Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 1975

Vol. 285 No. 12

Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.

Section 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Mr. Andrews

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, subsection (1) (a), line 4, to delete "legitimate."

This has been discussed at considerable length during the course of the debate. At 10.30 this morning it was raised by myself and replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary, and again my request for further information on the matter was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary. Section 16 reads:

(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to any obligations imposed by law or otherwise, the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) every man shall be liable to maintain such of his legitimate children as are under the age of sixteen years;

With my amendment the section would read: "Every man shall be liable to maintain such of his children as are under the age of 16 years". The Parliamentary Secretary has fairly dealt with my point on the matter of children born out of wedlock. He has expressed his point of view very thoroughly on it and he is in entire agreement with the view expressed by myself that the new law should not distinguish between legitimate children and those born out of wedlock. I would respectfully urge the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the intentions of my amendment and to indicate once and for all that here we have a beginning of the abandonment of discrimination against those born out of wedlock. I have opened the debate on it and I know I will be supported by my own party on this subject. It is a matter now to see if the Parliamentary Secretary accepts the amendment.

Mr. Cluskey

As I explained to Deputy Andrews this morning when this issue arose, under the Bill there is no distinction whatsoever with regard to payment made between children born in wedlock and children born out of wedlock. The only reason the word "illegitimate" appears in the Bill is that under the terms of the Bill health boards may seek to recover from people who would normally be responsible for the maintenance of dependants moneys paid by the health boards to maintain those people. As I explained this morning, it would not be possible—and I am sure any reasonable person would accept this—for a health board to establish whether or not a particular person was in fact the father of a child born out of wedlock. That is the only reason any reference at all appears in the Bill.

I believe my views in this area are well known. There is no element of discrimination whatever embodied in this Bill with regard to the reference to legitimate or illegitimate children. Other legislation provides other means. Recovery can be made by the mother of the child under the Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Act, 1930. As I explained at some considerable length, it would not be possible for a health board to pursue an alleged father of a child born out of wedlock for the recovery of any moneys paid by the health board towards the support or maintenance of that child. That is the only reason any reference appears in this Bill, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be regarded as discriminatory.

Mr. Briscoe

Is there any way in which the term could be applied to the parent rather than to the child? I always feel it is an injustice to call a child illegitimate. It seems to me in the case of a child born out of wedlock that it is the parents who are illegitimate, not the child. I can see the difficulty, as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary, in not knowing who the father might be. If the term "illegitimate" is to be used, could it not be applied to the parent? I would like the Parliamentary Secretary's comment on this and to know if he has given any thought to the matter.

Mr. Brennan

Since the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept the amendment why not delete the word "legitimate" entirely and say that every man shall be liable to maintain such of his children as are under the age of 16. The actual use of the word indicates a certain discrimination.

Mr. Cluskey

Two points have been raised. If Deputy Briscoe is looking for my opinion I would not apply the word "illegitimate" to either child or parent. There can be various reasons for these things. Time and the rules of the Chair confine us to the business before us and do not permit for elaboration on this. I understand that this section is necessary in the legislation to protect the health boards from being placed in a position where they could become involved not so much in the recovery of money they have paid in support of a child but in trying to establish whether or not a particular man was the father of a child born out of wedlock. That is the sole reason this word appears in the legislation. As I said previously, there is absolutely no element of discrimination against the child born in such circumstances; but it is necessary to have this word in the Bill for the reasons I have just stated.

Mr. Brennan

Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree in 1975, when there has been such a lot of talk about removing some of the undesirable phrases and references in the interests of eliminating discrimination, that it would be an opportunity to show some sign in this legislation, which is supposed to represent some advancement towards the changed outlook, that we are in earnest about removing some of those references? I understand the point he is making regarding the enforcement of the recovery and that it is necessary to spell out certain things in the Bill. I believe that could be overcome easily by avoiding this term. We should have a look at the matter before Report Stage to see if that could be done. It may seem only a detail but it is rather important.

Mr. Cluskey

I appreciate the concern shown by the other side of the House for the use of the word and for some of the stigma which attaches to the use of the word in our society. I do not believe if this word were deleted from this legislation that it would have any effect whatsoever or that it would make any contribution whatsoever towards changing the outlook in our society and the understanding of very many people in our society towards not only children born out of wedlock but people's attitude and behaviour towards women and girls who have children born out of wedlock. The attitude of some of our would-be respecters of society towards these other members of our society is equally important.

While I appreciate fully some of the points raised by Members of the Opposition in relation to this I believe if any benefit can be derived from the elimination of the word "illegitimate" it would be more appropriate to other legislation. I am advised that it is necessary in this Bill for the sole purpose that I have indicated—that it would not be practicable or possible for health boards to be involved in trying to establish who is the father of a child born out of wedlock. That is the only reason that there is any reference in the Bill to the words "legitimate" or "illegitimate". In the circumstances it is a necessary safeguard against that type of involvement for a health board and I am sure that having heard the explanation the necessity for it being in the Bill will be accepted by the Oppostion.

Acting Chairman (Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins)

Is Deputy Andrews withdrawing the amendment?

Mr. Andrews

No, not on principle.

Acting Chairman

I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Question put and declared carried.

Section 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 10 has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Andrews

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, subsection (3), line 27, after "notice" to insert "by registered pre-paid post".

This is purely a protective mechanism against the possibility of a notice being served by the health board in the form of an unregistered letter which might fall into wrong hands. This is a very private matter and privacy should at all times be guarded in regard to it. It appears unfair to allow the possibility of an unregistered letter falling into wrong hands. The great thing about a registered letter is that it generally must be delivered to the person nominated on it. This is a reasonable amendment directed at ensuring privacy.

Mr. Cluskey

I am speaking subject to correction but I understood the position was that if these notices were being served by post they would be sent by registered post.

