Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Dec 1983

Vol. 346 No. 8

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

12.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether any consideration has been given to an upward revision of that portion of the disabled person's allowance which comes under the heading of supplementary welfare allowance and which has remained unchanged for a number of years; the number of disabled persons who qualify for supplementary welfare allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I take it that the Deputy is referring to a payment under the supplementary welfare allowances scheme as a supplement to other income, in this case a disabled person's maintenance allowance. Payment of a supplement and the amount thereof is a matter for the health boards, having regard to the circumstances of each individual case. If the person concerned wishes to have the supplement increased he should apply to the local community welfare officer.

Statistics of disabled persons who are receiving supplements under the supplementary welfare allowances scheme are not available.

13.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has any plans to reduce the waiting time for the processing of claims for unemployment assistance.

14.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the long delays in paying unemployment assistance.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 14 together.

It is a requirement for receipt of unemployment assistance that the applicant must undergo a means test. This very often involves detailed inquiries and investigations and some delay is inevitable for this reason.

The administrative arrangements for dealing with claims have been under review and steps are being taken to simplify the procedures. These include the devolution of decision-making to the greatest extent possible to local employment exchanges. This will result in claims being dealt with more directly and more expeditiously.

When does the Minister propose to implement the order giving autonomy to the local employment offices?

A pilot scheme is in operation in the Cork and Drogheda employment exchanges and the experiment is proving satisfactory. It will be extended to other exchanges as soon as we get additional staff.

I would ask that a decision be made if the waiting period exceeds eight weeks and medical certificates continue to be submitted. People are waiting as long as 20 weeks for a decision and this causes great hardship.

We are devolving the decision-making process and I think the new arrangements will work satisfactorily.

The Minister is noted for his humanity. Will he see to it that officers of his Department when making inquiries into the eligibility for social welfare payments, particularly unemployment assistance, will behave with civility towards citizens and not in the way they are behaving in certain areas?

If the Deputy will give me details of such cases——

I certainly will.

——I will be only too anxious to take them up. I believe officers in my Department act in a courteous way by and large, but if officers are not behaving in a courteous manner I will have the matter taken up.

What is the average waiting period in respect of a claim for unemployment assistance?

Perhaps the Minister would give us the longest and the shortest waiting periods.

The average period is eight weeks.

The Minister said that he would be in a position to expedite the payment of unemployment assistance as soon as he had extra staff. How many extra staff does the Minister envisage will be needed?

We are talking about devolving this matter to the local exchanges and this could not be done overnight in one fell swoop. It will be done as quickly as possible where we have the necessary staff but it will not be done in one operation.

It would seem to involve a deployment of staff.

Yes, devolving from the central to the local area.

The Minister mentioned two pilot schemes which are both in urban areas, Cork and Drogheda. Would he consider a pilot scheme in a rural area, perhaps in Donegal? He is not at present getting a fair assessment by confining the pilot scheme to urban areas.

Certainly I will consider that.

15.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of unemployment assistance recipients in Cavan-Monaghan who had their benefits withdrawn during 1983 and restored as a result of appeal.

The only statistics available are in respect of smallholders formerly in receipt of unemployment assistance based on a notional means assessment whose means have been reassessed on a factual basis under the provisions of the Social Welfare Act, 1983.

The number of notionally assessed smallholders in Counties Cavan and Monaghan whose unemployment assistance payments ceased following factual assessment between May and October 1983 was 71, of whom 11 had payment restored on appeal.

Would the Minister confirm the newspaper report that, having seen the form which was to be filled in by people in those circumstances, he was convinced that a proper picture could not be obtained from it?

That seems to be a different question.

I have had a recent meeting with a group representing the small farmers. It was quite clear that they were not aware of what should be used. I felt that a new form was necessary and have produced that.

It is only justice.

16.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the fact that people in receipt of unemployment assistance are no longer entitled to fuel vouchers, he will consider making an additional payment to people in these categories during the winter months in order to ensure that families have adequate fuel for warmth.

