who might otherwise be deserving of assistance from the State were not taken under the umbrella of the social welfare code. Nobody ever claimed that happened but I frequently said, and the Minister would say the same if he was present, that there will always be a need to improve the social welfare code. The fundamental social welfare code on which the Parliamentary Secretary is basing his improvements is the code brought in exclusively by Fianna Fáil. I had the pleasure of bringing in at least eight improvements through both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I do not understand what the Parliamentary Secretary is at when he seeks to make kudos out of the effort of Deputy Andrews to expand the application of this section to include other categories. When the Parliamentary Secretary says it was not possible within two-and-a-half years to do away with all the discrimination I should like him to be specific and tell the House the discriminations he is talking about. If he is referring to omissions of areas where the code does not reach out to, then it is right that everybody was not brought under the social welfare umbrella in our time. However, we started the widows and orphans scheme, the legislation concerning deserted wives and the various improvements in relation to benefit in kind, free travel, free electricity and free television licences. Each year we had a Bill expanding and improving the social welfare code.
The Parliamentary Secretary is doing nothing more than his duty in continuing with that practice in so far as it is possible for him to do that with the limited resources at his disposal. The Parliamentary Secretary should be frank and admit that the reason why he has not brought in certain improvements is that the resources available to him are not adequate. That is the limitation applied to any Minister. The Minister for Finance is breathing down his neck and he must have sanction before he can make any improvements in social welfare legislation. I would have no difficulty in thinking of 1,000 schemes; one has no shortage of social conscience in drafting social welfare legislation.
The Deputy is going wide of the section.
The Parliamentary Secretary introduced the question of discrimination. The brake which operates at any time is that applied by the Minister for Finance. The subsidies we saved on our entry to the EEC gave a windfall to the Minister which he rightly applied to social welfare. The Parliamentary Secretary made accusations which cannot be justifiably levelled at this side of the House. I refute them unequivocally as being downright dishonest and wrong. Our record on social welfare will stand examination and comparison with any Government in any country.
The Chair wishes the Deputy to refrain from going so wide of the debate and I hope his contribution will not invite any further departing from the section.
I am glad subsection (3) leaves the expansion of the rates provided less complicated and I asked whether the rates had to be increased in the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has had to do it. Since the Bill was circulated further increases in the rates were justified as a result of a change in the consumer price index. This is a frequent occurrence these days. To keep step with that, the Minister will find the frequent use of section 10 (3) very useful when making the necessary adjustments. I regret the amendments proposed by Deputy Andrews were not accepted.
A number of issues were raised by Deputy Brennan. He referred to my dishonest presentation of the position. It might be useful to Deputy Brennan and the House generally if I were to refresh their memories about Fianna Fáil's concern in the area of social welfare. Deputy Brennan apparently is not aware that there has been and still is an element of discrimination against women in our laws, some of them in the area of social welfare. If Deputy Brennan can stand up here and say that no discrimination existed in that field, I can only assume that he did not read the report of the Commission on the Status of Women. It did exist and, to some extent, it still exists.
In the two-and-a-half years we have been in government we have made considerable progress in eliminating some of that discrimination. Deputy Brennan said we depended on the resources made available by the Minister for Finance for social welfare. That is undoubtedly true but, in my opinion, it is more true to say the money is made available by the Government.
He also referred to EEC subsidies being used by this Government for social welfare purposes. That is a kite Fianna Fáil have been flying for quite a long time. I would ask Deputy Brennan to bear with me for a little while and very briefly I will explode that myth. He mentioned two points: EEC money and the role played by the Minister for Finance in making money available for social welfare. It is true that the money is made available by the Minister for Finance but to my mind that gives a clear indication of the priority the Government see in that area. There is no doubt that Fianna Fáil saw social welfare as a very low priority. It was something to be used purely and solely for electoral advantage. There was no consistency, no genuine concern and, indeed, no thought or conception as to what social welfare is all about.
