asked the Minister for Social Welfare if it is his intention to give parity to single women vis-á-vis widows in all forms of social welfare payments.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
8.
I take it the Deputy has in mind the scheme of social assistance allowances for elderly single women. I cannot, however, accept the implied comparison between the position of the women for whom this scheme caters and that of widows. The single women's scheme was, of course, designed to meet a specific need and stands on its own feet but I would suggest that if comparisons are being sought, one must look to the unemployment assistance scheme rather than to widows' pensions. The maximum rate of single women's allowance is the same as the maximum rate of unemployment assistance payable to single persons, male or female, in an urban area and the means assessment is broadly similar to that which operates for unemployment assistance purposes.
The scheme of social assistance allowances for single women has been in operation only since July, 1974, and I have no proposals at present for changing it.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the age, 58, is a little unrealistic in this regard?
One must consider that there was no form of assistance or benefit available at all until the age of 70 up to a short while ago.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing well?
I agree that every effort should be made to cater for the needs of these people and any objective observer would agree that very considerable progress has been made in this respect.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why his Department recognises for credited contributions medical certificates submitted since 11th December, 1974, by a person in County Laois (details supplied) when he was not credited for certificates of incapacity from April, 1973, onwards when he was equally medically incapable.
Credited contributions were not awarded to the person referred to by the Deputy in respect of medical certificates covering the period from April, 1973 to 10th December, 1974 as it was found on investigation that he was self-employed during that period to the extent that he could not be regarded as incapable of work. This decision was upheld on appeal. For the purpose of allowing credited contributions from 11th December, 1974 his self-employment was accepted as having ceased.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give me any idea how this claimant can be genuinely considered to be incapable of work from 11th December when his medical condition was exactly the same as it had been from April, 1973 to that date? In view of the fact that it would appear that the deciding officer's decision has been overridden departmentally, could he not decide to extend that disqualification of the deciding officer's decision retrospectively to April, 1973 in order to meet the requirements of this case?
As the Deputy is aware, this case has been the subject of a decision by a deciding officer and, on appeal, by an appeals officer. These officers are independent of ministerial direction or control, as I am sure the Deputy will agree is the proper position for them to be in, and without additional or fresh evidence it is not possible for me to intervene in the case.
I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary says but is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that on 7th March of this year I received a letter from his Department saying that the appeals officer had decided that the claimant was not entitled and that it was subsequent to that date that a further decision was taken which determined that certificates submitted from 11th December were allowable? I agree with the decision which was made subsequent to the appeals officer's decision. What I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary is, could that 11th December date be altered to April, 1973?
The only thing that was decided was that from 11th December he would be given credits but the decision of both the deciding officer and the appeals officer was that up to and including 10th December the man was, in fact, self-employed. I understand he ran a garage business.
The Parliamentary Secretary's understanding is wrong.
The information before me here is that the case was resubmitted to the appeals officer on 19th May, 1975 and the appeals officer in upholding his original decision pointed out that the appeals decision related to the period up to 10th December, 1974.
I welcome the final decision, but could it not be made retrospective?
If the Deputy can give me any reason to justify asking that the matter be reopened I shall gladly do so.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if school leavers who through no fault of their own are unable to secure employment will qualify for social welfare benefits.
Unemployment assistance is available to boys from 18 years of age and upwards who satisfy a means test. Otherwise school leavers must satisfy the usual statutory conditions before qualifying for unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary state the position in relation to girls?
The question, I understand, applies to both boys and girls.
Effectively the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that what applies to boys applies to girls— is that so?
No, I am not. I am saying that unemployment assistance is available to boys from 18 years of age.
But not to girls?
It would appear so.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is discriminating against girls?
I would agree that there are very considerable inequities in the existing social welfare system enacted by a previous administration of which the Deputy was a prominent member.
And I am proud to have been a member of it.
Then the Deputy is proud of that legislation.
No. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to pull a quick one.
No, I am trying to make the position clear. Very substantial efforts have been made to rectify some of the less palatable aspects of the social welfare scheme enacted by that administration, and further efforts will be made in future to eliminate all the injustices and inequities created by the Deputy's Party.
One of the greatest injustices, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, is that people cannot get employment, and this injustice was created by the present Government.
The Deputy is embarking on a statement. A question, please.
I must get to the conclusion of this. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary why he is discriminating against young girls and he has not given a satisfactory answer.
The figure at the moment for unemployment during a worldwide recession——
(Interruptions.)
Does the Deputy want the answer or is he only asking questions for propaganda purposes? What does the Deputy wish to get?
The truth.
Deputy Tom Nolan.
I am about to give it.
Further arising——
I was trying to answer a supplementary question by Deputy Andrews.
I am sorry; I assumed the Parliamentary Secretary had concluded and I called the Deputy.
If the Deputies ask questions, even though the answers might not be to their liking they must accept them. I have to accept questions and surely it is reasonable that they should accept the answers. The 102,000 unemployed in the present economic climate compares reasonably favourably with the figures during an economic boom right through from 1945 with 65,000—75,000 unemployed which was accepted by Fianna Fáil as normal and acceptable plus—up to the mid 1960s—30,000 emigrating annually. We do not accept the 75,000 as normal as the Fianna Fáil Party did— and they lived very comfortably with it in their period of office.
If, by implication, the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that there was an economic boom from 1945 onwards, does he remember the winter of 1956-57 when there was another crisis when the Coalition were in power?
This is becoming a debate. Let us get back to the question.
Does Deputy Lynch recall that all during that period, with the exception of the previous period he mentioned, every country in Western Europe was enjoying full or near-full employment except the country in which Fianna Fáil were responsible for the administration?
I called Deputy Nolan earlier.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not recommend to the Government a system of earlier retirement so that young people could get employment, which would be far better for their morale than social welfare payments?
They will not pay them social welfare. It is a disgraceful situation.
Is Deputy Faulkner offering?
Would the Parliamentary Secretary compare like with like, and state what number of unemployed would now be on the live register if the age limit for the old age pension had not been reduced to 67?
That is a separate question.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that a means test would be applied to boys to decide whether they would qualify for this payment if they were without jobs after leaving school and over the required age. Would he give some indication of the method of applying a means test in the case of such a person?
As the Deputy is aware, the principle adopted in ascertaining means in those circumstances is that which was laid down by the previous administration. The only difference is that while 50 pence per week or over it did affect a person's means, that means test has now been very considerably eased under the present administration.
Arising——
I am calling the next question. We have dwelt sufficiently long on this.
I appeal to the Ceann Comhairle. This is a very important matter.
The Government are discriminating against girls.
One final supplementary.
Thank you. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to give some indication as to the means test that would be applied to a boy in the circumstances I mentioned.
The Deputy has already asked that question.
I was not answered. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to state what means a secondary school pupil who had just finished secondary education, was over 18 years of age and was without a job, would have next September?
The methods of calculation of means are those laid down by this House in legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not know.