Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Jul 1966

Vol. 61 No. 17

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Miss Davidson

I wish to refer to the section of the Social Welfare Act of 1952 which operates to deprive workers of their rights to unemployment benefit when they are out of work due to a trade dispute or when they are locked out. It would seem that under that Act trade disputes, even when they occur outside the State, may cause Irish workers to be deprived of unemployment benefit. I refer to the so-called neutrality provisions contained in section 17 (2) of that Act. The workman contributes 25 per cent to his stamps and provides another 25 per cent through various forms of taxation. These neutrality provisions, which the Minister inherited through the first Social Insurance Act of 1911, cause injustice to workers. The principle of neutrality should act in a neutral sense and my suggestion here is that the worker should get at least 25 per cent and possibly 40 per cent of the benefit, as of right, if and when he is on strike and that he should not be deprived of benefit at all if he is locked out. I suggest the Act should be amended to meet these points.

The Minister will be aware that the National Insurance Act, 1965 has eased the position for workers to some extent and I think the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have been in touch with the authorities seeking amendment of the 1952 Social Welfare Act by substituting for section 17 (2) of the Act the provisions in the British 1965 Act which removes disqualification for unemployment benefit where the worker can prove, among other things, that he is not participating or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work. The considered opinion of the trade union movement is that the amendment referred to with the deletion of the words "or financing" would be fair and reasonable to the workers involved. The Labour Party would wish to table amendments on the Committee Stage to bring about this alteration of section 17 (2) of the 1952 Act as it affects workers generally in a trade dispute.

I should like also to refer to the rates of benefit in section 3 of the Bill now before us. The definition of rural area, which, by the way, formerly appeared on Form UA 19 but seems to have been deleted from the latest version, stated that for the purposes of unemployment assistance the urban areas are the county boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, the urban districts of Athlone, Bray, Carlow, Clonmel, Drogheda, Dundalk, Galway, Kilkenny, Sligo, Tralee and Wexford. It is also arranged under the Act that residence in a house owned by the local authority of an urban area but situated outside the urban area is deemed to be residence in the urban area. A person living in Dublin city suburbs or Dún Laoghaire suburbs in the county area, is deemed to be in a rural area, and qualifies only for the lower rate of benefit, yet those two areas have population figures far above many of the areas classified as urban where a higher rate of benefit is payable—for instance, Dún Laoghaire suburbs, 20,309 and Dublin South City suburbs, 54,553.

These figures exceed, with two exceptions, the named places in the regulations, most of which are considerably lower than those population figures. In the case of an unemployed person drawing unemployment assistance and residing in Stillorgan, he is paid the lower rate set out in section 3 of the Bill, yet the population in Stillorgan, 13,000, is higher than many of the urban districts set out in the regulations. The same applies to Milltown with 9,487 population and Dundrum with 15,125. As I have said, these different areas are not urban areas for the purposes of the Act. They are rural areas, and people on unemployment assistance can only draw the much lower rate for that category of worker. It is surely necessary that there should be a revision of the grading of those areas for the purpose of paying the higher rate of unemployment assistance, and I should be very glad if the Minister would look into these things and see if he could do anything to put a more reasonable interpretation on what are rural and urban areas.

Mr. McDonald

I will be very brief, for I have only a few observations that I would like to make on the Bill and the Department of Social Welfare and their activities in general. I can never understand the mentality of the Department of Social Welfare officers, especially the pensions officers. I feel that these gentlemen must be allowed or get some bonus for the people they turn down and refuse. Many of our people who are applicants for various pensions take exception, and rightly so, to the manner in which those social welfare officers investigate their cases. Invariably they call along next door to some of the neighbours and in many cases they base their judgment and their assessment of the merits of the particular case on hearsay from neighbours who may be, I can go as far as to say, evilly disposed to the unfortunate applicants. I think that our social welfare applicants in general are not getting a fair crack of the whip.