On the morning of the budget of 1974, an article appeared in the Irish Independent entitled “What My Budget Proposals Would be”. The author of that article was Deputy Colley, former Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance. He was out of office in 1974. He no longer had responsibility. Yet, in that article he said he would allocate £20 million to social welfare. The present Minister for Finance allocated £50 million to social welfare. That clearly demonstrates where Fianna Fáil stood on social welfare, not only when they were in office but even when they were out of office and could stand back and take a proper look at the subject and had no responsibility for providing the money.
There is no doubt where social welfare stood on the priority list of Fianna Fáil as compared to the priority list of this Government. We have suffered from such accumulated neglect that even with the progress that has been made a very considerable amount still remains to be done. There is no point just talking about child and women dependants and discriminatory elements. Of course they are there; Fianna Fáil put them there and we will eliminate them as quickly as possible.
Any elimination that can be done as each Bill comes before the House should be done, so why not do it in this Bill? It is not being done. I want to refer to what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the previous Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley. Deputy Colley referred to £20 million in extra benefits because the provision in the budget for social welfare has to take account of the estimated disgusting and sickening increase in unemployment and the long lines of the dole queues——
We do not have to enter the realms of speculation. That appeared in a newspaper a copy of which the Deputy can get in the library. I have a copy of the report of the Commission on the Status of Women to hand if the Deputy would like to read it.
We all know the only policy of this Government is to have everyone on the dole queues.
We are in committee and we must keep to the section.
It takes twice as much money to pay for 105,000 people on the dole than for 60,000——
Section 10, as amended, please.
I am talking about January, 1974.
Order.
Fianna Fáil are suffering from the grave defect of having to be factual——
(Interruptions.)
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
This section makes provision for going beyond the limits set down in the preceding section. It gives the Minister power, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to exceed the benefits laid down in any particular case if he so wishes. It also provides certain benefits in kind. One can easily visualise things which were done under the old Assistance Act, providing means for burial and so on. It can provide clothing for people who suddenly find themselves destitute and it also makes provision for exceeding the rates laid down, with some exceptions:
(a) in any case where such person is in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance the weekly amount of such allowance payable to such person may, subject to the provisions of this section, be increased, or
(b) in any other case, a weekly payment of supplementary welfare allowance may be made, subject to the provision of this section, to supplement that person's other income.
The extent to which that section will be applied will determine the success of the whole legislation in regard to a wider number of people. From the discussion so far, we have learned that the legislation will be exactly the same as has applied in the case of other social welfare persons. It places an obligation on health boards to ensure that potential beneficiaries will be obliged to apply for one or other of the social welfare benefits.
During my time in the Department I was preparing legislation for the taking over of the home assistance scheme and one of the things I was anxious to include in that legislation, and in relation to which the Department produced some memoranda, were cases of chronically unemployed persons who are signing on week after week and year after year. I was introducing the Employment Periods Order and I was anxious to give to those people a weekly allowance and to take them off the unemployed list. I was considering some type of benefit more in keeping with their condition and circumstances. I wonder if this section will enable the Parliamentary Secretary to do that. I do not think so because the preceding section places an obligation on health boards to ensure that such people will apply for other benefits to which they are entitled before qualifying under this section.
I am anxious to do something about unemployed people who are unemployable. It is doubtful if some of these people could be found suitable employment even if we reach the desirable state of full employment, a dream now but which might one day be achieved, please God. Even when we move to that desirable state there will be people unable to accept employment and I should like to see this section drafted more specifically to take these people off the unemployment register and give them supplementary allowances, subject to periodical revision or supervision to see whether their circumstances had so altered that they could be transferred to some other social welfare categories. This would be a very useful section if it could be so adapted.
Without embarking on a Second Reading speech, I think the Bill falls short of fulfilling a most important requirement by not providing for the category I have just mentioned. This provision makes possible payment in kind to certain people. No matter how we may denigrate the home assistance scheme, it made provision for payments in kind. We all remember the old local authority wardrobes out of which clothes could be supplied to people who were in need of bedclothes or personal clothing. It also applied in the case of burials where there were no means. This section merely continues that commendable scheme and makes provision for payment of something more than is provided for in section 10.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the type of case he visualises this section would be required to meet. Harking back to the question of providing for cases where incomes do not provide for needs, does this section provide that the Minister may come in and say to a health board: "These people have an income of £X per week but there is a family of eight or nine dependants, the breadwinner's income is not sufficient to meet their needs and you may in this case pay £X extra per week?" I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would give me by way of example the type of person this would apply to.
