Vol. 317 No. 9
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £31,000,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1979, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund, and for sundry grants.
I am sorry that the newly-appointed Minister for Social Welfare is not available this afternoon. I had hoped that we could have a word with him to impress upon him how this Department has been neglected over the last two-and-a-half years. However, I am sure the new Minister will check up on what was said in the House. I congratulate him. He is a most courteous and friendly Deputy. He appears to be hard working and deserving of the promotion the Taoiseach gave him. Perhaps now social welfare will get the attention it deserves. It is disappointing that the Taoiseach did not see fit to include in his first group of junior ministers a Minister of State for the Department of Health and Social Welfare. I would have thought this would have been a priority but reflecting on the Taoiseach's treatment of this Department over the last two-and-a-half years it was a bit much to expect because he did not see fit to give the Department the attention it deserved. As a result the less well-off people suffered. This is not an easy thing to say.
There is nothing in the Estimate in relation to junior Ministers or Ministers of State.
It will affect this Department which has been teamed with another. The Minister appointed holds office in a dual capacity. I was not in the House when the announcement was made but I believe two junior Ministers were appointed to two Departments. Here we have a Minister holding two Departments and he has no junior Minister. It is disappointing that that is the situation.
With the ever-increasing cost of living, rapid inflation and dwindling value of money life is becoming harder for the old, sick, the infirm and all who live on social welfare payments. There are people who in some instances are due a miserable payment and have had to wait four, five and six weeks for their social welfare cheque. That is a deplorable situation for the weakest section of the community who have no trade union or organisation to speak for them. When the previous Minister took office it probably looked as if social welfare could easily be teamed in with another Department. Now it has come to a stage where it will require the attention of the Minister who is independent of other duties. I should like to impress upon the Taoiseach the great need that this Department should get more attention than he gave it. His thoughts may have been in other directions and he may have thought that what he might do in social welfare would not get him the required publicity or give him the required lift to put him into the position he is in today.
The Department needs the attention of a Minister. The Taoiseach has made known that he intends to appoint more Ministers of State. I hope the first and best of these will be appointed to the Department of Social Welfare if he does not see fit to give this Department to a Minister who is independent of all other duties. I wish to put on record that the Minister for Social Welfare who has just left office was a dismal failure. I praised the Taoiseach only last week for his efforts in the Department of Health but I cannot extend those compliments to this Department. When he was appointed to these two positions he seemed to forget——
We had a whole day on this. The Deputy should deal with the Estimate.
I am dealing with the treatment of the Department of Social Welfare and it cannot be connected with the debate we had earlier in the week. I appeal to the Taoiseach to reconsider and if possible appoint a Minister specifically for the Department of Social Welfare.
We are living in a time when it would appear that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There were miserable increases in social welfare allowances in the last budget. Now that it appears we will be getting a long rest over Christmas from the day-to-day duties of the House, the new Minister will be able to give more attention to this Department and persuade the Cabinet of the necessity for a tremendous financial injection into the Department so that we can see worth-while increases in the next budget.
There was some talk about electricity units being raised from 200 to 300. It appears that this was simply talk—whether in an effort to get publicity or not I do not know. Nothing has been heard about it since. No increase has been made in the units of electricity. The free fuel scheme that the former Minister made so many promises about has been diabolically treated. We have a free fuel scheme which is in operation since 1942 or 1943. It was brought in at that time to deal with the situation that existed. It is still in existence with very little change. The only change is that instead of having to take one cwt. of turf per week those eligible now receive a fuel voucher which can be used in payment for heating, coal or electricity.
Despite the fact that it was raised time and again in the House and that the Minister on a number of occasions undertook to revamp the whole scheme this is the only change. I am surprised the Taoiseach did not realise the misery it was causing in the city particularly as he represents a city constituency. My own constituency comes into Dublin city where the greatest hardship is. Apart from the hardship they had last winter when it was only possible to exchange the vouchers for turf, very often the turf was not available and that through a long winter of snow and frost. If the truth were known there were serious consequences but I have not proof of them and so cannot go into it here.
