asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason fuel vouchers are not being paid to retired nuns who often have their own accommodation within a convent since because of age and other considerations this often necessitates additional heat and light and is an unnecessary hardship in many cases.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
3.
It is a general condition under the urban and national fuel schemes that only one fuel allowance is paid to any household. If, however, the circumstances in a particular case are such that pensioners living under the same roof do not share common facilities it would be possible for separate fuel allowances to be awarded. Any applications of this kind would be considered by the local authority or health board concerned.
Is the Minister aware that there is a convent, about which I have been making representations, where elderly retired nuns live in separate accommodation have been refused a fuel voucher which would make a great contribution towards the very heavy heating costs incurred on their behalf? They have been offered one fuel voucher for the entire community although there are a number of nuns living under the same roof but in different appartments.
There is no discrimination against nuns as far as the fuel voucher scheme or any other scheme is concerned. If the nuns concerned make an application, which I understand they have not made, on the basis that they have separate accommodation it will be considered. As a result of the Deputy's question certain inquiries were made at the convent by an official. The position was explained to the nuns but no application was made.
Is the Minister aware that when they approached the post office one voucher was offered for all the senior citizens despite the fact that they live in separate accommodation? They are retired nuns and senior citizens who require additional heating. Will the Minister tell the House what the outcome was of the official's visit to the convent?
If the people in a household do not share facilities more than one voucher can be issued. Dublin Corporation, who are the relevant authority in this case, were asked to investigate, on 21 February 1985, the circumstance of the nuns in this convent to see if the issue of more than one fuel voucher per week would be warranted. An inquiry officer called to the convent a few days later and the sister in charge was surprised that the matter had gone so far. She informed the inquiry officer that she did not want the matter pursued. She only mentioned the subject of fuel vouchers in passing and was not making a complaint about the issue of one fuel voucher per week. In the circumstances the inquiry officer took no further action in the matter.
What procedure exists for appeals against a decision of the corporation or the health board? Does the Minister accept that in the health board the superintendent welfare officer who sanctions entitlement to this scheme in the first place is also the person who hears the appeal? Can the Minister say if there is any procedure whereby a different person would investigate a case?
This question deals with a particular case.
That seems to be a separate question.
No formal application was made. When the matter was pursued as a result of the inquiry from Deputy Mitchell the nun in charge of the convent indicated quite clearly that she did not want the matter pursued. The urban fuel scheme is operated on the basis of one voucher per household but if a claim is made that the people living in a household who are eligible for fuel vouchers live in separate accommodation that claim is looked at. No question of appeal would arise on that stage.
Is the Minister aware that this was not mentioned to me in passing but was raised with me specifically? Is the Minister aware that the convent are more interested in avoiding publicity rather than in pursuing the matter? Would he agree that it is insulting to offer one fuel voucher in this case?
There was no publicity about the matter until today. All the inquiries on behalf of Dublin Corporation and my Department were made in as discreet a manner as possible. The general guideline is for one fuel voucher per household. If in any establishment a number of people have separate accommodation and have to have separate heating that is a different matter. If the matter was pursued further with Dublin Corporation it would appear that it would be satisfactorily dealt with.
4.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that some health boards are refusing as a matter of policy to make any supplementary welfare payments to assist in the payment of ESB bills, irrespective of the means of the applicant; if he approves of such a policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
There is no general policy in any health board area of refusing applications for assistance in this type of case irrespective of the circumstances of the applicant.
Applications for assistance towards payment of ESB bills may be dealt with under the provision in the supplementary welfare allowances scheme which enables a health board, in any case where it considers it reasonable, to make a single payment to meet an exceptional need. All applications for assistance with ESB bills are considered on their merits.
Is the Minister stating quite categorically that no health board have a policy of not assisting with ESB bills?
That is exactly the answer I gave to the question. I said there is no general policy in any health board area of refusing applications for assistance in this type of case, that is, with ESB bills.
Is the Minister aware that the Southern Health Board said in a letter that it is not their policy to pay an ESB account? Is that not a denial of what the Minister is saying?
That may have been interpreted by the Deputy to mean assistance is not given in any case towards the cost of ESB bills as a matter of policy. That is not the case. The notification referred to by the Deputy also advises the applicant of his right to appeal.