The Government, and especially Fianna Fáil spokesmen, are inclined to take it on themselves to let it be known to these people in the social welfare bracket that the pensions and allowances they get are directly from the goodness of heart of the Fianna Fáil Government. This is not so. The pensions that are given by the Department of Social Welfare are the right of those people. As the less fortunate members of our society it is their right that they should be looked after and should have some assistance in this way. I feel that especially in the case of people with small holdings, who apply for non-contributory old age pensions, the method of assessment of those applicants' means is something that certainly needs to be brought up to date. I know of one instance where an applicant in County Laois applied in February for an old age pension. The committee turned down the officer's decision and granted the applicant in their judgment the full pension, but since March it has taken that length of time and the appeals officer has not got around to making a decision on that case yet. That is a lady who has six acres of land and yet is not entitled to a measly old age pension. That lady and her brother are solely dependent on the milk of two cows for their livelihood.

The time surely has come when we see in this country people getting quite respectable and hefty allowances and emoluments and salaries, one thing and another, that we should see that there are people, old age pensioners, who are in effect living off the milk from one cow, and for that they are penalised and not even allowed the old age pension. Surely when a committee sits in deliberation on a matter like this and from the members' personal and local knowledge of the applicants involved makes a considered assessment of a case the Department should not hold up further consideration of it for as long as three and four months. I think that the Department are being most unfair to people in many cases throughout the country. It is always the poor people who cannot afford this lengthy indecision who are hit worst. I would appeal, therefore, to the Minister. If he could reactivate the activities of the appeals section of the non-contributory old age pensions, I would, indeed, be grateful, as would very many unfortunate applicants in every administrative area in the country. There are a few points I wish to mention but perhaps it would be better to leave them over until we get to the sections.

Mrs. Aherne

Ós rud é go bhfuil a lán sa Bhille seo a chabhraíonn leis na mná ba mhaith liom traoslú leis an Aire agus an Rialtas mar gheall ar an méid atá déanta acu chun cuidiú leis an dream is lúgh airgid agus is laige sa tír seo, siad sin, lucht pinsean sean aoise, agus baintreachaí. Tá áthas orm, leis, go bhfuil sé chun cúnamh dífhostaíochta a thúirt do na daoine atá ar fhostaíocht i seirbhís priobháideach tís agus dóibh siúd atá ar fhostaíocht i dtalamhaíocht. Ní thógfaidh aoinne ar an Aire é más gá roinnt bheag cánach breise a leagadh ar dhaoine gar féidir leó íoc chun cabhrú leis an dream seo. Tá a lán feabhsaithe beaga ins an mBille ach ní gá dul isteach iontu. Chuirim fáilte rómpu go léir agus molaim an tAire.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. K. Boland)

I am thankful to the Senators for the manner in which they have dealt with this Bill. I am glad to see that the only criticisms are that more generous increases would be welcomed. In so far as the suggestion goes that we should have gone further, I would like Senators to realise that those increases cannot really be taken in isolation. There have been increases in the rates of payment under the different social welfare schemes regularly every year and there has been a continuous gain in the case of the payments under every single scheme since 1957.

While the step we are taking this year is a small one by Fianna Fáil standards it still is quite a considerable step. When it is associated with the major improvement made last year, when the arrangements made resulted in an increase in the gross payment of the different income maintenance services of £10 million in one year, it can be seen that we are, in fact, implementing our programme of allocating an increasing proportion of the national resources to social welfare arrangements.

Senator O'Sullivan exhorted me to try to get the Government to do more than, as he put it, merely cushion social welfare recipients against rises in the cost of living. I think I should put on record what, in fact, has been done in this regard by the Government. While I agree that we cannot be satisfied with the rates of payment under some, if not all, of the social welfare schemes, still we have considerably outpaced increases in the cost of living since 1957. In so far as the non-contributory old age pension scheme is concerned, which is the one that is usually mentioned for those people who have no means, the new rate of payment will be 52/6. In 1957 it was 24/-. That is an increase of 28/6 in a period when the cost of living rose from 135 in February, 1957, to 185 in May, 1966. That is an increase of 37 per cent in the cost of living figures and an increase of 119 per cent in the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pensions. In 1957 the maximum rate of pension was payable to those whose means did not exceed £52 10s a year. For people in that category now the rate of non-contributory old age pension is 42/6, that is an increase of 18/6 or an increase of 77 per cent. For the other new means category we have introduced the increase is from 24/- to 47/6, an increase of 95 per cent. Therefore, in a period when the cost of living has risen by 37 per cent those people who were in 1957 in a means category which would entitle them to the maximum rate of pension have got increases varying from 77 per cent for those who have a means of £52 10s per year to 119 per cent for those who have no means.