Mr. Andrews

That takes care of the problem, if there is a statement to that effect.

Mr. Cluskey

I do not want to mislead the Deputy. Possibly I am wrong and if so, I accept the point made that it should be sent by registered post. The only exception is that I could not accept that all such notices could only be sent by registered post: some must be served by hand. In the case of a deserting husband, for instance, while his place of employment might be known and might be fairly stable his place of residence could change fairly frequently and it would be impossible to ensure that notice served upon him even by registered post would be received by him. It might also be difficult to establish, even if he did receive it that he did, in fact, receive it. We must have flexibility but I accept that where it is served by post it should be served by registered post. We must have the alternative to cater for the case I have mentioned, that notice can be served personally upon a defendant.

Mr. Brennan

If this sort of case arises outside the jurisdiction is the Minister advised whether he can take any action?

Mr. Cluskey

I do not think so under this Bill but under the Bill discussed by the Special Committee yesterday, the Maintenance of Spouses and Children Bill, I think it would be possible.

Mr. Brennan

I take it that any new legislation, particularly under the social welfare code, now being introduced is examined in the light of EEC directives and regulations?

Mr. Cluskey

It is certainly examined against the background of our membership of the EEC and the implications of that membership but it might not always be possible for a health board to recover money due to them or even to serve notice if somebody is living abroad. That does not necessarily apply in regard to the persons entitled to be maintained. They could well have notice served on them under the new legislation— not this Bill—and be able to receive maintenance. I think there is a difference between that and the health board or any local authority trying to recover money they had already paid from a person.

Mr. Brennan

When I was in the Minister's Office I was frequently asked by the Opposition to make provision in drafting legislation to have the payments made to the wife where there was reasonable proof that the husband was not using the allowance in the proper way; that it should be optional to have a change made. This applied to various social welfare payments. Has the Minister given any thought to that or do sections 17 and 18 here meet that case? I think they do to some extent. Section 16 provides that action may be taken to compel a person liable to support another—that would to some extent meet the case of a man who drinks his allowance before he goes home.

Mr. Cluskey

I think the pressure the Deputy refers to when he was Minister for the mother to be paid was mainly in respect of children's allowances.

Mr. Brennan

Not alone those.

Mr. Cluskey

We have enacted legislation making children's allowances payable to mothers. That is the law as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Andrews

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, line 36, to add "or the Court may be additional order direct that the amount of the contribution be deducted from such person's income and paid to the health board".

This is consistent, I think, with up-to-date thinking on legislation which should now be acceptable to this House. Members of the Special Committee on the Family Law Bill are dealing with the type of intention envisaged in my amendment, where the defaulting judgment debtor, presumably the husband, fails to honour a court order on a weekly basis. In those circumstances the order, further to the order envisaged under section 17 (4), should have an additional element, namely, that the husband's salary should be attached to ensure payment without fail of the orders directed to be paid by the court. It is a reasonable proposition and one which is consistent with another Bill being dealt with by a Special Committee of the House. It is also a recommendation envisaged in the 19th Interim Report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure. The amendment would not affect the section which, as set down, is a good one. It would be an additional beneficial element and I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to be consistent in legislation of this nature by accepting this amendment; we are attempting to be consistent in our opposition in this regard.

Before the publication of the 19th Interim Report of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure I stated my position in relation to the attachment of salaries at source and that was an indication of the intention of this party to ensure that such a situation would be brought about.

Mr. Cluskey

It is not as simple as the Deputy thinks. I am not questioning the thought behind his amendment. However, if a father does not support his wife and children and they avail of the provisions under this Bill which would permit an allowance to be paid to them, there is nothing to stop that woman going to court under the provisions of the legislation before the Special Committee of this House. It would be possible for her under that legislation to obtain an attachment order on the husband's earnings. That would be a court intervening between a citizen and his direct responsibilities towards his dependants. I am advised that it is constitutionally questionable whether the attachment order could be made in respect of money to be payable to a health board or local authority.

I am not questioning the motivation behind the amendment but it is not possible to accept it. The provisions of the Bill do not interfere with the legitimate rights of the wife to pursue in the courts a husband who is not living up to his responsibilities and to have, under the provisions of the Bill before the Special Committee, an attachment order made on his earnings payable directly to her. An attachment order for money to be payable to a health board or local authority is not on.

Mr. Andrews

I have no doubt about the constitutionality of the amendment. It fully subscribes to the Constitution and the House would not be consistent if the amendment is not accepted. I have suggested that the salaries be attached at source when the money is outstanding by the judgment debtor or the person in debt to the health board or local authority. In the normal way if I owed money to a health board that is an irrefutable fact. In my view, the law in those circumstances would fully subscribe to the Constitution and the constitutionality of my amendment cannot be in question. If a citizen or a company owes money to a health board that board is entitled to pursue that citizen or company through the courts to ensure that money is paid. Under those circumstances I envisage this as an analogous situation and I find it difficult to understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can wave the Constitution at us as a reason for not accepting the amendment.

Mr. Cluskey

With all due respect to Deputy Andrews' legal background, I must accept the advice offered to me in regard to the constitutionality of the provision. There is no question of the health board being owed money by an individual and the board not seeking to recover that money through the courts. Of course the boards will, and they are entitled to, do that. But the amendment suggests that an attachment order be made on the man's earnings and the money due be stopped at source. I am advised that it is questionable if this is permissible under the Constitution.

There is a vast difference between that and the case of a deserted wife with five or six children pursuing through the courts her right to maintenance for herself and her children from her deserting husband. Under the Bill before the Special Committee the court can stop money at source in respect of these responsibilities and pay it directly to the person involved. There is a difference in the courts doing that and an employer stopping money at source to be paid to a health authority.