If an applicant appeals who will hear the appeal? Will it be the same officer or a different officer? Is the Minister aware that in most health board areas the superintendent community welfare officer makes the decision originally and hears the appeal as well? Does the Minister consider this is a satisfactory arrangement?
The system of appeals is within the health boards. It is very difficult to get an ideal and acceptable appeals system. Everyone wants an appeals system which will give decisions in their favour.
The question of appeals is a separate question.
The Minister raised the question of an appeal. He said a person who is refused this allowance for his ESB bill ——
That does not raise the whole question of appeals.
It is very important that we should establish who will hear that appeal and whether the Minister considers that the appeals system is fair. It is even more important in view of the fact that since 1 April health boards have come under the aegis of the Ombudsman. The time has come when the health boards must set up a proper appeals system. Has the Minister any plans to ensure that there is a proper appeals system and that when somebody appeals a different officer will look at the case?
The purpose of my question was to establish that there is no policy in any health board of refusing assistance with ESB bills.
The Minister has answered that question clearly. It may be that the Deputy does not like the answer.
It appears that at least one health board are not aware of the fact that they should not refuse assistance with ESB bills as a matter of policy. They said quite clearly in reply to an applicant that it is not the policy of the Southern Health Board "to pay your ESB account". Clearly there is a disagreement there. Who is right? Is the Minister right or is the health board right?
The Southern Health Board are giving assistance towards the payment of ESB bills.
Only on appeal?
I have not got that information but they are giving assistance.
As a matter of policy the board are refusing all first applicants for assistance with ESB bills. It is only on appeal that they are allowing them. If that is true will the Minister instruct the health board that they are not entitled to establish such a policy?
When the application came in if the board established that it did not justify payment that could happen, but the Southern Health Board have given and continue to give assistance with ESB bills.
A Ceann Comhairle ——
This is repetition. The Deputy is saying one thing and the Minister is denying it. We cannot go on like that all day.
I am seeking information from the Minister. Would he agree to contact the health board and find out whether or not they have a policy of refusing first applications for assistance with ESB bills and that they give assistance on appeal only? That is all I want.
I will try to get that information for the Deputy.
5.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of a circular issued to community welfare officers by the Eastern Health Board dated 10 July 1984, setting out new criteria for eligibility for clothing grants; if he was consulted before the circular was issued; if he approves of its contents; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Deputy appears to be referring to a document circulated among the superintendent community welfare officers in the Eastern Health Board area concerning applications for assistance towards the purchase of clothing under the supplementary welfare allowances scheme. I am informed that the purpose of the document was to ensure that a uniform approach was adopted by all the board's officers in applying in relation to clothing the provisions in the scheme for assistance towards exceptional needs.
The document did not purport to set out new criteria for eligibility for such assistance and I would like to make it clear that there has been no alteration in these criteria. Each case must as heretofore be assessed on its merits by reference to the particular circumstances of that case and I am satisfied that the scheme continues to be operated by the Eastern Health Board on that basis.
Is the Minister aware that, prior to the issue of the circular of 10 July, applicants in receipt of unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, deserted wife's allowance and unmarried mother's allowances were given the clothing grant for their dependent children and that subsequent to the issue of this circular these categories of applicants were automatically refused?
Guidelines for health boards on the operation and administration of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme were issued by the Department to the chief executive officers of the boards in May 1977 prior to the inception of the scheme and no further guidelines have been issued since then from the Department.
This is an important issue to many thousands of people in the Eastern Health Board area. Is the Minister aware that as a result of the issue of this circular categories of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, deserted wife's allowance, unmarried mother's allowance and widow's pensions were automatically refused because they were in receipt of those benefits?
In 1984 expenditure on supplementary welfare allowances increased over 1983. Obviously there is no cut back there. As I said, no new guidelines have been issued by the Department since the inception of the scheme in May 1977.
The Minister is not being very helpful. I know that the allocation for supplementary welfare allowances increased last year. The Minister and the health board are unable to tell me how much was spent on clothing.
Would the Deputy please ask a question? We have had only four questions in half an hour.
I have waited since July last to raise this question with the Minister. It is an important issue and we will find the same problem this September. The fact is that a large number of people were refused clothing grants for their children returning to school last September.