The people eligible for fuel vouchers had enormous difficulty in exchanging them for turf. I know that there was a difficulty with a strike, but the problem in obtaining turf supplies extended far beyond the period of the strike. In many cases old people had to collect the turf in trucks and trolleys, sometimes in prams and on bicycles. They could not do this during the period of snow and frost and, consequently, they were without fuel. I know of people who had to pay almost as much in delivery charges as the cost of the fuel itself. They would have been better off to go to the local store and to pay for the turf rather than use the vouchers because at least they could be sure of delivery.
The postal strike caused great hardship to those in receipt of social welfare payments, but let us not make that strike the excuse for everything that has gone wrong. It appears to me that Government Departments and business people are doing this. I believe that the effect of the postal strike has been over-emphasised. The Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Social Welfare, must be given credit for the action he took during the strike when the voluntary organisations stepped into the breach. At the time he indicated he was not prepared to have the social welfare cheques delivered by hand. I am quite sure that if we had another postal strike nobody would object to that. I am satisfied that the trade unions would have no objection to the delivery of social welfare payments by people employed by the Department. I accept that it would be costly, but we have some very expensive schemes for the benefit of people who are much better off and who are in a much better position to look after themselves than those depending on social welfare payments.
I appeal to the new Minister to look into this matter and to ensure that there will not be a recurrence of the hardship suffered by people in the past. I am referring not only to those in receipt of free fuel but also to those who suffered hardship because of the delayed payment of their benefit due to the postal strike. In many cases people were six weeks without social welfare payments and this was brought to the attention of many of us during the campaigns in the two by-elections in Cork. Perhaps the Taoiseach welcomed that; it may have been of assistance to him in his efforts. However, I hope he would not wish suffering on the needy in order to achieve what he has achieved in the past week.
The new Minister should accept that there has been much suffering among the needy in the past 12 months. For the aged, the infirm and those depending on social welfare, it has been the worst year for a long time. In recognition of that I appeal to the new Minister to give a double payment for Christmas. It would not cost all that much and it would be a nice gesture from the new Government. A double payment of this kind would be of considerable help to the old, the aged, the infirm, the blind and all those in need. It might help the Taoiseach in his honeymoon period in office. It might get him some publicity, but perhaps he is not as anxious today for publicity as he has been in the past. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he is prepared to consider the suggestion of giving an extra week's payment now. In order to be of benefit to the recipients for Christmas it would have to be done immediately.
There is no subhead dealing with what the Deputy has suggested. I have allowed the Deputy to mention the matter, but he should get back to the Estimate before the House.
I suggest that perhaps Ministers should not send Christmas cards. That must cost a considerable amount of money. I am sure very many homes have heard from Ministers in the past week and they can consider that their Christmas message to their constituents. The gesture of giving an extra week's payment for Christmas——
The Deputy must deal with the Estimate before the House.
I am quite sure this is relevant to the Estimate. I am looking forward to an immediate updating and extension of the free fuel scheme. I want to ensure that people in receipt of vouchers can get fuel. Even though people use electricity, many homes still depend on solid fuel. For the first time in many years, countless homes are using solid fuel; people have switched to solid fuel burners or open fireplaces. No matter what kind of voucher is given, what use is it if the fuel is not available? This was the case in the past fortnight. Because of a strike, or for some other reason, Coal Distributors Limited are refusing to take orders from homes in part of my constituency—in Tallaght, Rathcoole, Newcastle and Saggart. Companies are not prepared to deliver fuel in these areas. Of course many others are suffering also but today my concern is for those who are in receipt of fuel vouchers.
The Minister should have a look at the stocks of fuel that may be available to the health boards. An assurance was given that they would hold stocks for emergency purposes in case the usual channels of supply were cut off. I am not satisfied that there are adequate stocks available and recently we nearly got to a situation where this would have been tested. I am glad that did not happen. The strike did not continue, but it was a close thing. I am afraid the health boards have not taken adequate steps to ensure that they have fuel for the old and aged. It is a matter of life and death for those people. We can manage to keep ourselves warm but the aged depend on receiving their fuel vouchers. Few realise the value of the voucher to the aged.