The lady in question is not debarred from pursuing through the courts her right to maintenance and the health board are not debarred from pursuing through the normal channel the person responsible for the maintenance, the person who owes the board money because that board intervened to ensure he lived up to his responsibility. The Deputy's amendment seeks to stop the money at source and make an attachment order in regard to the person's earnings. I am advised that this cannot be done because the money is owed to a health board or a local authority, but under the provisions of this legislation it can and will be possible so far as the person directly affected, the wife, is concerned.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Cluskey

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 8, line 43 to delete "such cost" and substitute "the allowance so granted together with the costs of the proceedings.".

This is purely a drafting amendment. The last two words of section 17 are not quite clear in regard to how costs should be defined, whether it would be the cost of allowance or the cost of both allowance and proceedings. It is only to clarify and define what "cost" means that this amendment is made. It has no serious implications.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up a few points. Subsection (2) deals with burial within one's own area. Does this specifically cover persons who die in homes outside their own county? Does this provide for them to be brought home to be buried?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes.

Mr. Brennan

There are other cases —they may not occur frequently— where, due to financial circumstances, the relatives are unable to have the remains brought home to be interred in their own cemetery. Will this provide for bringing home the remains?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes. If a person from Donegal died in Cork it may be necessary, and in most cases desirable, that the remains be buried in Donegal. This allows arrangements for the burial to be made by the Donegal Health Board rather than by the Cork Health Board.

Mr. Brennan

In any event, it provides for bringing the remains home?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes.

Mr. Brennan

Are the other subsections the same as the old Health Act, which provided assistance for bodies washed ashore and so forth?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes.

Mr. Brennan

If a person who might be held responsible for expenses turns up after the burial, are they liable for recoupment of the money spent?

Mr. Cluskey

In certain circumstances they would be. It may be borne by the health board under subsection (4).

Mr. Brennan

If a body is washed ashore but is not identified and is buried by the health board, and later it is found that that person's relatives could have paid, will the cost be recouped from them?

Mr. Cluskey

Strictly speaking they would but I do not envisage a situation arising where a person would be buried and no one would claim them.

Mr. Brennan

In a wartime situation, such as the last war, many such cases occurred.

Mr. Cluskey

It might be possible for the health board to proceed against the estate of the person if at the time of the death the person was unknown, but after the burial had taken place they learned his identity that person may have left a considerable amount of assets and in those circumstances it would be possible for the health board to recover costs.

Mr. Brennan

Is that made clear in subsection (4)?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes.

Dr. Gibbons

If the responsible person did not request the return of the body, what would be the position?

Mr. Cluskey

If they did not request the return of the body I imagine it would be buried in the area in which the person died.

Dr. Gibbons

Suppose another relative requested the return of the body?

Mr. Cluskey

One could safely assume that if they were so concerned about where the deceased was buried they would have very little objection to paying the expenses involved in arranging transportation. As these are very hypothetical questions it is difficult to give precise answers. All the circumstances relevant to the case would be taken into consideration and on that basis the health board could decide to proceed against the person for expenses incurred or they might decide it was not in the best interest of everyone to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 14 in the name of Deputy Andrews has been ruled out of order.

Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brennan

Nobody on this side of the House could agree to this section because it adds a further burden of 40 per cent on the rates. I would have thought that this Bill was an opportunity for the Government to give a practical expression to their avowed principle of reducing the rates and easing the burden on ratepayers.

When discussing other sections today I tried to get from the Parliamentary Secretary the extent to which he expected this would impinge on the rates. I was talking about better provision for those who formerly benefited under the Home Assistance Acts. I am sure the Minister is not possessed of the necessary foresight to gauge the extent to which the net may be spread in regard to extra supplementary allowances over and above the limits set out in the Bill. To estimate the cost is difficult, but one thing is certain—it will mean very definite extra burdens on the health board, and if the Bill is to be as generous as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, if its provisions are to be spread as widely as he said, the cost will be very heavy. These will be added to the existing health charges which have been escalating beyond the ability of people to pay and the two alone will impose massive extra charges on the rates.

The Minister will argue that he is paying 60 per cent of the increase over the base year of 1975. We argue that this Bill presents the first opportunity to the Government to demonstrate their anxiety to ease the burden of rates, but from all estimates this Bill will make the rates burden even greater at a time when the Central Fund should be coming to the relief of local authorities who will be further mulcted to pay the cost of home assistance. We cannot permit this to happen. We have had the amendment of Deputy Andrews which states that the Minister shall, out of the Central Fund——

Mr. Cluskey

There is no amendment to that effect before me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Brennan

We are opposing this section unless the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking that he is prepared to amend it in the manner everybody desires. A lot of play was made about the desire to remove the stigma of home assistance but here we are still hanging on to the local rate which in itself is a stigma from the point of view that beneficiaries will be aware the local authorities, local ratepayers, are coming to their rescue.

Take a man living in a little cottage with a £5 valuation on the side of a mountain. He pays more than £60 in rates at a time when we should have had a serious undertaking to relieve the rates. This has a serious effect on poorer sections. If that man repairs his cottage, he will find that his valuation will jump to £10, £15 or £20. He then finds himself having to pay £120 in rates annually and to tell him that he is contributing to the home assistance classes under this new Bill introduced by this Government will not make him feel happier. It will not remove any of the stigma attached to the home assistance scheme. I do not think anybody can defend this method of financing this legislation, least of all a Government that had given a solid undertaking to work towards the complete relief of the rates burden, a burden that is increasing each year.

Why is the opportunity to do this not being availed of here? It would lend some air of credibility to the Government's commitment. What is being granted—60 per cent of the increase—is a poor gesture towards that commitment. Nobody can be satisfied with that proposal. The gateway is being opened in this Bill for the operation of Parkinson's Law. Many new appointments will be made by the health boards to enable them to administer this legislation. There will have to be machinery for appeals and for recovery. There will be involved, too, a great deal of investigation, all of which means a substantial additional arm of the administration of the health boards. While the Parliamentary Secretary may say that some personnel will be transferred to the health boards from local authorities, we can rest assured that there will be no reduction in the personnel of local authorities but that many extra officials will be appointed by the health boards. Therefore, the cost of the administration of this legislation can be expected to spiral year by year.

