Social Welfare Bill, 1977: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary may have dealt with section 13 when I was absent. I apologise for my absence for the first ten minutes of his contribution.

I referred before to the anomaly that arises when a pensioner dies and leaves a widow who is not of pensionable age. The reduction of the qualifying age for pension purposes puts the widow in a more advantageous position. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the widow in those circumstances should have free electricity, free television and free travel taken away from her? The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that when her husband was living she had the benefit of all that, but now when her husband has died and she needs it most it has been taken away.

Mr. Cluskey

The position is that she never had those provisions.

Mr. Andrews

She had the benefit of them.

Mr. Cluskey

She had the benefit of them so far as they were available on the basis of her husband's qualification for a pension that was payable to him. I accept to some extent that there are certain cases where this could cause some hardships, but I cannot take it that universally widows would be caused hardship by this. These concessions can only be given where they are attached to a particular pension. When the pension ceases in law to be payable it is not possible to continue with the concessions. Up to the last couple of years, where a person was in receipt of a social welfare payment and died, the payments were stopped immediately. If a cheque had been sent out and not cashed it was difficult to get it cashed and questions were raised as to whether or not one could legally use it. We introduced a system quite recently whereby if the death of a person who was in receipt of social welfare payments occurs those payments would continue to be paid to the widow for a period of six weeks. That is some recognition of the difficulties in which people may find themselves following the death of a loved one. There are a tremendous number of areas where it would be desirable to extend schemes or introduce new schemes but it is not possible to rectify within a short space of time the neglect which occurred over a long period.

Mr. Andrews

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the possibility of producing some kind of statement on the anomalies which exist in the social welfare code and articulate his intention of introducing new schemes? This might be dealt with on another occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 14 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Andrews

We stick to the point we have made in relation to this. On the one hand it is a disincentive to the employer to induct people into employment and on the other hand it is a form of hidden taxation as far as the employee is concerned. Consequently, in the present vicious unemployment situation, we feel that the rates of contribution should have been stabilised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy objecting to section 17.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 18.

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

Mr. Andrews

Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain this to me in more depth?

Mr. Cluskey

This section increases the rates of voluntary contribution, by amounts appropriate to the benefits covered by the contributions. The rate of voluntary contribution, which covers widows' and orphans' pensions and deserted wives' pensions only, is increased by 10p to £1.20p and that covering the additional benefit of old age contributory pension, retirement pension and death grant by a further 17p.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Andrews

Does this section deal with an obligation under the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Cluskey

Not under the Treaty of Rome; the Council of Europe treaties would be more applicable.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 23 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Andrews

The House should be aware that I have not tabled any amendments because there can be no amendments to increase the entitlements. Naturally no politician in his sane mind would wish to reduce benefits, although it has been done in the history of the State. Amendments in relation to increasing the increases cannot be made and that is why I have not tabled any amendments of that kind.

Mr. Cluskey

The discussion on this Bill has been somewhat brief because of the desire of this House to have the Bill speedily passed and the courteous and willing co-operation from Deputy Andrews. It was a useful discussion which brought out many factors. As usual, Deputy Callanan in his contribution showed a tremendous amount of concern and common sense. He raised the question of the change in the payment of farmers' dole and questioned whether it was justified by way of increases in farm incomes. He went on to criticise, as did Deputy Andrews, the operations of the EEC.

As I said previously, there were so many Departments covered in the discussion on this Bill that one would be justified in thinking we had an adjournment debate this morning on the question of farmers' incomes and how much they had increased. One of the points made by Deputy Callanan was that not long ago if a farmer lost a cow he could replace it for £20. If that happened today it would be a much more serious contigency in that he would need in excess of £300 to replace an animal. It is clearly demonstrated by Deputy Callanan's own statement that farm incomes have undoubtedly increased. If not too long ago one could replace an animal for £20 and the replacement of a similar animal today would cost in the region of £300, it is legitimate to say that farm incomes have increased.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Mar 1977