The Minister changed the system by introducing a cash voucher but the allowance is still miserable and would not buy sufficient fuel to keep anybody warm. I have no doubt that many lives will be shortened if we have a period of snow and frost because the allowance will not provide sufficient fuel. At the time the change was made the new vouchers were welcomed but today the allowance would only provide half a week's heating. The allowance should be increased by at least 200 per cent. Even an increase of 200 per cent will hardly meet the heating costs of many people.
In conclusion, I wish the new Minister a good term in office, whether it be long or short. As I said, he was worthy of promotion and I have no doubt that he will attend to his responsibilities. He is a likeable and able man and he performed his duties as a junior Minister in an excellent manner. I hope it will be possible to continue to compliment him. However, we can only compliment him on his performance.
I wish the new Minister well. I had some dealings with him the other evening before he became Minister and he was courteous to me.
The Supplementary Estimate before the House is for £31 million, which is a large sum of money. Most of the money has been allocated under subhead E—payment to the social insurance fund under section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. The original Estimate was £55,990,000 and the additional sum required is £24,490,000, which is roughly half the original Estimate. The Estimate gives us an insight into the situation of those who are on public assistance.
I have had dealings on many occasions with the Department and I have found that the staff are generally helpful and courteous. They will go to endless trouble to ensure that people get their entitlements. We are told that the extraordinary events this year are due to the postal strike. When he was Minister for Social Welfare, the Taoiseach made a great effort to ensure that people received their entitlements. There were some mishaps—payments for Drogheda went to Mullingar and so on—but the Minister made an effort for which he deserves the gratitude of the recipients of the benefits.
Since the postal strike ended people have had difficulty in getting regular payments. For instance, it is not unusual for someone on disability benefit to be paid regularly for five or six months, to receive no payment for three or four weeks, then for regular payments to be resumed. For some reason it has been difficult for people to get payment of the arrears from the Department. In regard to pensioners who first applied for the pension early in the year, it is not unusual for them to have to wait a long time before they receive a pension book with perhaps only three or four payments in it. It is also difficult for them to get payment of the arrears from the Department. It is not good enough to tell these people that they must wait until early in the new year for their arrears. In many cases the arrears have been over £200. They should be paid as soon as they qualify as pensioners.
The same situation applies to the payment of unemployment benefit. If I did not know that the officials concerned are conscientious I would say that the fault lies in the administration of the scheme. I would ask the Taoiseach to hazard a guess as to the cause of the delays. A person who has been employed for many years may find that his cards have not been stamped. I believe that many clever people are getting away with it by showing the social welfare payments and PAYE they have deducted from their employees wages as profits. There are far too many of them in the country. They come to light only when people like myself investigate cases of people who have applied for benefit and who are informed that their cards have not been stamped. This sort of thing is wrong and should not be allowed. An intense effort should be made to ensure that an employer is forced to stamp cards.
No more cards.
The Taoiseach is aware of what I am speaking about—the stamp content in PAYE, whether it is called PRSI or anything else, is the sort of thing about which I am speaking; that is still deducted from wages and is still not being sent in to the Department. In the past week I have had representations from somebody looking for dentures, somebody else for optical treatment, two people whose wives had had confinements, three people who had applied for disability benefit or unemployment benefit, all of whom were refused benefit because it was found that their cards were not in order. When the heat was put on subsequently the cards were put in order. I understand that the Department have officials in most large towns anyway whose job it is to investigate such matters and ensure that they are properly dealt with. This must be attended to because it is causing hardship to what might be described as the poorest people in the country, people who can least afford to be treated in this way.