If the provisions of the Bill are to be worthwhile, the cost will be astronomical. We are witnessing another demonstration of the deception of this Government. What the Government are saying is that while they are implementing better social welfare legislation they are ensuring that it will be paid for at local level. Already the local authorities are unable to meet rising costs. Can anybody here predict the local rates for next year?

There is provision in this Bill for going beyond the prescribed rates of assistance and for the interpretation of one's needs but the cost of all this will bear heavily on the smallholder who already is paying rates as high as £13 in the £ in some of the poorest counties. I am glad to be able to remind the House that in our time we derated his bit of land and when the time comes we will do the same in respect of his private dwelling. In the meantime, though he is burdened with having to pay rates on his little cottage which for this purpose is valued at £5, £10 or £12 with the result that he may be paying more than £100 in rates. He will be paying virtually for benefits that he will be seeking himself because the stage has been reached of transferring the benefit merely from one pocket to another.

Apart from these considerations there is to remain the stigma attached to home assistance. Recipients of this benefit were often embarrassed that their neighbour should be paying extra rates to meet the cost of the scheme but that is to continue. Having listened to us perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has had a change of heart and intends amending the section before Report Stage, a step which I urge him strongly to take because the people have had enough.

Mr. Calleary

I rise to support Deputy Brennan and to say that this section makes a mockery of the Government's promise to reduce rates. I speak only from experience in my own county where we are faced with a record rate of approximately £12.20 in the £, a considerable amount of which is due to increased health charges and also because of the liberal attitude we adopted in relation to home assistance. We will be asked to support this legislation to the tune of almost £300,000 in the current year plus 40 per cent of any extra cost to what can be called the base figure for 1975.

As happened in the case of the health boards, I can foresee a series of appointments to administer this section so that not only will we have to meet the cost of the supplementary allowances but also the cost of the administration of the scheme. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can ask a member of a local authority to give to the health boards what is virtually a blank cheque because the Bill, quite rightly, leaves a certain amount of discretion with the home assistance officers and leaves with the Minister the power to increase the allowances which I am sure will increase each year in relation to increases in the cost of living.

The Parliamentary Secretary should now accept that this section will cause undue hardship to local authorities all along the western seaboard, especially in those areas where you have a number of people who will be recipients of these supplementary allowances and where you have the smallest valuations and the biggest rate per £. Mayo County Council have been discussing this to estimate how much this will cost. Frankly, we have been unable to reach a conclusion but we think the cost to us in the first full year will be at least double what we are now paying. One of the charges made on almost every platform in West Mayo against Mayo County Council and the members of that body was that the rates were so high because the county council was controlled by a Fianna Fáil majority. This at least will help to kill that charge because what the Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to do now is to accept that these allowances, which I welcome, will to the extent of at least 40 per cent be paid out of our rates. That is something we will be unable to do and that is something we will have to oppose as strongly as we can on this side of the House.

Mr. Cluskey

This alleged imposition, as it has been described by Deputy Brennan and others, on local authorities must be brought back into its proper perspective. What exactly is involved? Under the old Home Assistance Act, which this Bill will replace, 100 per cent of home assistance was borne by the rates. There was no Exchequer contribution of any kind. Fianna Fáil speakers are trying to get it across to the people that this is the first time there will be an imposition on the rates when in fact the exact opposite is the case. There will now be an acceptance by the Exchequer of 60 per cent of any additional expenditure over and above the 1975 rate and that means that the other 40 per cent will be shared proportionately amongst 31 local authorities and not borne by just one local authority. Granted, there is only one Exchequer and it will be liable for 60 per cent. There are 31 local authorities and they will be asked to bear proportionately between them 40 per cent of the additional cost.

Practically every Opposition Member from the introduction of this Bill right through to this Committee Stage accepted that this was a good Bill, acknowledged that it would do things that were long overdue and acknowledged that we were restoring to those at the lowest end of the scale economically speaking a certain dignity. On the other hand, they now introduce the emotive issue of rates. Taken out of context this can only lead to misrepresentation. Deputy Brennan said 1975 was a bad year from the point of view of expenditure on home assistance and that is the year to be taken as the basis. If one looks at the situation and examines what happened over the last two-and-a-half to three years, from the Exchequer's point of view it might have been much more favourable to pick another year because what has been happening over the last two-and-a-half years is that people, who had no other resources and nothing on which to maintain themselves, because of the broadening of the scope of eligibility for social welfare benefits and allowances ceased to be a liability on the local rates as they would have been had they been in receipt of home assistance. Over the last two-and-a-half years there has been a very, very considerable easing of the means test which resulted in making quite a number of people eligible for non-contributory old age pensions, widows pensions and so on. Before the easement of the means test these people had no alternative except to seek home assistance. The reduction in the pension age has given another outlet to people who would otherwise be a charge on the local authority, and solely on the local authority. Such things have been introduced as allowances for unmarried mothers, deserted wives, prisoners' dependants, single women and so on. A whole range of people have been brought in over the last two-and-a-half years and that has resulted in a diminution of responsibility where local authorities are concerned. It is very important that through misrepresentation, designed or otherwise, an emotional atmosphere is not created amongst ratepayers against those who want to avail of their rights under the Bill.

Mr. Brennan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cluskey

I would ask Deputies on the far side of the House to be very conscious of how they present their case, and to be very conscious of the possible effects distortion of the facts or exaggeration of the impact on the rates could have on the reaction of ratepayers against people who, because of their economic circumstances, have to resort, as they have a right to resort, to the provisions of this Bill.