In cases where the supplementary allowance is considered to be insufficient the Parliamentary Secretary is being empowered to pay more than the prescribed rate. To that extent this is a very important section. The effect of this Bill will be determined by the extent to which this power will be exercised.
Deputy Brennan has raised two very serious and important points in his contribution. He has told us that he has given some considerable thought to the devising of means whereby people who are registered as unemployed but who in reality are unemployable for various reasons would be taken off the live register and that some other method be used to cater for their materials needs. The Deputy referred to a scheme of national assistance.
There are about 105,000 people on the live register. We must remember that traditionally we have had an unemployment figure of between 65,000 and 70,000 and that this was during what we would regard as normal times. This was a very large figure, one which in most countries would have been unacceptable but which we came to regard as normal. I agree with the Deputy that in that traditional figure of approximately 70,000 there are people who for various reasons have become unemployable. It is recognised by people who specialise in this area that if an able-bodied man is forced into a situation of being unemployed, he becomes unemployable after a relatively short time. Offhand I cannot say whether it would be feasible or possible to institute something on the lines suggested by Deputy Brennan, but the point merits serious consideration and I will go into it in much greater depth than is possible at the moment.
The Deputy spoke also of the question of payment-in-kind and the important element that this played in the home assistance scheme. Within the terms of this Bill there is nothing to prevent payment-in-kind either totally or by way of a monetary payment plus an element of payment-in-kind in order to meet a person's needs.
Deputy Brennan asked whether a person with a large family could qualify for a supplementary allowance. Such a person could so qualify. In regard to another question of his, as to whether a person in receipt of social welfare benefit could have that benefit supplemented, the answer is in the affirmative here, too. In this context some of the matters that will be taken into consideration will be the payment of a high rent and there may be cases of special food or fuel requirements for a family or for an individual.
In relation to studies carried out on the subject of poverty it has emerged that elderly people living alone find it much more difficult to cope than an elderly couple living together. This, too, is a factor that could be taken into consideration in relation to benefits. That element of discretion, which is so essential to the operation of a scheme of this kind, is well provided for. Its interpretation is intended to be fairly liberal. Properly applied this Bill can go a long way towards the relieving of much of the suffering in our society. The question of how employable are some of the people who are registered as unemployed is one that is worthy of serious consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary might put into less difficult language paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section which reads:
the value of any property belonging to such persons (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him) which is invested or which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used, the yearly value of the first £400 of the property being taken to be one-twentieth part of the capital value and the yearly value of so much of the capital value of the property as exceeds the sum of £400 being taken to be one-tenth part of the capital value; and the weekly value of the property being calculated as one fifty-second part of the yearly value so calculated;
The Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I highlight this subsection as a shining example of the type of legislation we should not be passing. Should the Parliamentary Secretary tell us in reply that he does not quite understand what this phraseology means, we shall understand perfectly and shall offer no criticism on that score. Are we serious about introducing non-jargon-type legislation when we have a subsection such as this in the Bill before us?
Bills should be drafted in such a way as to enable them to be interpreted by non-legal persons. They are not meant to be drafted for the purposes of lawyers or for the benefit of the Legislature. They are for the benefit of the community as a whole.
Here the Parliamentary Secretary will, I think, concede my point in relation to a comprehensive piece of drafting. To be absolutely honest, I do not regard myself as a mathematician. I have gone through the particular subsection a number of times and I have a sort of vague inkling of what it means. To arrive at what the subsection really means one would need to be an expert mathematician. I do not mean this by way of criticism of those who drafted the subsection. I say it rather by way of constructive suggestion for the benefit of those who will draft this kind of legislation in the future so that they will consider those who must interpret it. Interpretation does not begin and end here in this House. Legislation should be drafted in such a way that those whom it intends to benefit will understand it. In my respectful submission, this subsection will be meaningless to those whom it seeks to benefit. I certainly find it very difficult to understand. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would help me and others who do not quite understand what the subsection means.