The question of the payments being made causes a lot of trouble also. For instance, why is it so difficult to have pay-related benefit paid to those entitled to it? Having filled up all the necessary forms, having paid unemployment or disability contributions, or whatever, why is it necessary to have representations made by a public representative to have those payments properly made. This has to be done in many cases. We were talking in this House a couple of weeks ago about an ombudsman, when somebody contended that this should be one of his functions. I do not believe an ombudsman should be required to undertake such a task; in any case the applicant probably would be either reemployed or dead before the payments would be cleared were it left to him. I resent the necessity for a public representative to be called on, that somebody has to come and tell all their business to a public representative before they can get what they are entitled to and for which they have been stamping cards or paying contributions for many years. These are the little things which cause so much trouble. The same applies to the other benefits administered by the Department of Social Welfare.
The amount of additional finance sought here for grants to local authorities for the supply of fuel to necessitous families, £780,000, may seem to be a large sum but, when spread over the entire country, it is not so very big. Again the scheme under which that is administered is anything but satisfactory. There will have to be a big shakeup of that scheme under which coal distributors, not alone in Dublin city but elsewhere, are at present finding they cannot meet orders. Indeed the same situation obtains in bog areas.
I come from a country district where people have for generations been getting turf from bogs. When Bord na Móna went in, instead of cutting their own turf they bought from Bord na Móna, or a small contractor bought and delivered to those people who would be receiving assistance towards the cost of their fuel. I understand that, by Ministerial Order, most of the turf which is cut on many bogs has to be retained in case it is needed by the ESB. In one large bog I know of, one contractor has received all delivery rights which means nobody else can get any turf. And the really poor people over that tremendously wide area, who were always dependent on small contractors, cannot now get any fuel at all; they are dependent on the odd coal lorry coming their way, and a coal man who will go into a bog area would need to have his head examined. This is very wrong and the new Minister must pay attention to it.
There is then the figure of £200,000 for additional grants for free travel. I wonder how that £200,000 extra arose. Is it because costs have risen, or does the Taoiseach intend that the system under which a husband and wife must travel together in order to avail of free travel will be changed? It is ridiculous because one often discovers the case of a couple where the husband is bedridden and the wife cannot travel into the local town because she cannot use the travel voucher.
I quite agree that the amount of free electricity allowed is far too little and that something must be done to increase the number of units allowed.
If I might interrupt there in regard to the £200,000, the Deputy will recall that during the postal strike we removed the peak hour restriction on the free travel to enable old age pensioners to get to centres for their pensions. That is where the extra cost came in. But it does not affect the Deputy's other point.
I believe that very much more could be allowed under that heading because, if the Government have to give CIE nearly £40 million, by giving it in respect of some people who would avail of it they would be giving a subsidy and getting some value for it rather than——
The Deputy knows my special affection for that scheme. Despite the fact that I am supposed to have no social conscience whatever, I did introduce that one.
From the lofty pinnacle he is on, would the Taoiseach now decide that he has the authority to ensure that the scheme will be improved beyond all recognition because, if he does, I will be the first to thank him.
A father likes to look favourably upon his offspring.
There is another name for that one. Then there is the figure of £2,292,000—grants to health boards towards the cost of supplementary welfare allowances, this, with repayment from the Social Insurance Fund of amounts paid initially as social assistance—am I to assume that they are repayments in respect of people who are awaiting social welfare benefit? The additional figure is so big that it illustrates the amount of poverty, of real want there is in the country. Despite the fact that the Minister's predecessor changed the name from home assistance to supplementary welfare allowance, there are still people who do not want to look for what they call home assistance and they will do so only when they are in dire straits. I made inquiries yesterday about a person who was due a very substantial sum of money for old age pension. He had been paid a certain amount of social assistance but—something I found to be rather unusual—the entire amount due was paid directly by him back to the health board who had paid the social assistance. Normally such a person is given at least some of it and allowed to pay it back over a period but, in this case, the whole amount was deducted and that was that.