17.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the instructions, if any, that have been issued to supplementary welfare officers concerning assistance for persons on short-term benefits who have been deprived of fuel vouchers since September 1983.

18.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the free fuel scheme operated by health boards is more restrictive than in previous years.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together.

There has been no change in the categories eligible for assistance under the free fuel schemes and the conditions of eligibility under these schemes are the same this winter as in previous years.

Persons in receipt of unemployment assistance who have dependants and who are resident in one of the 17 cities and towns in which the urban fuel scheme operates automatically qualify for a free fuel allowance under that scheme. However, the national fuel scheme which was introduced in 1980 and which operates throughout the State does not generally cover unemployment assistance recipients and never has.

In view of the continued existence of two separate fuel schemes it was considered desirable to clarify the question of entitlement under the national scheme and this was done in the usual circular letter which was issued to the health boards initiating the 1983-84 scheme.

The present position where there are two separate fuel schemes with differing conditions of entitlement is undoubtedly unsatisfactory. Proposals are, therefore, being prepared for submission to the Government in the near future with a view to replacing the two existing schemes by a single uniform scheme.

Does the Minister accept that the level of poverty is increasing very rapidly in the category of people on unemployment assistance, particularly those on unemployment assistance for quite some time? Does he also agree that the free fuel voucher scheme was intended for people who suffered poverty, to ensure that they have sufficient warmth during the winter months? Yesterday the Minister said that it was a ministerial function to categorise recipients of social welfare, so could the Minister make some special provision over the Christmas period for those on unemployment assistance to be given free fuel vouchers?

I have no plans in that regard, because of the cost factor. As the Deputy is aware, the urban and national schemes are under examination. I propose to have one scheme which would operate in the season 1984-85. It is hoped that that will iron out some of the existing anomalies.

A national fuel scheme standard. Thank you.

Could the Minister confirm whether the community welfare officers in the health board have a discretion in the case of persons in receipt of long-term unemployment assistance?

The people on assistance are not necessarily qualified. However, the community welfare officers have discretion where there is a need under the welfare scheme. It need not concern a free fuel voucher, it could be by way of cash.

Discretion without boodle is no good. One cannot have discretion without boodle.

Is there a right of appeal to the programme manager in charge of community care?

Normally, no. The welfare officer makes the decision on the ground and that is that.

Is the Minister aware that there are a number of changes in certain health board areas? Before this, when persons applied for free fuel they were informed on their application forms that they had the right of appeal. This year, for some strange reason, they are not notified of that right. Would the Minister not think that every person applying should be notified of the right of appeal?

No instructions were sent out from my Department to that effect.

Would the Minister make contact with the health boards to ensure that the people are notified?

I will. Some Deputy mentioned that there were differences in the operation of different health boards.

There should not be. They should be uniform.

That is just one of the anomalies within the health board system. According to my information, applicants still have the right to appeal. According to television programmes, certain people can qualify who would not qualify in my area. These people on unemployment assistance are in dire straits. I would ask the Minister to standardise the fuel scheme.

That is what I am doing.

I take that point.

The Minister present has more humanity than his Minister. I can tell the House that.

In view of the fact that there are so few recipients of the Old IRA pension left, could I ask the Minister, if it has not been introduced, if he will inform the health boards that that pension should not be taken into consideration?

That is a separate question.

It is a very opportune time.

Coming up to Christmas, we should recognise the Old IRA pensioner.

If that is so, the Deputy should have put down a question.

Time prevented me from doing this.

The Deputy is very quick by times.

It may well be necessary to ensure that the Minister for Social Welfare will be here next week to answer that question, and I do not want to do that. The Minister might be kind enough to relieve me of that.

I hope that the Deputy is not threatening to obstruct the House?

The Deputy never does that.

I know that if I asked the Chair to withdraw that, he would.

I expressed the hope that I am not correct. I did not make any allegation. Question No. 19.

Three questions were taken together. Is the Minister not going to answer my question?

Under the national fuel scheme an allowance at the rate of £4 a week is payable for a 30-week period from October to April. The purpose of the allowance——

I would like a reply to my question. Could I ask the Minister——

I have called Question No. 19. I am sorry.