In fairness, it must be said that this subsection is copied from previous legislation.
That is correct.
I have come across this kind of thing time and time again. That does not excuse the present incumbent of Social Welfare from improving things. I shall quote the subsection:
the value of any property belonging to such person (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him) which is invested or which, though capable of investment or profitable use, is not so invested or profitably used, the yearly value of the first £400 of the property being taken to be one-twentieth part of the capital value and the yearly value of so much of the capital value of the property as exceeds the sum of £400 being taken to be one-tenth part of the capital value; and the weekly value of the property being calculated as one fifty-second part of the yearly value so calculated;
Maggie Murphy down the road will have great trouble interpreting that. When the Parliamentary Secretary is issuing the booklet he might get a translation made of this, putting the whole thing into plain intelligible language.
Is it not rather explanation than translation?
I use the word "translation" deliberately because translation means something like "Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare". I cannot quite understand some of the other exemptions subsection (2) (a) (iii) provides:
(iii) any sums arising from the investment or profitable use of property (not being property personally used or enjoyed by such person);
That again is a repeat of the 1952 Social Welfare Act. Why should something one does not enjoy or benefit from be taken into the calculation? I am sure the draftsman has some reason for this but I could never understand why something not used or enjoyed should be taken into a calculation. One does not calculate the use of the farm next door. This may relate to a person living with relatives who have property being profitably used.
Property rented and an income derived from that rent, surely it is legitimate to take that into consideration.
That means taking in the income of the household.
But this household would not be lived in by the persons concerned. Such people would be resident elsewhere and letting accommodation, a business, a garage or something else to someone else and thereby deriving an income from that letting. Surely that is legitimate income and should be taken into consideration.
I have not made myself clear. I am referring to section 12 (2) (a) (iii) which I have already quoted.
It is to avoid double assessment.
My point is this would ordinarily be excluded. Why has it to be written into the Bill? Incidentally in the very helpful memorandum the same phrase is repeated: "Whose means are not sufficient to meet his needs". On section 2 this morning we were pressing the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some definition of what standards or what criteria would be applied to ascertain when a person's income is not sufficient to meet his needs. That cannot be quantified at present. We are hoping that one day —or are we? —the commission now sitting will come up with what is known as a poverty line. Until they do, I do not know how we can quantify the term which is repeated in the memorandum and laid down in section 2 of the Bill. This is a supplementary allowance and it is not confined to the prescribed allowances here. To some extent that would set a certain standard. The previous section permits the Parliamentary Secretary to go over and above the prescribed amount. Therefore, it is necessary to define in some way what a person's needs are which have to be met over and above what his income permits him to meet.
The operative term in the Bill is where a person's income is not sufficient to meet his needs. This is the key to the whole purpose of this legislation. It could be said that when you take the method of calculating means and the prescribed amounts payable, that sets a limit and it is not necessary to define what needs are above what the income is capable of providing. In the previous section it is made possible to pay more, without limit, than what is prescribed. The Minister may with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance pay over and above and even supplement the supplementary allowance. Unless we are to establish some criteria of our own for the purpose of administration, it becomes necessary to define that unidentifiable gap, that unquantifiable gap if you like, between needs and income.
As I said, these days everybody can show that their incomes are not sufficient to provide for their needs. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to their legitimate needs. It is easy to understand needs when it comes to bread and butter, clothing and shelter. These are legitimate needs. While the bread on the table is a legitimate need, is the petrol in the breadwinner's car to bring him to work also a need? Is the car itself a need? If a man cannot afford to have a car to go to work, is this a legitimate need? Where do you draw the line? As yet, no poverty line has been drawn, and no level has been defined at which one can be regarded as enjoying the normal requirements and necessaries of life. There is an unidentified gap.