I want to deal now with the transfer of people from one type of benefit to another. For instance, if somebody is drawing disability benefit, and he wants to draw the retirement benefit to which he is entitled because he will be unable to work again, firstly I understand it is not in order for the Department to issue application forms to anybody. The person is not allowed to get that form because the system stipulates that the application be made in writing and then the disability benefit people are asked: is this person entitled to this? If they are entitled a form is sent to them, but if they are not entitled they do not receive any form. This seems to be a complicated way of dealing with the situation. Very often the person applying for the transfer applies to the disability benefit section rather than to the invalidity benefit section, with the result that as soon as negotiations are begun with the invalidity benefit section the payment of disability benefit is discontinued, especially if it is a benefit that is paid on a long-term basis such as for a month or for a longer period. This should not happen. The relevant forms should be issued in the same way as any other form is issued and there should not be any delay whatever in the changeover between the two types of payment. The changes that occur in this regard are the cause of much hardship and suffering to the people concerned because for the few weeks during which they do not receive payment they would not be likely to be able to buy sufficient food.
A similar situation arises very often in the case of an application for transfer to an old age pension in her own right from a woman who has just become widowed or in the case of a woman applying for a widow's pension. There is no justification for any delay in such cases. These delays are very often the cause of much of the criticism—perhaps not all of it justified—that is levelled at the Department.
I appeal to the Taoiseach to ensure that social welfare benefits are brought up to a level relative to the spiralling cost of living. Though the Department are now in the hands of another Minister, the Taoiseach should ensure that hardship is not caused to social welfare recipients as a result of the ever-increasing cost of living. It simply is not possible that the level of payments is adequate to enable people to feed themselves properly, never mind buying clothes or shoes, which are very expensive. Hopefully, we will witness the result of the Taoiseach's social conscience in this regard. While the person may be all right who is still at work and who is in a position by way of negotiation or, if necessary, by way of strike to be granted an increase of as much as £9 per week, the person who has retired, who has been made redundant or who is out of work for any other reason is expected to cheer if he is offered an increase in benefit of £2 per week. A loaf of bread costs the same to the retired man as to the one who is working.
I tried hard to have something done to rectify the situation during my time in office. I believe that, with the assistance of my colleagues then, I had some measure of success, but much more needs to be done. There is not much point in talking about a social conscience if there are people who are not in a position to buy adequate food for themselves or to clothe themselves. When one considers that a pair of shoes for a child can cost in the region of £9, one wonders how social welfare recipients can afford to buy footwear for themselves.
While it is right that we should pass this Supplementary Estimate, we can only hope that the budget will result in our being able at least to see that the amount of money required is provided in this area, so that towards the end of next year it will not be necessary for us to consider a Supplementary Estimate when the money being asked for is likely to have been spent already.
I thank those Members who have contributed to the debate.
Are we not entitled to intervene in the debate?
The Deputy did not offer.
My apologies to the Taoiseach. I do not intend to delay the House for very long. However, there are some points I should like to make in regard to this very important area in the hope that what I have to say may in some way help the less fortunate among us.
The free fuel scheme could be improved greatly. One of the difficulties in regard to the scheme relates to the arrangement whereby the vouchers are collected at the local social welfare office. This means that the people concerned must make a couple of trips, whereas if they could collect the vouchers at the post office at the same time as they are collecting their pensions they would have to make only one journey. Many of the people concerned would be old or undernourished and would have difficulty in attending both at the post office and at the social welfare office on the one day. As the vouchers are distributed during the winter months, the journey to the social welfare office often has to be made in very bad weather conditions.
This scheme should be extended into rural areas. Though there is provision for this under the supplementary welfare scheme, there should be definite arrangements regarding the scheme itself so far as rural areas are concerned.
Another aspect of this scheme that might be reconsidered relates to the period during which the vouchers are made available, usually from October to March. This is the time during which there is the greatest difficulty in getting supplies of fuel, even for those who can afford to pay for it. Therefore, the Taoiseach might consider arranging for the vouchers to be issued during the summer so that those concerned would be in a position to stock up on fuel for the winter. I appreciate that in some cases there would be a lack of facilities for the storing of fuel, but I am sure that many of the people who qualify under this scheme would be able to stock some fuel. The adoption of this suggestion should prove to be very helpful.