I do not object for one moment to people on the other side of the House saying the Exchequer should accept the full cost, but I do object when we get this emotional approach which distorts the actual impact it will have on the rates, and which can lead, and is in great danger of leading, to a climate of opinion being created, by misrepresentation of the facts, against people who want to avail of their rights under this piece of legislation. I repeat: the fact is that local authorities in the past and at this moment—and this will remain the position until this Bill comes into operation—are responsible for 100 per cent of expenditure on home assistance. In this Bill, the Exchequer is picking up 60 per cent of the additional cost——

Mr. Calleary

Of what figure?

Mr. Cluskey

——and 40 per cent is being recouped by the health boards spread out amongst 31 local authorities. I genuinely do not believe the vast majority of the ratepayers would object in any way to the relatively small charge this will impose on them in order to do what is enshrined in this Bill, that is, to return their dignity to the people who avail of these services. I impress this again upon Deputies. Do not, by exaggeration or distortion of what the impact of this Bill will be on the rates, build up a climate of opinion among ratepayers which will militate against these unfortunate people who are the least privileged in our society.

Mr. Brennan

I must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the brazen-faced manner in which he has approached this particularly unpleasant section of the Bill. He virtually says to us: "Keep quiet. Do not let on where this money is coming from and they will enjoy it better."

Mr. Cluskey

I did not. I asked the Opposition to be factual.

Mr. Calleary

We will be factual now.

Mr. Brennan

If the old Home Assistance Act had one stigma more than another, it was the knowledge that the benefit was paid out of the local rates. People who drew it felt their neighbours were contributing to them. It went through the hands of the county council and did not pass just from one door to another. Here was an opportunity to remove one definite stigma. It was a greater opportunity. It was an opportunity to relieve the rates of a burden with which they will now be saddled for the rest of their lives.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not go so far as to say this was an easy year for home assistance payments. He recited a number of benefits which, he said, took the load off. Is he aware it was the worst year the local authorities had to face? They had to face the highest charges since home assistance was first introduced. Does he deny that? That is to be the base year. This charge will be tagged to them for the rest of their lives by a Government who promised to reduce the rates. There is no getting away from that. We will not be silenced.

Mr. Cluskey

I know that. It was a vain appeal taking into consideration the effects of some of their irresponsible statements. I know that.

Mr. Brennan

We will make it clear to the people who have to face this extra charge on the rates. Not merely was the opportunity not taken to ease the burden as was promised, but they will have to pay 40 per cent of the extra charge. If the Bill is to be worth the paper it is written on it will spread out to give more and better rates to more people. That is why we are here. That is why we praise this legislation. If the Bill does that it will impose a severe charge.

The magnitude of the extra charge is more than the councils have been able to estimate so far. They have been wrestling with it for the past few weeks and they do not know. It is a completely unknown factor to them. If it is anything like the health charges we have no difficulty in anticipating how it will be reflected in the local rates when they are being struck for next year, and particularly the year after when the Bill will have been a full year in operation. We have not yet heard the appointed day when the Bill becomes an Act.

Surely the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary on his behalf, is not trying to defend for two definite reasons the imposition of this charge on local rates when it is the first genuine concrete opportunity the Government have had to give expression to their avowed purpose to reduce the rates and to remove the stigma of the old home assistance. The beneficiaries under the old scheme felt their neighbours were contributing to it by paying extra rates, which was true. We are told to keep quiet and not to be emotional.

Even at this stage the Minister should pull back and delete that section and meet the cost of this from the Central Fund. If he has a lot of money to spend—and he has told us there will be no shortage of money for social welfare—surely he should keep his hands off the local rates. Does he appreciate the standard of living of the man in the small cottage on the side of the hill which has a low valuation of £8 or £10? This man has to pay a £100 in rates. He may be a beneficiary under the social welfare code. He may be submitting an application under this Bill for relief from rates. This is too much of a change from one pocket to another.

The Parliamentary Secretary has done well in bringing in this legislation. He should now go the whole way and announce that the Government are prepared to relieve the rates of this burden and prepared to remove the stigma caused by the old home assistance and that these people will be paid direct from the Exchequer.

Mr. Cluskey

For the first time the Exchequer is meeting some of the cost. It did not meet one half-penny of it under Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Brennan

This is an extra charge.

Mr. Calleary

We will give the facts.

Mr. Gallagher

We have been told that this Bill will end all our social evils for ever more.

Mr. Cluskey

I do not know who told you that.

Mr. Gallagher

It has been presented in this manner.

Mr. Cluskey

Not by me.

Mr. Gallagher

The Parliamentary Secretary should not take exception to our arguments. We can prove categorically that a very heavy imposition is placed on ratepayers under this Bill.

I should like to read some figures which I asked the accountant in Mayo County Council for when this Bill was first introduced in the House on 19th June. Expenditure in Mayo on home assistance up to 31st March, 1973, was £86,143. Up to the end of March, 1974, it was £115,080. In the nine months of 1974—from March until the end of December—expenditure was £120,933, and for 1975 we have provided £201,500 in our estimates. We have spent to date £280,000.

As has been pointed out by other speakers and by myself earlier, when I may have "jumped the gun" in relation to this section, it is obvious that expenditure will be much higher in the future. We will be responsible for administration. In the health boards there will be extra personnel. When we were running the health services under the county councils we did a reasonable job in an endeavour to keep staffing and so on at a certain level. Now many extra staff have been appointed; there are CEOs, programme managers and all sorts of extra staff. This pattern will be followed right along the line when this Bill comes into operation.