This legislation provides a puzzle for any investigating officer who has to decide whether a person's income is sufficient to meet his needs. How he does this may be a matter of conjecture. He is not a superman. He can only use his best judgment, as these people invariably do. Will his judgment be the same as another man's? Will it be the same as the other 300 doing the same work? To what extent can uniformity be guaranteed, or as near to it as possible?
In the real hardship cases it is easy. If a person has no means the prescribed amount can be provided. If that is not sufficient he can be given more. The Bill provides for that. If an investigating officer wanted to allow his imagination to run riot he could say: "The man I investigated today has only a donkey and cart. He should have a horse and cart. He should get £10 a week to enable him to get up to a higher standard. His income is not sufficient to meet his legitimate requirements or his needs." Maybe I am pressing this point unduly but there seems to be a vacuum here and how it is filled by the investigation officers I could never quite understand.
There are certain rules and regulations under which investigation officers work. It would be humanly impossible for all of them to work to a precise pattern in assessing incomes. There is bound to be a judgment error, though not to any great degree. Nobody can estimate to an exact figure what a man's stock is worth. Estimates may fluctuate to the extent that they may be hundreds of pounds out. In the absence of some specific lines drawn in regard to the normal requirements of a person, it is very difficult to quantify what should be taken as a proper assessment of a person's needs.
This legislation does not make any improvement on any previous legislation which I had the duty and pleasure of bringing before the House in my time in the Department of Social Welfare. That is not to say the legislation we are now putting through the House will not be a necessary and useful part of the evolution of social welfare towards the ever-improving standards people enjoy. As normal life continues to improve, social welfare payments should also continue to improve. To quote an outworn phrase, it is an ongoing situation and it is a never-ending evolution in keeping benefits in line with not merely the CPI but improving standards. As standards improve, so do the requirements of the underprivileged. They have that right. No Minister should say he is doing something some other Minister did not do. In 50 years time, some other Minister will be doing something he did not do and so on ad infinitum.
The Parliamentary Secretary should give us some explanation of section 12 which sets out as far as possible how means are calculated. It sets out the exclusions. It has to be taken in conjunction with the previous section which enables the Minister to go over and above anything prescribed in the rates.
If the Parliamentary Secretary could give us a reasonable explanation of how the Act will be administered, we could go from the House with a realisation of the extent to which it will benefit a large volume of people. Is it not correct to say that the Bill merely provides that the home assistance beneficiaries—as they have been known up to now—will in future receive rates approximating to those received by unemployment assistance recipients and by similar categories in the social welfare code?
In an effort to explain the Bill the Parliamentary Secretary has decided to oversell and exemplify it as a demonstration of a social conscience he alone claims to possess. Nobody has said that in as many words. It is merely to bring home assistance under the umbrella of the health boards and raise the rates approximately to those being received by unemployment assistance recipients at present although the Bill does make provision to go far beyond that and, for all I know, may go as far as the Minister would like to push it in regard to the provision of supplementary payments.
I want to refer to the method of calculating means under this section. It appears the home assistance officer's role will be changed completely henceforth. There is a set number of guidelines laid down. Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it will be part of his duties in future to write reports in respect of cases he has to investigate? Will he have authority to go into bank accounts, post office accounts and so on? Will he be playing the same role as the investigation officer of the Department of Social Welfare? If his work does follow those lines we will be departing completely from the existing position in relation to the payment of home assistance inasmuch as that the officer can deal with the case quickly and can grant the necessary payments as he sees fit. If he has to undertake the role of the ordinary investigating officer it means that the whole process will be slowed up. Generally speaking people who apply for home assistance—or supplementary social welfare as it is now called— are in dire need of payments being made urgently.
In this section we are doing away entirely with the discretion which the home assistance officer has at present in these matters. I hope that the position is not as I have outlined it but it would appear that this is the case.
This section leaves many shades of grey. I should like to see set out at an early date—possibly on the next Stage—the actual amount that would be charged against an applicant in relation to property. Unless that is done I can foresee this value varying from one health board area to another. Paragraph (c) states:
the value of any advantage accruing to such person from the use or enjoyment of property...