We introduced, in addition to that, for the first time, additions in respect of eligible children of non-contributory old age pensioners. I will deal with that later. The increases in the case of non-contributory widows' pensions are on a similar scale. For those with means not exceeding £52 10s a year the increase was from 22/6d to 41/-, an increase of 82 per cent in a period when the cost of living increased by 37 per cent. For those with no means the increase was from 22/6d to 51/-, that is an increase of 127 per cent corresponding to an increase in the cost of living of 37 per cent.

In addition to that, in so far as non-contributory widows' pensions are concerned, there have been many easements of the regulations and extensions of the scope of the scheme. Similarly, with regard to unemployment assistance, in the case of a single person in an urban area the increase has been 21/- from 18/- to 39/-, that is an increase of 117 per cent. In the case of a married man the increase is from 28/-to 72/6d or 159 per cent. In rural areas, which have been mentioned here, when it was said that the rates were lower there, the percentage increases have been greater still. They were 175 per cent in the case of a single man and 222.5 per cent in the case of a married man. Admittedly, although we have made this considerable gain over the cost of living we cannot yet be satisfied with the rates of payments in those social assistance schemes generally. That is largely because of the fact that the base from which we started in 1957 was too low and that was largely because of the neglect of the previous Government to keep pace with increases in the cost of living during that period.

Mr. Rooney

How much are employers and workers paying for all those gains for which Fianna Fáil are taking credit ?

Mr. K. Boland

The workers who benefit are contributing nothing in the case of the social assistance scheme which I have been discussing.

Mr. Rooney

They are contributing on the social welfare cards.

Mr. K. Boland

No.

Mr. Rooney

They are paying heavily on the other side.

Mr. K. Boland

The consumer pays for it in any case. The percentage increases, as I pointed out, in regard to unemployment assistance, have been even higher than in regard to the other social welfare assistance benefits. This is because those rates have been left untouched on a number of occasions. In fact, there have never been increases given in unemployment assistance by any Government except the Fianna Fáil Government. With regard to the social insurance benefits the increase in this period, in respect of unemployment benefit and disability benefit, when the cost of living rose by 37 per cent, has advanced for a single man from 30/- in 1957, to 52/6, an increase of 75 per cent and for a married man from 45/- to 92/6, an increase of 106 per cent. For contributory widows without children it went from 30/- to 52/6, an increase of 75 per cent. In addition to that, the contributory old age pension which did not exist at all in 1957 has been available since 1961. In November 1960 the cost of living figure was 148; in May 1966 it was 185 and that was an increase of 25 per cent. In that period the contributory old age pension was introduced. The pension for a single man has been increased by 50 per cent from 40/- to 60/- and for a married man by 57 per cent from 68/6d to 107/6d in a period when the cost of living increased by 25 per cent.

In addition, additions in respect of dependent children have been provided in the last couple of years for both non-contributory and contributory old age pensions. Although some people might think this would have only a very marginal effect, it is a fact that the maximum rate of non-contributory old age pension which is in course of payment at the moment is £5 7s 6d in the case of one particular individual who tip to 1957 would have been getting only 24/- with the same family circumstances and the maximum contributory old age pension in the course of payment at present is £9 17s 6d, including additions for children.

Mr. Rooney

When will all this happen?

Mr. K. Boland

This has all happened. This is something that Senator Rooney does not realise. While we have not yet reached a state of affairs which I consider to be entirely satisfactory, we have been making quite considerable gains in every social welfare scheme over the cost of living, and there is no question whatever of this Government doing nothing more than what Senator O'Sullivan says— merely cushioning the recipients of social welfare against the increased cost of living. We have been pursuing a definite policy of making an improvement in their position relative to the cost of living and that process will continue. We made a major breakthrough in this regard last year. This year the steps taken were on a much smaller scale but the policy that produced the increases of last year is still in operation and I admit that although we have made these gains over the cost of living if you take the period, since the major increases of last year were given, in isolation there has been an increase in the cost of living which has not been covered.