There is also the question of the extra services which will be provided. At present there are certain areas where people are entitled to free fuel and so on. This will apply in every health board area, which will increase the cost of the whole operation. It does not matter what argument the Parliamentary Secretary puts up, we are not going to be able to manage on that figure of £280,000 which has been spent this year in Mayo. Next year we will have an increased demand for expenditure. Granted 60 per cent of it will be paid by the National Exchequer. Still it means that the local authority in the future will be faced with an increased bill for home assistance. It does not matter how the Parliamentary Secretary tries to paint the picture. We are not trying to be emotional on this side of the House. We are giving solid facts as we see them as representatives of local authorities.

That is why I add my voice to that of others in requesting that this be made a national charge. I put down a parliamentary question on this matter in May, 1973, asking that payment of home assistance be made a national charge. It is a fair way of dealing with the matter and eliminates the imposition of further hardship on ratepayers. As has been stated, in our own county we are faced with a demand of £12.57; certainly we will be paying over £12 in rates this year. At present a small shopkeeper is barely able to keep his door open because of various increases and the way business in general is declining. Those are the kind of people who will be hardest hit by this type of demand. Indeed, many of them may be faced with the position of having to apply for home assistance themselves. Take the case of people who are self-employed, who are finding it difficult to eke out an existence and, incidentally, are not covered under this Bill. They are the people who will really have to face these extra charges on rates. We are not being emotional. We are simply giving the solid facts as we see them and, in particular, in relation to our own counties.

Mr. Andrews

If I sound emotional about rates I will not apologise to any person in this House. To me it is an emotional problem because I come from a constituency where the word "rate" is a highly emotive one. "Rate" is a four-letter word considered to have a very bad meaning. I cannot help feeling emotional about it.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how much money in 1974 was provided by all the local authorities for home assistance, the total moneys provided in that year for home assistance and the projected total figure for 1975? The Parliamentary Secretary may have the figures in front of him and, if he has not, he should have. If one compares the 1974 figures with those for 1975, then the Parliamentary Secretary's boast that he is only going to pay 40 per cent——

Mr. Cluskey

No, 60 per cent.

Mr. Andrews

60 per cent; I beg your pardon, using the 1975 figures as a base sounds rather hollow and shallow.

We, on this side of the House consider—and it has become almost a cliché through its constant use—rates on urban and rural dwellings to be an outdated and penal tax. We had the Minister for Local Government coming out in his usual bland fashion saying something would be done about the matter of rates. If we heard him once we heard him ten times and still nothing has been done about them. Even the Minister for Local Government agrees with us that people in private dwellings should not be asked to pay rates. We have an opportunity to uplift the proposals here from the rates, put them on the Central Exchequer or charge them to central funds, which we believe is a reasonable suggestion.

I know my amendment proposing that has been ruled out of order. We say to the Parliamentary Secretary that he could introduce an amendment, as proposed by this side of the House. As we consider it a matter that will have to be examined at some future date, with great respect to the Chair—and I do not wish in any way to contest his ruling— we feel we are being discriminated against in Opposition by not being in a position to propose at least charges on central funds. We feel the proposal should not be ruled out of order in the first instance. Indeed we should be afforded an opportunity of discussing it. Then if the Parliamentary Secretary, or whoever is in his place, feels that our proposals are acceptable, they should be so accepted. But to rule out a discussion on an amendment which proposes a charge on central funds is to me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now engaged in contesting the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Andrews

I made it clear that it was not my intention to do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows it is inappropriate to deal with the ruling of the Chair that has been dealt with already.

Mr. Andrews

At the first opportunity presented to this party in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges it will be my intention to urge our Chief Whip to contest the Standing Order that brings about that situation. I accept that the Chair has to rule on its interpretation of the Standing Order. But it will be my intention to propose that this method of denying free speech in this House be abandoned.

Again, without apology to the House, I am emotional about rates and will continue to be. They are a penal form of taxation. The opportunity presents itself to the House now to lift home assistance as a charge from the rates. No matter how much the Parliamentary Secretary boasts about the amount being paid—in this case 60 per cent— by central funds or the Exchequer, it is not good enough, the burden becomes more harrowing and hardships more severe. As a public representative, I have seen them. No later than yesterday I received two letters from individual constituents of mine complaining about the burden of rates on them, and these people were widows. If the Parliamentary Secretary is serious about reforming the law he has an opportunity now to do so.

We have given an undertaking—no matter how much the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government sneer at us—to abolish rates as a matter of urgency. One of our first priorities when we return to power will be to lift the rates burden—call it what you will— from the ordinary householder.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep to the section.

Mr. Andrews

Even at this late stage I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the spirit of our amendment. Perhaps he will be able to give me the figures I sought at the end of our contribution?

Mr. Cluskey

Yes.

Mr. Calleary

I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary saw fit to use words such as "misrepresent", "emotional atmosphere" and so on. He also said that all that was being asked of local authorities was a very small increase. If that is the case, on behalf of Mayo I am asking him to take up that small increase. Will he accept 1973 as the base year? This Bill is another example of Government thinking, of bringing in legislation and asking others to pay. We have had examples in the grants offered in relation to the Road Fund: in Mayo we have been asked to pay £ for £ for a special grant. Quite rightly the Parliamentary Secretary has hailed this Bill as a tremendous advance. He said it will give back some dignity to people but, at the same time, he is not prepared to take up excess expenditure even over 1975. Let the Government prove their social conscience. If they are going to call the tune we are asking them to pay the piper.

Mr. MacSharry

It is obvious the Parliamentary Secretary is going to pursue what is in the Bill. Has he considered that the poorer local authorities did not have schemes as large as those operated in better-off areas due to the burden they would impose on the ratepayers? If a national scale is introduced this increase will fall much heavier on the north-western counties.