In the case of an applicant who had a house with a valuation of, say, £6, how much would be assessed as profit accruing to him? What figure would the Minister have in mind for a valuation of free lodgings? What would free lodgings include? All of these things should be set out in black and white so that all of us may be aware of them, so that any health board officer will be able to furnish answers quickly. There is the phrase: provision is included which will enable these rules to be varied by regulation should this prove necessary in the light of experience.
The Parliamentary Secretary is anxious that the Bill go through quickly and he is making provision to change things about which he is not certain. I foresee a tremendous amount of confusion arising unless such matters are clarified in advance of the Bill becoming law.
Far from suggesting —as was suggested by the previous speaker—that assessment will vary from area to area, in fact that is the position under the present law. It is one of the reasons that motivated the introduction of this Bill by the Government to ensure that there would be a standard rate throughout the country not only for payments but also with regard to means of assessment of income. The Deputy may have misunderstood that aspect of the Bill. The present situation under the Home Assistance Act is that the method of assessing a person's needs and means varies from area to area. As I said earlier today, it varies from case to case, so that it is difficult to establish any pattern even within the one operational area. One is left wondering how some decisions have been arrived at because there have been cases where people in exactly the same financial circumstances, with exactly the same commitments, have been awarded different rates. That is one of the most objectionable features of the Home Assistance Act. By having a uniform basic rate throughout the country and also a uniform method of assessing a person's means we are confident that this will abolish some of the least desirable aspects of the home assistance approach.
Another question raised was that of doing away with the discretionary powers of the home assistance officer. I explained earlier that the element of discretion is recognised as an essential part of the operation of a proper liberal scheme. It would be very difficult to have a scheme that operated effectively and efficiently and in a way that would meet the requirements it is intended to meet without allowing that discretionary power to the authority administering the scheme. What the new Bill does is to give a uniform basic rate throughout the country and over and above that rate there is still the discretionary power. It is a very important element in the scheme and its importance has been emphasised by, among others, the home assistance officers trade union and, by a number of charitable organisations who have wide experience in this area. In the new Bill we ensured that that element of discretion would be retained. The Deputy need have no fear on that account.
I am aware of most of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. What I should like to see spelled out is the proportion of the valuation so that people will know the situation. There is reference to the value of any advantage accruing to the person from the use or enjoyment of property which would include the value of free lodgings or owner-occupied property where applicable. If we take the case of an applicant who is in a house that has a valuation of approximately £5, could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how much income would be assessed on such an applicant?
Offhand I could not tell the Deputy that.
Is there any possibility of having these assessments included in the Bill at a later stage?
There is a schedule in section 12 which sets out the method of assessing income——
We are dealing with section 12 now. It is set out for income but there does not seem to be any provision for the case I mentioned.
It is under exactly the same means test and calculations that apply for qualification for unemployment assistance.
With regard to subsection (2) (b), is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to give an adequate explanation of this?
Is the Deputy referring to assessment? As Deputy Brennan has said, this means of calculation already exists in other legislation.
I appreciate that.
I accept the Deputy's point that the average person may be confused when he reads about a rate of 5 per cent on the first £400 and so on. However, for the purpose of this Bill and seeing that it is a departure in that we are now linking the basic rate with an established basic rate— unemployment assistance—the same means of calculation should be employed as the same benefits are being paid as of right. Deputy Leonard referred to subsection (3). This gives power to the Minister by way of regulation to amend the rules for calculation of means in the light of experience. At this stage it is an established method of assessing means and as it is so closely linked by way of assessment and by way of payment under the scheme it would be appropriate that the same method be employed for both purposes.
While it is necessary to spell it out in somewhat legalistic and formal terms in the Bill, the Deputy will appreciate that in explaining to the general public about their entitlement to allowances and benefits we should attempt to simplify it as far as possible and to translate the legalistic wording which is necessary for formal legislation into more readily understandable language from the point of view of the general public. We will do so in this case also.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
There are a number of amendments to this section in my name.