Deputy De Rossa is usually helpful and orderly and I do not want to appear to be curtailing him. However, we cannot allow even short speeches on questions. Question Time is what it says — it is a time for asking questions, not for commenting on replies given by Ministers.
Could I ask the Minister to ensure that this September no category of social welfare recipients will be automatically refused clothing grants simply on the basis of the type of benefit they are receiving, in other words, that they will be assessed on the basis of their means and not on the type of welfare payment they are receiving?
That is a perfect question, if I may say so.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.
I understand that the purpose of the circular referred to by the Deputy, which was signed by the secretary of the superintendent community welfare officer's group of the Eastern Health Board, was to ensure that a uniform approach to the granting of exceptional needs for payment for clothing would be adopted by the community welfare officers. There was also the problem that the impression had grown among a section of the public that there was an automatic entitlement to clothing grants at certain times of the year. That is not so. It is an exceptional payment based on the particular circumstances of the applicants.
But it is not.
6.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if an old age pensioner (details supplied) in County Wexford is entitled to a free electricity allowance in view of the pension she is receiving.
To qualify for a free electricity allowance a person must be receiving one of a number of specified pensions. The pension which the person concerned is receiving is not among the specified pensions and she cannot, therefore, qualify for the allowance.
In the light of the information furnished by the Deputy, however, she may be entitled to an old age non-contributory pension, which is a qualifying payment for a free electricity allowance. An application form to enable her to claim this pension has, therefore, been issued to her. If she is awarded an old age pension she should then apply for a free electricity allowance and a decision on her entitlement will be given without delay.
7.
(Dublin North-West) asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the severe hardships experienced by recipients of social welfare in the Ballymun area in having social welfare cheques cashed since the closure of the Bank of Ireland; and if in view of this, he will consider the setting up of a local employment exchange in the premises vacated by the Bank of Ireland.
In relation to the cashing of cheques, social welfare cheques are generally cashed by local traders, supermarkets and other banks. Additionally, following the closure of the Bank of Ireland branch in the Ballymun town centre, my Department arranged with An Post for unemployment assistance cheques to be cashed at the post office in the town centre.
With regard to the former Bank of Ireland premises in Ballymun the Office of Public Works have acquired the premises for use by my Department as an employment exchange. It is expected that the new employment exchange will be operational before the end of this year.
(Dublin North-West): Could the Minister give me an exact time when the exchange will be opened? The people in Ballymun are subjected to very severe hardship, due to the cost of bus fares. Another problem that the Minister's Department will probably be aware of——
A question, please, Deputy.
(Dublin North-West):——is the number of social welfare cheques that have been mislaid, with hardship being created, I understand that if there were an employment exchange there arrangements would be made to pay cash.
The employment exchange is now being established in the former Bank of Ireland premises. It is a matter for the Office of Public Works, who have acquired the building, as to when it can be put in use. Because of the urgent need for such a service in the area, there will be no undue delay in having the building in operation. When exactly it will be opened I just cannot say.
(Dublin North-West): Is the Minister aware that this is a very new building and that there is no problem? It was occupied by the Bank of Ireland for only a few years.
I shall ask my colleague in the Office of Public Works to do what he can to expedite the matter.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the anomaly that exists for former State employees who because of a change in legislation in 1953 relating to social insurance payments are now deprived of their contributory old age pensions.
The scheme of contributory old age pensions came into effect in 1961 and entitlement to benefit of necessity depended on the scheme of social insurance as it existed.
Persons employed in the public sector, whose employments are permanent and pensionable, pay a modified rate of social insurance which gives entitlement to a limited range of benefits. There is no element in the contribution which gives cover for contributory old age pension and for this reason these contributions cannot be reckoned in establishing entitlement to that pension.
The question of pension entitlements is a matter which has been raised by a number of people in relation to various categories of insured persons and it is being considered by the Commission on Social Welfare which is carrying out a general review of all social welfare schemes. In the national plan, Building on Reality, there is a commitment on the part of the Government to publish a framework for a national pension plan. The matter will fall to be considered in this context also.
Is the Minister aware that supervisors appointed by CIE subsequent to 1953, because of the length of their employment as supervisors, have not acquired the average of 20 contributions paid per year to qualify them for social welfare? There are a number of these people debarred from eligibility for old age pensions.