Could I ask, a Cheann Comhairle——

You may not ask me anything.

What am I supposed to do? Sit down and keep my mouth shut?

To sit down. I have called Question No. 19.

I asked the question.

I have called Question No. 19.

Under the national fuel scheme, an allowance at the rate of £4 a week is payable for a 30-week period——

A Cheann Comhairle,

——from their own resources.

The scheme is administered by the health boards and each board makes its own arrangements for issuing the allowance, either by voucher or by cheque. The general practice among the boards is for the allowance to be paid in two or three instalments during the heating season. In the Eastern Health Board area, payment is made by a cheque for £80 at the commencement of the scheme in October and a further cheque for £40 in February.

When Deputy P. Gallagher was speaking, I was on my feet.

I am satisfied that payment of the fuel allowance in this way fulfils the purpose of the scheme. This method, in fact, has the advantage that it enables a recipient to purchase fuel in larger quantities than would otherwise be possible.

Before some Deputy asks a question, might I ask the Minister to repeat the answer to Question No. 19? The first part could not possibly have been heard.

Before the Minister——

I am sorry, Deputy.

May I just point this out to the Chair?

If you have a point——

On a point of information——

There is no such point. Has the Deputy a point of order?

I want to ask the Minister a question and to abide by the Chair's ruling. I want to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that he did take questions——

I did not take them.

——Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together.

That is right.

There were only three or four supplementary questions asked on those. When the Minister is grouping questions together, the Deputies on this side of the House should be allowed to ask a number of questions on each of the questions.

I wish to ask the Minister a question.

I have gone to the next question and I have discretion. I am sorry, Deputy.

The Chair had not gone to the question when I was on my feet.

I had, Deputy. I disallowed your question.

I was standing.

I am sorry, Deputy, I am not going back.

Just one final comment. There was no question asked on Question No. 18 on the Clár.

There is a general opinion around here that supplementary questions are obligatory. There is no such rule. Would the Minister please answer Question No. 19?

I cannot ask the Minister a question on Question No. 18 — is that Dáil reform?

May I proceed, a Cheann Comhairle?

I called Question No. 19 and it has been answered, but because of this disorder I had to ask the Minister to repeat it.

As a new Deputy to the House——

The Deputy gets every consideration.

I very seldom ask to speak in the House and would like to ask the Minister——

Would Deputy Hilliard please resume his seat?

19.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that those entitled to a weekly fuel voucher are being issued with two £80 cheques in September and February; and if he is satisfied that this adequately fulfils the intention of the benefit which is to ensure that recipients have adequate heat throughout the winter.

Under the national fuel scheme an allowance at the rate of £4 a week is payable for a 30-week period from October to April. The purpose of the allowance is to assist persons who are unable to provide for their heating needs from their own resources.

The scheme is administered by the health boards and each board makes its own arrangements for issuing the allowance, either by voucher or by cheque. The general practice among the boards is for the allowance to be paid in two or three instalments during the heating season. In the Eastern Health Board area, payment is made by a cheque for £80 at the commencement of the scheme in October and a further cheque for £40 in February.

I am satisfied that payment of the fuel allowance in this way fulfils the purpose of the scheme. This method, in fact, has the advantage that it enables a recipient to purchase fuel in larger quantities than would otherwise be possible.

The Minister must agree that this is a decision made to suit the Minister or the Department. It has not been made to suit the recipients of the fuel vouchers. Has the Minister at any time acted on the request of the recipients of the fuel vouchers as to whether or not they wish to have an £80 payment made in one go or a fuel voucher per week? The original purpose of the fuel voucher scheme was to ensure that elderly people, in particular, would have sufficient fuel each week throughout the winter period.

As indicated in my reply, while I felt that the method of payment was reasonable and did allow the recipients to purchase larger quantities of fuel than otherwise would be possible, and possibly buying it in bulk is buying it cheaper. I will have a look at it to see if it is causing any great concern. Any great hardship has not come to my notice.