We are all aware that social welfare beneficiaries have been experiencing much difficulty in regard to the receipt of their cheques. Obviously, the postal strike was responsible for long delays during a prolonged period, but that strike has been over for some time and we still find that these people are left without their cheques for long periods. There are delays of many weeks. When such people do not get their cheques by post on the day they are expected, they dare not go into shops to get credit and they cannot go to a bank to get credit.
I am convinced that the Taoiseach is sincere about this scheme, which affects an underprivileged section, but the policy must be changed in the Department. The administration should be decentralised. That would save people whose cheques are delayed the trouble of going to their public representatives to try to get what is justly theirs. They would then be able to go to local offices of the Department to confront the officers. Decentralisation would improve the entire social welfare system, which at the moment leaves a lot to be desired. It is an indictment of all of us that people depending solely on social welfare benefits should be held up in the way I have described. No matter how valid or justified the Department's excuses seem to be, delays of even one week represent a tragedy to such people. A postal or any other strike should not be held to be responsible.
The administration of the supplementary welfare scheme is fouling up payment of benefits. I have knowledge of cases being stopped by the Department because money was due by the would-be recipients where there had been previous over-payment. Disability benefits can be paid to insured persons only, and nobody in this State has any right legally to benefit unless he is insured, and neither have the Department a right to stop disability payments to any insured person.
It is the system which is responsible for delays, and therefore, because this involves the less well-off members of the community, the system should be changed. This Department was set up and reorganised to get away from the home assistance system, but there is something wrong with a Department which is responsible for the tragic delays there have been in paying benefits to those people. The people I have been talking about are insured people who have been paying for their stamps down through the years. However, because of something that is happening in the Department they must go to the local office very often to draw a supplementary welfare benefit. That benefit was intended to improve the scheme, but, in effect, it is doing the opposite.
I wish the new Minister well in his new post and I hope he will apply himself to the Department of Social Welfare because, as we all know, we could never do enough for the unfortunate people who seek benefit from it. On the question of free travel it is unfortunate that the person who qualifies must be accompanied by the spouse before the spouse can benefit. Both of them should enjoy free travel. One of the partners who holds the free travel permit may be sick but, because of the restrictions of the scheme, the other partner must pay when travelling on public transport. That is a denial to both people. If a person qualifies for free travel the Department should allow the other partner the same concession.
If the Taoiseach is anxious to improve the social welfare system he should embark upon a policy of decentralisation. In granting increases to beneficiaries under the social welfare system the Government should allow for possible price rises and a rise in inflation. In spite of the efforts of successive Governments to control inflation they have not succeeded with the result that increased allowances lose their value often before they are received. The Taoiseach should do everything within his power—he is all powerful now and the best of luck to him—to improve the lot of those people. He must see to it that such people are given an increase that will more than compensate for the increase in the cost of living. I subscribe to the sentiments expressed by Deputy McMahon in relation to the new Minister for Health and Social Welfare. We need a change of policy in relation to social welfare but it would be a help if the Taoiseach, when naming the five others Ministers of State, included a Minister of State for the Department of Social Welfare. Those Departments are very involved with people.
I should like to remind the House that there are ten further Estimates and two other items of business to be concluded before 8.00 p.m.
I will not detain the Taoiseach very long. I am concerned about the burning question of delays in the payment of social welfare benefits in the last 11 months. I should like the Taoiseach to tell the House the reasons for those delays, particularly in relation to disability benefits. In my years in politics nothing has caused me more anguish and concern than the fact that the suffering people with large families have not received their benefits on schedule. People have had to endure delays not just of days and weeks but months since the postal strike commenced. I have not been able to explain to my constituents the reasons for those delays. This is the first occasion when I have had an opportunity to put that question. People who have been out of work for up to three months had to await payments for more than that length of time. Several reasons have been advanced for this delay but I am anxious to hear the truth.
It is obvious that the postal strike was the initial reason and it was alleged when that strike ended that there may have been a plan to slow down the outflow of cash because of a shortage.