The whole question of pension entitlements, particularly of this kind, has been raised on a number of occasions. As I stated, it is being considered by the Commission on Social Welfare and, in addition, the Government are to publish a framework for a national pension plan. These cases will again come to be considered in the context of that plan. That is about all we can say on the matter at present.
Does the Minister realise that the difficulty in relation to these cases stems directly from the Exemption Order introduced in 1953 for this particular category of employees in CIE? Having regard to the relatively small number involved, would he not think it would be appropriate for the Minister for Social Welfare to introduce a special order to overcome the problem, to ensure that these people would automatically be eligible for their old age pensions?
As I have explained to the Deputy, the matter is under consideration. I cannot anticipate the outcome of that consideration at this stage. The findings of the Commission on Social Welfare are expected this autumn. We can only wait and see what can be done in the light of these findings.
Would the Minister not agree that, irrespective of what the report of the commission entails, there is an obvious anomaly here? At the end of the day, a decision on the matter will rest with the Minister for Social Welfare and, in particular, with the Government. In view of the obvious anomaly and injustice involved, stemming directly from the Exemption Order of 1953, would it not be entirely appropriate to have the matter rectified as quickly as possible?
Yes, but to use the Deputy's word, it is not the only anomaly in the whole area of pensions. There are many others. We cannot try to resolve this difficulty and ignore all the others regarding qualification for contributory pensions for those who have gaps in their insurance record.
Ceist 9, ceist scríofa.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will introduce amending legislation to delete the anomaly from the social welfare legislation which disentitles persons from qualifying for contributory old age pensions if any other social insurance contributions of any nature were paid by them in the period from 1953 to 1974 and in particular in circumstances where less than 20 such contributions were made during the entire period referred to, and where, if no such contributions had been paid, such persons would qualify for old age contributory pension by virtue of contributions paid from 1974 onwards.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of persons of old age pension age who are ineligible for a contributory pension despite unbroken service of in or about forty-five years including contributions to the social welfare scheme apart from one period of exemption; whether there is any prospect of allowing these people to make up their earlier voluntary contributions and hence have an entitlement to a contributory pension; if he agrees that their exclusion is anomalous, was not intended and would be inexpensive to rectify; and if he will comment on the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 11 who has been refused a contributory old age pension.
I propose to take Questions Numbers 10 and 11 together.
Up to April 1974 there were remuneration limits above which persons in non-manual employment were not insurable under the Social Welfare Acts. The problems referred to in the questions appear to relate to such persons who had been insurable but ceased to be so because their remuneration exceeded the limit prescribed from time to time. When the remuneration limit was abolished in April 1974 they again became insurable but, because of gaps in their insurance, a number of them failed to satisfy the statutory contribution conditions for contributory old age pensions.
Many persons who went out of insurance because their remuneration exceeded the prescribed limit availed themselves of the option to become voluntary contributors, thus maintaining their entitlements. Others had the same opportunity but chose not to exercise the option.
It is not possible to give precise statistics of the numbers who have been adversely affected in the circumstances mentioned, but it is estimated that about 1,700 would be involved. The cost of paying contributory pension to those would be about £5 million in a full year.
This problem is not regarded as a priority matter. Anyone who fails to qualify for a contributory pension may, if his circumstances warrant it, qualify for a non-contributory old age pension. There is no provision under the legislation whereby a person can pay contributions to establish entitlement after a risk has materialised. Such a procedure is not considered appropriate to the social insurance system. The matter is, however, one which will be examined by the Commission on Social Welfare and will be considered in the context of any recommendations made by the commission. It will also fall to be considered in the context of the commitment by the Government in the national plan to publish a framework for a national pension plan.
The person referred to in Deputy Flaherty's question ceased to be insurable at the end of 1954 and had no further record of contributions from January 1955 to 31 March 1974. He had a total of 349 contributions in the relevant average test period, in his case from 5 January 1953 to 5 April 1979, giving him a yearly average of 13. A minimum yearly average of 20 contributions would be required to enable him to qualify for pension.
12.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the anomaly whereby a widow with insufficient contributions to qualify for a widow's pension who joins the public service is also ineligible for a contributory old age pension, he will (a) consider allowing such persons to buy into a superannuation scheme and obtain maximum pension at a cost comparable with the retirement gratuity, (b) amend social welfare legislation to allow a widow to qualify for a widow's pension on retirement on the basis of contributions made before and after widowhood, or (c) amend social welfare legislation to provide an option to widows to buy into the contributory old age pension scheme on retirement at a cost comparable to the retirement gratuity.