Does the Minister not consider that it is a cause for concern for people whose incomes are so low that they do not have any reserve when they receive £80 and have plenty of other things to do with it, like buying clothes, a pair of shoes or something like that, which leaves them without sufficient money at Christmas to buy fuel? Would he allow the voucher scheme to be given weekly on request, or bulk on request — that the Department would act on the request of the recipient? Would the Minister agree that if a person requests a voucher per week that person should get it each week?

I will have a look at that because I will need to see the administrative problems which it may cause. It is not my intention that hardship should be caused by any scheme that is meant to alleviate hardship. If a scheme is causing hardship I will certainly look at it.

It was a weekly voucher scheme and it has been changed.

We might be able to make a voucher for the type of fuel people want and give an actual voucher so they would have to get the type of fuel in question rather than get a cheque, which the Deputy indicated they may spend for other needy things. I will have a look at it.

Would the Minister agree that there are many people living in single person's council houses who would not have accommodation for a large amount of fuel and who are dependent on the weekly supply of fuel? In view of that situation would the Minister reconsider going back to the original position of weekly payments? Could the Minister tell us in what month this year the cheques were paid to the people receiving fuel vouchers?

Which health board is the Deputy talking about?

The Western Health Board, or any health board the Minister likes.

In regard to the Western Health Board the first cheque was sent out on 13 October.

What about County Meath?

That is the North Eastern Health Board. The first cheque was sent out 21 October 1983.

Could the Minister tell us the reason for this delay?

What delay?

They were to be paid in September.

No, October.

20.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Laois who claimed unemployment assistance in December 1982, has received only weekly forms for completion and no payment to date; if he is aware that auditors' returns were submitted by his parents to the social welfare office at Portlaoise; and the reason payment has not been made in this special and needy case.

According to the records of the Department the person concerned claimed unemployment assistance on 21 February 1983. His case was referred to a social welfare officer for investigation of his means.

It was ascertained that he was residing with his parents and he was asked on numerous occasions to furnish details of the household income, to enable the value of his board and lodging in his parents' home to be determined but he did not do so. His unemployment assistance claim was subsequently disallowed on the grounds that by failing to furnish details of income he failed to show that his means did not exceed the statutory limit. He did not, to date, appeal against the disallowance of his claim.

There is no record of audited documents being received in support of his case at the Department's local offices or at the Department's headquarters.

21.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason certain categories of workers affected by the dispute in Clery's, Dublin were in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance while other categories were excluded; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The legislation governing the supplementary welfare allowances scheme provides that a person involved in a trade dispute is not entitled to an allowance in respect of himself but he may receive payment in respect of his dependants. This provision does not, however, exclude payment to the claimant himself in case of urgent need. Every application is dealt with on its merits, having regard to the circumstances of the person concerned. The foregoing disqualification does not, however, apply to a person at the place of employment who is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work.

The Eastern Health Board administer the supplementary welfare allowances scheme in Dublin and the board have stated that no category of persons covered by the provisions of the scheme was excluded from payment of an allowance. The board are unable to supply more specific information in the absence of details of individual cases.

Like the free fuel scheme, different standards apply for the payment of supplementary welfare allowances. Would the Minister have that situation examined as well so that there would not be anomalies as between one health board and another, which is the cause of hardship and dissension among deserving people?

If the Deputy gives me details I will check them out for him.

What discretion had the community welfare officer in deciding who was entitled to supplementary welfare allowance?

This question seems to be confined to trade disputes.

It covers social welfare allowances.

In trade dispute circumstances.

I want to object to what you are doing in regard to supplementary questions. You are being most unfair to this side of the House.

I do not think so.

Questions are being put down by this side of the House and no supplementary questions are being allowed. We will have to have them all sent for written replies if that is the case.