Senators may take it for granted that from the record of this Government we are not at this stage going to allow the cost of living to gain on the social welfare rates as it did under the Coalition Government.

With regard to the date on which the improvements which we are making now in the social welfare scheme can come into operation, I said in my opening statement that it was intended to bring this into operation on the same date as the Occupational Injuries benefits. It certainly will not be later than that but if it appears feasible they will be brought in earlier. If it appears feasible to make two changes in the price of social welfare insurance stamps these changes can be made on an earlier date.

Senator O'Sullivan also raised the question of the income limit for the minimum rates of non-contributory old age pensions, which he alleged were too low. The position has been established, especially in recent years, that when there is an increase in the maximum rates of non-contributory old age pensions there is an automatic extension of the means scale at the other end. That is then automatically extended to bring in new categories of means for the lower rates of pension. So, there is really no point in talking about those in receipt of the lower rates of non-contributory old age pensions. If we take care of the maximum rates and bring them to a reasonable level Senators can be sure that anybody who is in receipt of an old age pension at less than the maximum rate it at least as well off as anybody who is in receipt of a pension at the maximum rate and, in fact, very probably better off because most people who have some means have included in their means the right of residence and maintenance which are assessed at a very low rate indeed.

In my opinion, these new categories we are creating now, those who have no assessed means at all, which is not the same thing as having no actual means, is that which we should concentrate on and if we can get the rate of pension payable to them to a reasonable level and extend the means scale accordingly, then we can be sure that the amount of money available for this purpose is being distributed as equitably as possible.

Senator Miss Davidson's question about the disqualification for unemployment benefit for workers who are held to have lost their employment due to a stoppage of work or due to a strike at their place of employment does not appear to me to arise on this Bill but I can only say that my Department is pursuing the possibility of arriving at a more acceptable formula for dealing with cases like this with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and I may say that something on the lines of the provisions in the British Act appears to be the only reasonable formula that can be accepted and which would ensure the neutrality of the social insurance funds in strikes. It is a matter which is on record that the formula which is in operation here had at the time it was introduced the full approval of the Labour Party. Admittedly, since then there has been experience of it in operation and my Department as well as the Labour Party are of the opinion that it has caused hardship in certain cases and that it is desirable to arrive at a more suitable formula and I hope we will be able to do that.

The question of the different rates of unemployment assistance which are payable in rural areas as distinct from urban areas was raised. Senator Miss Davidson did not make it quite clear that it is only in regard to the unemployment assistance this applies. I would be inclined to agree with her that the definition of rural area is probably not quite satisfactory but I have not been doing anything with regard to changing that definition because I must admit I am not fully convinced that there should be a difference at all in the rates; that it is possible to justify a different rate for the rural area to the urban area at all. I am more inclined to think that, whenever it becomes financially feasible it would be desirable to abolish the differential altogether rather than start tinkering about with the definition of rural and urban area.

Senator McDonald raised the question, again, of the manner of approach of Social Welfare officers. This has been raised on a number of occasions in the Dáil. I have always made it clear that it has been impressed very forcibly upon Social Welfare officers what their approach to the question should be. The Oireachtas has provided certain Social Welfare schemes for the benefit of people who qualify for them and their approach should be, in the case of any applicant, to try to find out if that applicant has qualified for the benefit for which lie or she applied. There should be no question of it being a contest between the Social Welfare officer on the one side and the applicant on the other—one trying to get something to which he is not entitled and the other trying to deprive him of it. It should be purely a question of ascertaining the facts and starting off from the basis that the applicant, either by having reached the age of 70, being a widow, or being unemployed, has already fulfilled one of the conditions for the receipt of the benefit concerned.

Mr. McDonald

I am very glad to hear the Minister say that.