As I understood the Deputy's question, part (a) concerns public service pension entitlements and this matter is the responsibility of the Minister for the Public Service. I understand, however, that throughout the public service there are schemes which allow the purchase of service either by lump-sum payment or periodical deductions. Any more specific information should be sought from the Minister for the Public Service.
In regard to (b), I explained in my written reply to a previous question from the Deputy on this issue that a widow with insufficient insurance contributions to qualify for widow's contributory pension and who subsequently joins the public service cannot have later contributions taken into account for this purpose. This would be providing for an event which had already happened and as such would be contrary to all accepted principles of insurance. The later, and earlier, contributions would, of course, be reckonable should the women marry again and become a widow a second time. It is against this risk that she is insured for widow's pension as a public servant. There are no proposals under consideration to amend social welfare legislation in this respect.
In regard to (c), public servants as a body are not insurable for contributory old age pension as it is considered that their State pensions, payable on retirement, afford them adequate cover. A widow in the situation mentioned would qualify for a public service pension, subject to a minimum service requirement. There are no proposals to amend social welfare legislation in this respect.
Is the Minister aware of the anomaly in the situation in that if the person to whom I referred had remained a temporary civil servant she would have qualified for the contributory old age pension but because she opted to become permanent she is permanently excluded? For that reason, would the Minister of State not consider that option (c), the option to buy into the contributory old age pension would be a reasonable amendment of social welfare legislation?
There is the general objection to buying into an insurance scheme after an event has taken place. That is unknown in insurance schemes. Indeed, the concept of insurance schemes would be undermined if people were to reserve a possible option of contributing or not contributing, to wait and see if a certain event took place and then to pay up arrears and qualify. The short answer to the Deputy's question is that there are no proposals to amend social welfare legislation in that respect.
13.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of applications for the family income supplement received on 31 December 1984; the number in receipt of the family income supplement on 31 December 1984; and the amount paid out in family income supplement benefit up to 31 December 1984.
The number of applications for family income supplement received at 31 December 1984 was 8,880. The number of supplements awarded at that date was 1,326 and the value of these supplements in respect of the period 6 September to 31 December 1984 was approximately £148,000.
When this scheme was introduced with a great fanfare of trumpets last October or November, the Government stated clearly and unequivocally that 35,000 persons would benefit. We find now that at the end of 1984 only 8,880 people had applied and only 1,326 had been sanctioned. Is it not obvious that this scheme has proved an absolute disaster? It is a farce and a failure. It has been used simply as a method to deceive people into believing they were getting something to compensate them for the loss of half the food subsidies. Will the Minister not admit that the scheme has been a tragic failure?
It was estimated at the introduction of the scheme — the estimation was based on PAYE returns — that up to 35,000 persons would qualify for supplement. Despite the extensive publicity given to the scheme when it was launched, the take-up has been disappointingly low. Up to 7 February 1985 a total of 9,300 applications were received and approximately 4,400 supplements were awarded. By means of additional publicity in the near future it is hoped to encourage potential beneficiaries who have not yet submitted claims to do so. I wish to point out that the figure of 35,000 was got from PAYE returns. It was not picked out of the air.
It must have been obvious to the Government from the start that this scheme was a failure. Even though the Minister of State told us that up to February some 4,400 applications had been granted, and is still 30,000 short of what the Government originally said.
That is comment and I should like to discourage that at Question Time.
Will the Minister of State tell the House why this scheme has failed? Is it because the recipients are getting a pittance of about £5 maximum a week?
Would the Minister accept that perhaps one of the reasons the numbers of applicants are so low is that people fear they might lose other benefits, such as medical cards, if they apply for and receive the family income supplement? Can he give me an assurance that receipt of this very small amount of money will not exclude them from benefiting from a medical card?
The issue or non-issue of medical cards is a matter for the various health boards. There has been a fairly extensive publicity campaign and there will be a further publicity campaign on this scheme. I am not in a position to comment on the Deputy's observation that people may be afraid — I hope I am not misinterpreting the Deputy but I understood him to say that some families may not be disclosing their correct income for certain benefits and that they would have to do so for this——
The Deputy did not say that. All right, I accept that, but it was something very like that.
