Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

I thank the Minister for his detailed and comprehensive reply. He is aware that this proposal emanated from the senior citizens' parliament, which is deeply concerned about it. That group has articulated a number of significant issues concerning the elderly who have served this country well. We should therefore pay particular attention to the matters raised by the group.

In a number of cases, spouses were fully deprived of the adult dependant allowance simply because the husband — in most cases, although it could be the wife in other cases — invested a lump sum in the joint names of himself and his wife, which he had received due to redundancy, early retirement, severance or a commuted lump sum. These payments, which are made in lieu of wages, salaries or pensions foregone, have been subject to tax provisions. They are clearly identifiable as a result of the man's employment so this is not something that is mixed into a basket of items which the Minister is unable to identify or trace. The documentation and back-up is there to make them easily identifiable. The investment of this type of lump sum in joint names is made purely for easy withdrawal in the event of the death or incapacity of the other party. The Department's interpretation is that a spouse in this situation is deemed to be the owner of half the value of the lump sum, as the Minister said, which can place her above the level at which she can qualify for the adult dependant allowance.

I acknowledge that the Minister has increased that level significantly. He has stated that before losing the full allowance, a pension or redundancy lump sum, lodged in both names, would have to be in excess of €116,000. The senior citizens' parliament considers this to be both unjust and illegal. Under the Building Society Acts the first person named on a joint account is deemed to be the sole owner of the account. This was the case even where mutualisation occurred. The people we are concerned about are likely to be spouses who remained at home to nurture and care for children and looked after the home while the man was the sole wage earner. That was the case in the old days, although it is not so much the case now. It is likely to apply to women who were forced to leave employment when they got married, under the terms of the marriage bar.

This issue does not apply to people who are on contributory old age pensions or spouses who have independent means through inheritance or other resources. I ask the Minister to review the situation in the context of people who are being deprived of something, although in legal terms it is not strictly theirs, because of a rampant process of imputation in the Department. The Minister's Department tends to impute matters without examining their background, which is an accountant's way of dealing with them. This issue should be reconsidered in the interests of fairness and equity to ensure that, in normal circumstances, those people will get that to which they are entitled.

See this speech in context