22.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that community welfare officers in Dublin appear to be making deductions of about £6 from the basic supplementary welfare allowance in the case of homeless persons; if he approves of the principle that homeless people should get a reduced rate of supplementary welfare allowance; if he is aware that the reductions appear to be made on the basis that the Simon Community night shelter provides board and lodging for those homeless persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

One of the items which must be taken into account in calculating the means of an applicant for supplementary welfare allowance is the value of any benefits or privileges enjoyed by him. This item normally consists of free board and lodging.

I understand that the Simon Community provide free accommodation, breakfast and supper and under the legislation account must be taken of this in the assessment of means. I understand from the Eastern Health Board, who administer the supplementary welfare allowance scheme in Dublin, that the value of benefit and privilege in respect of free board and lodging at the Simon Community hostel is normally assessed at around £6 per week. I would consider that this amount is reasonable having regard to the present cost of food and accommodation.

Surley the Minister must agree that it is a most heartless decision in relation to the most deprived members of our society, the homeless vagrants in our city that they be charged £6 per week by the Department for accommodation provided by a charitable organisation like the Simon Community? Can the Minister tell us when this directive was introduced?

This has always been the system of assessment.

How is the information given to the Department about whether people are getting accommodation? Is homelessness the criterion for depriving those people of £6 per week?

As the Deputy is well aware this scheme is administered by the health board, in this case the Eastern Health Board. They have criteria and they use the criterion of board and lodgings for taking into account reductions on an allowance being granted. It is not new.

Surely the Minister is aware that the health board seek to implement a scheme for which the main guidelines are laid down and administered by his Department? Surely the Minister is not condoning the action of the health board in this matter? Could the Minister not give an assurance that the matter will be further investigated?

I am not condoning it. I am merely saying that the health board operate this scheme in their own way and they make the decisions on what is done.

The health board operate under the direction of the Department. Surely the Minister must accept that he is the person responsible for the decisions being made in this case and other similar cases?

Could the Minister ask them to review the matter?

I will ask the board to look at this situation.

Could the Minister tell us the gross amount and the net amount being paid to those homeless people in Dublin? Could he tell us the number of homeless people in our capital city and could he tell us the total number of homeless people in the country?

These are all separate questions. The Minister has no notice of them.

They are all concerned with this.

They are, but there might be 50 other questions. They are not supplementaries to which the Minister could be expected to have replies at hand.

As a new Deputy I would have presumed that the information would be at his disposal.

23.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason there was only a 12 month retrospective refund payment of wet-time contributions paid to a number of employees of Louth County Council as the refund claims were for much longer periods.

It is provided by statute that contributions paid under the wet-time scheme under the erroneous belief that they were payable may be refunded for a period not exceeding 12 months prior to the date on which application for their refund is made.

The initial letter from the Louth County Council to the Department raising the question of the insurability of the persons concerned under the wet-time scheme was dated 22 June 1982 and refunds of contributions were made in respect of the period 22 June 1981 to 2 August 1982, the last date on which contributions were paid.

Having regard to the fact that the wet-time contributions should not have been made in the first place, does the Minister think that just to make a refund for a period of 12 months is simply not good enough and that he should examine the regulations immediately with a view to rectifying this situation that applies with regard to the refunds of deductions made?

I said it is provided by statute that I am permitted to make a repayment only on the basis of 12 months from the time of application.

Question No. 25 is for written reply. That leaves Question No. 24. Does the House wish it to be disposed of now?

Deputies

Yes.

24.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a widow's pension has not yet been paid to a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon.

The person concerned had been in receipt of a widow's non-contributory pension, based on her means, since the death of her husband in 1975. Following a review of her circumstances her means derived from a farm and capital were assessed at £47.66 per week. This exceeds the statutory limit for receipt of pension and pension was accordingly terminated.

The person concerned has appealed against the decision to terminate pension but before the appeals officer decides her case he has requested that further inquiries be made concerning the transfer of her farm which was not accepted for pension purposes. The appeal will be decided as soon as the inquiries have been completed.

Is the Minister aware that this individual has signed over the farm since last May and that, despite numerous telephone calls and contacts with the Department over the last two months, this matter has not yet been cleared up?

I note the Deputy's remarks and I will have it looked into immediately.

The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.

Top
Share