Mr. K. Boland

The Social Welfare officer's task should be to find out if the other prescribed conditions are fulfilled. Every Social Welfare officer should look upon it as being a serious load on his conscience if, through any lack of tact or any lack of thoroughness on his part, even one person was to be deprived of some benefit to which he was, in fact, entitled. Therefore, the Social Welfare officer should approach each case from the point of view that it is at least as much his duty, in fact more his duty, to ensure that nobody is deprived of any benefit to which they are entitled, as it is to ensure that nobody obtains benefit to which they are not entitled.

Níor dearnadh tagairt dona coinníollacha atá á gcur agam ar an sochar seo. Go dtí seo ceapadh nach raibh gá le sochar ar chor ar bith sna cásanna seo ach tar éis dom bheith san Aireacht ar fead tamaill do thuigeas go soiléir go raibh gá leis—nach raibh gá le sin ach do mhná a bhí ag obair ar feadh tamaill agus nár éirigh leo post eile a fháil toisc go raibh siad taréis bheith i bpost amháin ar feadh achair fada. Mar sin nuair de shocraíos ar an sochar seo a chur ar fáil dhóibh roimhe seo do shocraíos gan é a chur ar fáil ach do dhaoine go raibh achar réasúnta fada curtha isteach acu— deich mbliana atá i gceist agam—in obair den chineál seo. Níl a fhios agam an ndéanfaidh sé seo cúis nó nach ndéanfaidh ach is é mo thuairim gur cheart dúinn fanúint cúpla bliain, pé scéal é, chun go bhfeicimid cad a tharlóidh. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil ceist ar bith eile ann ar chóir dom tagairt dí. Táim buíoch den tSeanad.

Mr. McDonald

May I ask the Minister a question? In the case of ladies who reach the age of 70 and whose husbands are a few years younger and insured persons, what pension are those ladies entitled to— non-contributory, or contributory?

Mr. K. Boland

Their husbands are still under 70?

Mr. McDonald

Yes, but in insurable employment.

Mr. K. Boland

At that stage the wife, who had reached the age of 70 years, could apply for a non-contributory old age pension and depending upon the rate of wages of the husband and family commitments, if there are dependent children, she could possibly qualify for—very likely—a reduced rate of non-contributory old age pension.

Mr. McDonald

Does the Minister not think that is very unfair?

Mr. K. Boland

Well, it is the joint means which are taken into account and, on the whole, I do not think it does work out unfairly. There is a special provision for cases like that. whereby £165 of the husband's income is ignored, the remainder then is halved, and half of it only is taken into account.

Mr. Rooney

I want to ask the Minister why it is that people have to wait until the 1st November next for the benefits, when the Budget was brought in earlier this year?

Mr. K. Boland

I have already concluded.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. D. O'Sullivan)

Next Stage?

Miss Davidson

I had hoped to put down amendments.

Mr. K. Boland

The amendment Senator Miss Davidson mentioned could not possibly arise on this Bill, I am afraid, unless she has others in mind.

Acting Chairman

The point arises as to Senator Miss Davidson's reaction to the Minister's statement regarding the relevancy of the amendment.

Mr. McDonald

In view of Senator Miss Davidson's anxiety, perhaps we could leave Committee Stage over until next week?

Professor Stanford

On a point of order, I suggest we should not be discussing the relevance of the amendments; what we should decide is whether we are taking Committee Stage now or next week.

Acting Chairman

The question as to whether the amendments will be relevant will determine whether we take Committee Stage now or leave it over until next week.

Miss Davidson

I was of the opinion that I could table an amendment to the effect that section 17 of the 1952 Bill would have effect, for instance, as if a particular subsection were inserted.

Mr. K. Boland

That could not possibly arise on this Bill.

Professor Stanford

I think we are anticipating Committee Stage; I think we should postpone it.

Acting Chairman

I was trying to get the agreement of the House. I think there is a desire that the Committee Stage would not be taken now.

Mr. E. Ryan

If there is a genuine intention of putting down amendments, I think we had better adjourn the matter until next week.

Miss Davidson

I have a genuine intention of putting down an amendment.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13th July, 1966.