There is only one amendment and that is outside the scope of the Bill.
Is the Chair referring to amendment No. 7?
I am told it has been ruled out of order because it imposes a charge on Revenue.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
According to the rules of order, the Opposition may not propose amendments which purport to make a charge on Revenue. I understand this is in accordance with Standing Order No. 119 and undoubtedly this discriminates against the Opposition. I know the Parliamentary Secretary cannot agree with the amendment because, unfortunately, it has been ruled out of order for the reason stated but it seems to me that the words set out in the amendment might be included in the section without imposing any charge on Revenue.
On a point of order, I could not possibly enter into a discussion on the merits or demerits of a ruling by the Chair. It is entirely outside my function whether an amendment is allowed or disallowed.
I appreciate that.
It is a matter between the individual Deputy and the Chair. The only thing I would respectfully submit is that if an amendment is disallowed it should not be discussed, and if it is going to be discussed it should be allowed so that we can all discuss it. I think it has to be clear either one way or the other, but it is an impossible situation when an amendment is not allowed and then Opposition Deputies make points on the amendment that is not before the House.
Acting Chairman
The amendment is out of order.
I appreciate the amendment is out of order. Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me that, where the needs of a person can best be met by the provision of goods or services, in addition to the goods and services a certain small payment could be made? The occasion may arise when the addition of cash will be helpful. The amendment is out of order and far be it from me to refer to it, but the Parliamentary Secretary might comment on my most recent remarks.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a health board from making a payment in cash as well as in kind.
This is a drafting fault in the Bill.
No. The suggested amendment by the Deputy, which is not acceptable, is not necessary. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent a health board from making a payment of cash and supplementing that by a payment in kind, or indeed the other way around, by making a payment in kind and, if they thought it desirable and necessary, supplementing that by a payment in cash. They are not excluded from doing either one or the other or both. The need for flexibility in this regard as explained by the Deputy is catered for in the Bill.
That was one of the reasons why I considered that a draft amendment was necessary, because the Bill quite clearly states as the Parliamentary Secretary has set out. It seems an anomaly then that the words "instead of" should remain in subsection (1) of section 13 and the word "be" in line 37 should also remain and that it should not be replaced by the word "include". Why have an anomaly in the Bill?
I think if the Deputy reads on: "instead of the whole or part of any payment to which he would otherwise be entitled under this Act". If a person needed blankets, for instance, there would be nothing to stop the health board from providing them.
And throwing in a few pounds as well?
Yes.
Then why is the Parliamentary Secretary not more specific? I mean why "instead of" rather than "in addition to"?
I think when the Deputy is interpreting something as not being specific he is reading it out of context. If he reads the whole of that in the proper context he will see the point is covered.
My only comment is that I thought this section was superfluous, when you consider that subsection (3) of the section empowers the Minister to make regulations and rules providing for payment in kind. These regulations and rules could cover everything sought in this section.
The Deputy could have a point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
This is what I call the fire brigade section relating to payment in respect of exceptional need. In fact, this is retaining the most commendable part of the home assistance scheme. However much maligned and criticised the scheme might be, the home assistance officer could go out and make a payment on the spot, where a tragedy occurred or where circumstances were brought about suddenly that caused immediate hardship. I should like to see this section used to a much greater extent. It can be more appropriately used here than in the previous instance. I can visualise someone's fare being paid, say, to a relative's funeral. There were many good things in the home assistance code, but it did not take the human element sufficiently into account. If somebody destitute died a coffin would be provided, but it was a mere casket without any decorations. I do not see anything wrong with the health board making provision for a person who would be far away to attend his mother's funeral. That is perhaps an extreme example, but this is the sort of provision we shall have to face up to in this eternal evolution of social welfare, the human side coming more and more into it. I would like to have the Parliamentary Secretary commit himself to the statement that he would not be averse to such provision being made.
I agree with the Deputy that it is the one element of the existing Home Assistance Act that deserves to be retained. The element of discretion is a very necessary one for the proper operation of the Bill, and I hope this section allays any fears that were expressed previously by Members on the far side.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.