What I am saying is that it is possible in some cases that the amount of money received from the family income supplement may push people over the eligibility limit, which is quite low, for a medical card. Therefore people who are on the margins of medical card eligibility limits would fear that if they applied for the family income supplement they would lose their medical card. I am simply asking if this is a factor in the low application rate?
I have not before me the income figures in respect of the family income supplement or the scale of qualifications for medical cards. I doubt very much if the granting of a family income supplement would place one out of eligibility for a medical card but that is a matter for the various health boards.
If an assurance to that effect were included in advertising it might help to increase applications.
Yes.
The Minister did not answer my previous question. Along with it I should like to ask him why, when introducing this family income supplement scheme, the Government did not decide to include those unfortunate families in the throes of unemployment. Why were they specifically excluded? As no doubt the Minister is aware, they are among the worst off sections of our community and they have been specifically excluded from eligibility for the benefits of that scheme.
I do not know whether the Deputy was present during the debate on the introduction of the family income supplement scheme but that point was explained over and over again during that debate——
Not to anybody's satisfaction.
——that basically this constituted a mechanism to help people who were in employment but who were lowly paid. It was a scheme designed to bring some form of assistance to them. If you like, a gap in our social welfare system was identified, that it happens in some cases that people in employment, particularly married people with families, are worse off then, say, a comparable family on social welfare benefit. The basis or purpose of the scheme was to endeavour to help those people in low paid employment. That was explained over and over again. I cannot understand how anybody is not aware of the reasons it was not introduced to cover unemployed people when its specific purpose was to help the low paid in employment.
We cannot have a debate on this.
Implicit in the Minister's reply is the suggestion that all unemployed people are better off than those who are among the lowly paid.
This debate could continue and we cannot have that.
I should like the Minister to tell me whether he is aware that many families, when they reach a certain stage of unemployment, are much worse off than even the most lowly paid. The Minister does not seem to understand.
The Minister well understands it; I do not think the Deputy does. The Deputy should not invent things. I made it quite clear that it is an undeniable fact that the income of some people in employment is less than that of some people on social welfare unemployment benefit, or disability benefit for that matter, that is some, certainly not all. The Deputy should listen carefully to what I say.
14.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of women who are in receipt of an unmarried mother's allowance; and the cost to the State in 1984.
15.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of men who are paying maintenance money to unmarried mothers in this country.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together.
The number of recipients of unmarried mother's allowance at 31 December 1984 was 10,307. The provisional figure for expenditure on this service in 1984 is £25,580,000.
Statistics are not kept in my Department of the number of men who are paying maintenance money to unmarried mothers. Where maintenance payments are made in respect of the children only, the payments are not taken into account when assessing the means of applicants for unmarried mother's allowance.
Are there any proposals in any future legislation to make these lousers accountable, or to pay for their own pleasures rather than have the State pay for them? A sum of £25,580,000 constitutes a frightful burden and something I would ask the Minister to look at in a serious manner. Has he any proposals to deal with these people?
I do not think "lousers" is an acceptable parliamentary expression.
A Cheann Comhairle, I thought that was the most suitable word. I should have liked to use another but parliamentary decorum made me use that word. I think you could have anticipated the word I might have used had I been free to do so.
I do not want the Chair to be taken as accepting the word "louser" as an acceptable word for parliamentary debate.
I am not aware of any at present.
Would the Minister like a national register of these people?
16.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider including the holders of American social welfare pensions as eligible for free telephone rental allowances.
Any extension of the conditions of entitlement for a free telephone rental allowance would also affect entitlement to the free electricity and television licence schemes. Alterations of this nature would involve the Exchequer in additional expenditure and in the present circumstances of financial constraint extension of the schemes is not contemplated.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a widow's pension will be sanctioned for a person (details supplied) in Dublin 13.
The entitlement of the person concerned to a widow's contributory pension is at present being examined. Inquiries in the case have been taking place but the extent of her late husband's insurable employment has not yet been established. The claimant has given some information regarding his employment in the years 1944 to 1948 and 1950 to 1951. The Department is in touch with the employing organisations mentioned by her. She has not given details about the years before or after those periods and she has recently been asked again if she can supply any such particulars. No reply has been received. As soon as the further information sought from the claimant is received it will be possible to give a decision on her claim.