The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken about the emotive words used on this side of the House about rates. An important fact is that by this legislation there will be a considerable burden on the local authorities concerned and we are asking the elected representatives to rate accordingly while they will have no control over the services. This is a very serious situation. It is generally accepted that after this year health charges will no longer be a charge on the rates. I understand that because it will be operated by the health boards it will be known as a health service and will be costed accordingly. There are many ways in which difficulties may be encountered in relation to the contribution. When the health boards were formed the various county managers made arrangements with the CEOs and these agreements differed from one health board area to another. What is the situation where the local authority handed over the lot to the health board? All these things can discriminate against the local authority that retained the overall running of the home assistance services.

Mr. Cluskey

Deputy Andrews asked for the 1974 figure. The total expenditure by the local authorities and the health boards involved in home assistance as such was £2,037,923.

Mr. Calleary

Is that for nine months?

Mr. Cluskey

It is from 1st April, 1973, to 31st March, 1974. The Deputy made a point about Mayo——

Mr. Andrews

Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to give the figure for 1975?

Mr. Cluskey

As I stated when introducing the Bill, I anticipated the cost to the Exchequer will be £2 million.

Mr. Andrews

Obviously that is an underestimation when one considers the 1974 figure.

Mr. Cluskey

The cost to the Exchequer would be 60 per cent over and above the 1975 figure. The Deputy may not be aware that the 40 per cent is divided proportionately among 31 local authorities. The 60 per cent is borne by the Exchequer.

Mr. Calleary

The Parliamentary Secretary used the word "proportionately"?

Mr. Cluskey

I want to be fair to the Deputy because I think he has a point with regard to Mayo. I had discussions with all of the CEOs regarding the introduction of the scheme after the Bill was circulated and the CEOs from Mayo made the valid point that that county had increased its allocation on home assistance quite substantially. In fact, the allocation was increased from £116,000 in 1974 to £214,000 in 1975. To me that indicates that Mayo has been trying to live up to its responsibilities in this area. It means, however, that Mayo will have to pay proportionately more.

Mr. Calleary

Why not go back to 1973 as the base year?

Mr. Cluskey

It also answers Deputy MacSharry's point that counties who have not had large expenditure in this area will be billed proportionately on the 40 per cent. Deputy Andrews said he was going to be emotional and he certainly was——

Mr. Andrews

I make no apology for that.

Mr. Briscoe

The Parliamentary Secretary is a dab hand at that.

Mr. Cluskey

I never give warning of it. The Deputy spoke of receiving letters from two constituents whom he stated were widows. Undoubtedly rates are a problem to some people in that position, not all. The fact that one is a widow does not necessarily mean that one has not got the material goods of this world. As far as material goods are concerned one can be better off financially by being a widow than by being a wife.

Mr. Andrews

That is a piece of convoluted logic. It may make some sort of sense, but it is totally unrelated to my argument.

Mr. Cluskey

Maybe it is a bit late for the Deputy.

Mr. Andrews

No, it is not.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy has had a long, hard day.

Mr. Andrews

I will carry on for another 12 hours.

Mr. Cluskey

Anyway the position is, as I have stated, that 1975 is the base year in the Bill. A large number of people have been taken off home assistance by virtue of the fact that the social welfare code has been extended very considerably by easement of the means test, lowering of the pension age, unmarried, mother's allowance, deserted wife's benefit, prisoner's dependants' benefit, single women's benefit—a number of things have been done.

Mr. MacSharry

The Parliamentary Secretary does not expect any contribution from the Exchequer?

Mr. Cluskey

I do, because we are putting in a minimum rate that people will be entitled to and it will not be left to the discretion of an individual or a board.

Mr. MacSharry

It will be the poor taxpayer that will have to pay that.

Mr. Cluskey

It will not differ between one area and another. It will eliminate the difference in dealing with identical cases within the same operational area, which has happened and it will be done with relatively little burden on the taxpayer. The case that I understand Fianna Fáil are trying to put across is that the ratepayers were never responsible.

Mr. Calleary

No one said that at all.

Mr. Cluskey

You are trying to imply it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Cluskey

Up to now and up to the passage of this Bill, they have been responsible for 100 per cent. Under this Bill the Exchequer will contribute 60 per cent——

Mr. Brennan

No.

Mr. Cluskey

——which they did not contribute before.

Mr. Calleary

60 per cent of the increase——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cluskey

——with 1975 as a base——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let the interruptions cease.

Mr. Cluskey

——and the charge on the local authority will be diminishing year after year.

Mr. Calleary

We heard that before.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy should read some of the contributions from his own side of the House about galloping inflation, cost of living, and things of that nature. If he believes those arguments that he has been making himself, the logic of it is that, with 1975 as the base year, as each year goes by the base becomes less and less significant as a charge on the rates. Of the additional costs that will be incurred the Exchequer takes up 60 per cent and the additional 40 per cent is spread amongst 31 local authorities.

(Interruptions.)

Chairman

Deputies should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to make his case.

Mr. Cluskey

In some cases the benefits will be considerably higher. I do not want to single out any particular authority or area, but you would be shocked were you to see the average rate of payment that was made by some authorities. It was incredibly low. There will be undoubtedly an increase in the benefits paid. That is what the Bill will do. Forty per cent of the additional expenditure will be recouped among the 31 local authorities, and the Exchequer for the first time will contribute 60 per cent.

Mr. Calleary

The Parliamentary Secretary has laid great stress on the fact that 40 per cent will be spread among 31 local authorities. Is it not a fact that Mayo will have to pay 40 per cent of any extra cost over and above the base of 1975?

Mr. Cluskey

Proportionately, no.

Mr. Calleary

Do not mind proportionately. Will they not have to pay 40 per cent extra?

Mr. Cluskey

Not necessarily.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address his remarks to the Chair rather than to any Member of the House.

Mr. Calleary

Is it not a fact that Mayo County Council will have to pay 40 per cent of the extra charge?