It has been a nightmare trying to get in touch with the Department of Social Welfare by telephone. The telephone number of the Department is 786444 but it is literally impossible to get through. It appears that there is not sufficient staff to deal with the calls. If one is successful in getting through one experiences lengthy delays. I pity those who must use a coin box because after waiting hours to get through they may have to wait for a long time while inquiries are made but before they get a result to those inquiries the time has passed and their exercise is futile. We are due an explanation. I admit that matters have improved somewhat but I should like to know what was happening during the summer.
Earlier this year I asked the Minister if he would make concessions with regard to widows, the forgotten section in our society. They have not benefited from any of the extended services which have been given to pensioners and other social welfare recipients. I got an inkling from the Minister's reply that he was about to announce some increased benefits. Is there any hope of extending things like the free electricity allowance and the free travel to widows, who find it extremely difficult to exist on the present allowances?
We were all disappointed that during the past two and a half years no effort was made to reduce the present retirement pension age from 66 to 65. In the National Coalition term of office the age was reduced over four years from 70 to 66. The Government could have reduced the age further without any great cost.
I am a member of the South Eastern Health Board, who sent resolutions to the Department of Social Welfare and to the Minister in relation to why the free fuel scheme was curtailed. The Minister had also been asked to receive deputations on this matter. The scheme was sanctioned in the case of the Eastern Health Board and the Western Health Board but apparently other health boards were refused permission to operate and finance this scheme. Was this because of purely financial considerations or was there some other reason?
I will be brief, because time is pressing and other Estimates have to be dealt with. I thank those Deputies who offered a welcome to Deputy Michael Woods, my successor in the Department of Social Welfare. I shall convey their sentiments to him. I know he will be gratified by them.
One of the points raised in this debate was the question of the assignment of a Minister of State to either one of the two Departments. That matter will be considered. I have discussed it with the new Minister——
That is an improvement on the answer given to the former Taoiseach when he requested another appointment.
I discussed it with the incoming Minister and we agreed between us that he will settle into the job and assess his responsibilities and we will decide later whether he could usefully avail of the services of a junior Minister.
I categorically reject the suggestion that I neglected the Department of Social Welfare during my tenure of office there. When I took over the Department there were three outstanding matters, three major reforms which remained to be undertaken. The first was to bring the social welfare code up to a reasonably satisfactory modern level by the transfer to pay-related contributions. The second related to the national pension scheme and the third related to insurance for the self-employed. The changeover to pay-related contributions has been effected, and that was a major administrative change. It was also a very important change from the social point of view. It was the biggest single change in the Department of Social Welfare since the Department was founded and it was given effect to by me during my term of office. In relation to the national pension scheme some form of pay-related scheme on a comprehensive basis is very well advanced and I shall discuss it with the new Minister to ensure that it is pressed ahead with from here on as rapidly as possible. An enormous amount of ground work has already been done and proposals are at an advanced stage. Out of three major reforms one has been effected and the other was considerably advanced during my term in office. The third reform is in a different category and, strangely enough, when we sought public reaction and public opinion on this we found that by and large it was afforded very little priority by most of the groups consulted.
A great deal of discussion has centered on the fuel scheme. During the last four days, Deputy Cluskey, the leader of the Labour Party, spent some time deploring my political outlook, my poltical philosophy and particularly my lack of social conscience. I am prepared to match my social conscience against his any day of the week, and my record in Social Welfare against his. Both our records can be readily compared. For four years, approximately, Deputy Cluskey was in charge of the Department of Social Welfare, and in Dublin city the old, ramshackle, despised free fuel scheme was left untouched by Deputy Cluskey. I, as an Opposition Deputy, often pressed him to do something about it; but he did nothing. I have at least brought in a coherent, comprehensive, flexible free fuel scheme for Dublin city. Not alone that, but I extended it to the whole Eastern Health Board area where there was nothing before. That is one area where our performance can be compared.
I do not want to make a great deal of this, but when I came into the Department of Social Welfare I found it riddled with little petty anomalies and shabby ways of treating people in dire circumstances. In relation to maternity benefit, for instance, in theory a mother was entitled to 12 weeks' maternity benefit but, if by some chance of nature the child did not arrive exactly when it was supposed to, the unfortunate woman was deprived of two or three weeks' maternity benefit. In relation to the widow's pension I found a situation where a number of widows on reaching old age pension age had their pensions reduced. In relation to prisoners I found that a male prisoner when discharged from prison would probably have to wait a week or more before he would get any assistance. Most despicable and shabby of all, and what Deputy Cluskey presided over for four years and did nothing about, is the situation where, if an old age pensioner died and it was found on his death that he had been overpaid—do Deputies know what happened then? Under Deputy Cluskey's jurisdiction the Department of Social Welfare went after the widow or some surviving relative to recoup the overpayment from that widow's pension. These are the sort of things that Deputy Cluskey, with his active, intense social conscience, left untouched for four years—these pretty shabby little things.
I should not interrupt, but there are a number of other things that Deputy Cluskey touched on.
I sat patiently for some days now listening to everybody. I am entitled to a few moments uninterrupted.
The free fuel scheme is not perfect, but at least now it is capable of improvement. The basis is there for improvement. it is a coherent, flexible scheme. The voucher is there and a central committee, consisting of the corporation, the Department of Social Welfare and various other involved persons, monitor it. I have asked the health board to build up a stock of blankets, electric fires and all those things so as to have them on tap. I have asked the Dublin Corporation and the health board to have adequate supplies of fuel available and, generally speaking, both the corporation and the Eastern Health Board will get through this winter reasonably well.
Can we expect it to be applied uniformly?
I was able to improve the scheme in Dublin and in the urban areas where the free fuel scheme has always existed. I was able to extend it to the whole of the Eastern Health Board area and to some other areas, but I did not have the money to extend it to the south-east. I wrote to these other health boards and told them that I could not give any more funds this year and asked them to please do the best they could with any adjustments they could make in their existing schemes, and that was the way I had to leave it.
It is very regrettable that we have not a whole day at least on this Estimate, because I know that Deputies such as Deputy Tully, Deputy McMahon and Deputy Lipper know the social welfare scene very well and that they are dealing with it every day. It is very important that they be given an opportunity to draw attention to anomalies, to discrepancies and to various other matters. A good discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare is very important and it is a pity that we have not more time to deal with the points raised. I assure the Deputies who have mentioned various important points about disability benefit and so on that these will be noted. The officials will have a note of them and I know that Deputy Woods will go into them all very carefully.
Can we have a reply in writing to some of the points we raised?
I have replies here.
But can we have a reply in writing?
The delays are very regrettable.
On leaving the Department of Social Welfare I wish to pay a tribute to the staff there, who spared no effort in trying to cope with the enormous difficulties that the postal strike presented to us. I wish also to pay tribute to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for their wonderful work. Fortunately, we were able to get through but, as has been pointed out, people did suffer. When the postal strike was over all the applications and all the cases that had been held up suddenly arrived into the Department of Social Welfare. During the month of August the Department were practically inundated and submerged with the flow of post and work of that kind. The Department staff involved have been on almost constant overtime, even at weekends. We dispensed with a number of administrative checks in the system and did everything possible administratively to deal with the unprecedented situation. Some weeks ago I issued a statement showing the state of play in every scheme, the number of cases outstanding, how they were dealt with and when it was hoped to be up to date. The Department assure me that they are practically up to date on all fronts. I hope that nightmare situation is behind us.
I apologise to the people concerned for the delays and hardship they were caused. The supplementary welfare scheme was always there to help out in cases of hardship. I assure social welfare recipients that the Department staff did everything they could to try to minimise the delays and the hardship caused by the delays. That is the only contribution I have time to make.
What about the double payment for Christmas in compensation for the hardship suffered during the year?
Since that time, instead of giving a double payment at Christmas, we gave an increase of £1 a week in all the rates for this winter. People who study social welfare matters and those involved in welfare insist——
Let it touch the Taoiseach's heart this year for all the hardship suffered.
——that it is better, where social welfare recipients are concerned, to increase the basic weekly rate.
A little Christmas box.