Mr. Cluskey

I shall read out the relevant provision in subsection (1):

(b) in respect of each year following the year in which the appointed day occurs, a sum representing—

(i) the total expenditure by such local authority on home assistance in the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975, and

(ii) a proportion of forty per cent of the amount by which the total expenditure by all health boards on supplementary welfare allowance in the year for which payment is due exceeds the total expenditure by all local authorities on home assistance in the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975.

Mr. Brennan

It amounts to the same thing, a big increase in the rates.

Mr. Cluskey

The Deputy is a very irresponsible man.

Mr. Brennan

There is not the slightest doubt. Will the Parliamentary Secretary not admit I am right?

Mr. Cluskey

He is incredibly irresponsible. He amazes me.

Mr. Gallagher

Will the Parliamentary Secretary concede that there will be an increase in rates in each county?

Mr. Cluskey

Certainly.

Mr. Gallagher

Will the proportion have to be paid in relation to the expenditure in each county? For instance, will Mayo have to pay 40 per cent of the expenditure in the county? I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say it would be proportionate.

Mr. Brennan

It amounts to the same thing.

Mr. Cluskey

It does not amount to the same thing. If the total expenditure in Mayo, for instance, was one-twentieth of the total expenditure of all local authorities in the country in 1975, one-twentieth of the excess expenditure, say, in 1976, that is, one-twentieth of the 40 per cent, will be billed against Mayo.

Mr. Calleary

It looks as if we in Mayo are going to contribute one-tenth for the whole country.

Mr. Cluskey

I would not think so.

Mr. Andrews

That is Coalition mathematics at its worst.

Mr. Brennan

If the Bill is going to be of any use, the amount of money spent on home assistance last year will be at least double or even treble——

Mr. Cluskey

I read out the 1974 figure of total expenditure for the whole country. I said we would be spending £2 million from the Exchequer alone. That is certain to happen because the anticipated contribution will nearly match the total expenditure for 1974.

Mr. Brennan

In other words, £2 million will be 60 per cent extra.

Mr. Cluskey

We anticipate that.

Mr. Brennan

It will be a very considerable increase in the rates.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 65: Níl, 61.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• White, James.

Níl

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Flanagan, Seán.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.

Question declared carried.

NEW SECTION

Mr. Cluskey

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 10, before section 21 to insert the following new section:

21. —(1) The Minister may make regulations—

(a) with respect to any matter relating to supplementary welfare allowances and such regulations may, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, apply (with or without modification), or make provisions corresponding (with or without modification) to, any provisions of or made under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and the Acts amending and extending that Act,

(b) for any purpose in relation to which regulations are provided for by any of the provisions of this Act, and

(c) for prescribing any matter or thing referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed.

(2) Without prejudice to any specific provision in this Act, any regulations made under this Act may contain such incidental or supplementary provisions as may appear to the Minister to be expedient for the purposes of the regulations.

(3) Regulations made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made and, if a resolution annulling the regulations is passed by either House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the regulations have been laid before it, the regulations shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".

This is clearly a drafting amendment which in fact replaces sections 21 and 26. It does not affect the substance of the Bill as introduced.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

The adoption of amendment No. 15 involves the deletion of section 21.

Section 22 agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Andrews

I think it is important that we should pay tribute to the home assistance officers as they are now. They will of course become officers of the health boards under this legislation. These are men of experience, a body of men of the highest integrity, and they have been proved by the operation of the 1939 Act to be men of the highest integrity and efficiency. It is suggested that in future those appointed by the health boards to operate this legislation will have training available to them. Nevertheless, it is only fair to point out that the men who are transferred to the health boards by virtue of the provisions of this Bill are men whose experience is irreplaceable. I think it would be wrong of the House to conclude its deliberations on the Bill without paying tribute to them. It is my duty and pleasure to pay such tribute.

They have had a very difficult task to perform. They have been daily exposed to human hardship of the worst kind in our society and they have met this challenge with the highest possible integrity. In the main, they are a body of men who have shown themselves to have experience and understanding in relation to the various problems they have met with on a daily basis. It is a harrowing experience for us as Deputies to meet the type of cases that home assistance officers have to meet and deal with on a daily basis because they, as distinct from us, meet such cases daily and deal with their problems daily. This must, in some way, affect them and affect their attitude to human life. Their attitude has not been found wanting in any respect. I felt I should pay that tribute that is properly due to them.

Mr. Gallagher

I should like to join with Deputy Andrews in what he has said about the officers who are already engaged in operating this scheme. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary briefly what is the position of part-time officers, people who have been engaged part-time. There are four that I know of in my own county who are not full-time officers but are employed on a part-time basis. As far as I am aware they have no pension rights or superannuation scheme to avail of. What will the position be when this Bill becomes law? Will they be allowed to continue to hold their position? It is only right, because they have been working for a long period with the local authority, that their rights should be protected.

Mr. Cluskey

I appreciate the tribute paid to the home assistance officers by Deputy Andrews and I subscribe fully to his remarks. We were fortunate to have had such dedicated men as home assistance officers. They gave a valuable service working under difficult circumstances in trying to implement the terms of an ancient piece of legislation. With regard to the point made by Deputy Gallagher I should like to state that there will be no change in the position of these officers. Their position is not threatened in any way by the transfer. In order to try and ensure a smooth transition from the present arrangements we will engage in discussions with representatives of the home assistance officers when this Bill is passed. A working party is engaged in discussions to ensure a smooth transfer. That party is also concerned with such matters as careers structure, methods of recruitment and methods of training after recruitment.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.

Question: "That section 26 be deleted" agreed to.

Sections 27 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

TITLE.

Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."

Mr. Andrews

I do not wish to throw a spanner in the works but, on the Title, are these allowances not basic and, in many instances, there is no suggestion of a supplement to anything. I do not want to make an issue of this.

Mr. Cluskey

The majority of them will be supplementing some other form of income and, therefore, the Title is appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.