The claimant's entitlement to a contributory pension based on her own insurance has also been examined. However, she does not satisfy the contribution conditions on her own record.
While her husband's insurance record is still being investigated, and on the assumption that she may wish to have her entitlement to a widow's non-contributory pension examined, a form on which to show details of her means was sent to her on 17 January 1985. This form has not, however, been returned so far.
18.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in Dublin 6 is obliged to sign at the labour exchange three times weekly to claim unemployment benefit.
The statutory conditions for receipt of unemployment assistance are that a person must be unemployed and be capable of, available for an genuinely seeking work. Among the requirements for proving compliance with these conditions is the stipulation that an unemployed person must sign the unemployed register at a local office of my Department at specified times during normal working hours.
Some doubt arose as to whether the person in question was fulfilling the statutory requirements and he was instructed to sign the unemployed register on three days each week to prove unemployment. However, his signing arrangements were recently relaxed and he is now required to sign the unemployed register once a week only.
19.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that many appeals for entitlement to the fuel scheme stand undecided because of the uncertainty created by the recent court case which threw into question his directives relating to the national fuel scheme, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The judgment in the recent court case referred to by the Deputy identified a legal deficiency in the basis on which the national fuel scheme was administered. In order to remedy the deficiency regulations were made on 18 February 1985 formally prescribing the conditions for payment of fuel allowances and the classes of persons eligible. Under the regulations the conditions of the scheme and the persons eligible remain basically as heretofore.
The regulations, entitled the Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations, 1985, have been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and their terms have been communicated to the health boards, who administer the scheme.
This is a matter which I raised earlier today. Will the Minister confirm that the regulations as made by the Minister still preclude the person who brought the case before the court and that the regulations effectively automatically preclude people on unemployment benefit and on disability benefit from receiving fuel vouchers?
The persons eligible under the scheme are mainly recipients of long term social welfare payments and health board payments and on basic supplementary welfare allowances who must be living alone or only with the dependent spouse and/or children and other specified persons. That is the solution.
Is the Minister aware that the court judgment indicated that the Minister was wrong in specifying that a person should be refused a fuel voucher other than on the basis of his means and that the regulations now will exclude people purely on the basis that they are in receipt of a specific kind of benefit, regardless of their means and regardless of the fact that the unemployment benefit may be below unemployment assistance?
The circular issued on 22 June 1983 contained the following phrase: "persons on short term social welfare payments" are excluded from the scheme. The Limerick judgment on 12 November 1984 held that in so far as this paragraph purports to exclude absolutely from the discretion of the deciding officer the discretion to grant an allowance to a person in receipt of one of the payments referred to, it seemed to be ultra vires the Minister, and the Minister has power under section 209 (2) and (3) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, to prescribe matters in relation to social welfare allowances. The judge stated that it was not intended, nor did it seem to him that it could be intended, that the issue of the circular could possibly be an exercise of his power by the Minister and the judge was satisfied that the decision on the plaintiff's claim was made solely on the understanding by the officers concerned that they were excluded by the terms of the circular from granting the allowance rather than on consideration of the question as to whether her means were insufficient to meet her needs. The judge was accordingly satisfied that a valid decision was not reached on her application either initially or on appeal and that the two orders by way of decision must be quashed and the cause shown disallowed. The Minister, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, on 18 February 1985 made regulations under section 209 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1981, prescribing conditions for the granting of fuel allowances.
The remaining questions will appear on——
A Cheann Comhairle——
It is five minutes past the time.
I just want a "yes" or "no" to this question. Do the regulations not mean that people on unemployment benefit and on disability benefit will automatically be refused fuel vouchers regardless of their means?
I would advise the Deputy to put down a separate question about that.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
It has been reported that B&I has now been jackbooted by the Minister for Communications into appointing a joint chairman and managing director, ignoring the wishes of the board——
Has the Deputy a request to make?
The request is that the Minister for Communications, as I asked this morning, should make a statement to the House about this serious business. We had it before in regard to Irish Shipping——
I cannot allow an impromptu debate.
What is he doing?
A Deputy
The port of Dublin will be closed tomorrow.
(Interruptions.)
I cannot allow this to go on.
It is very serious. The Chair knows how serious it is.
It may be but——
(Interruptions.)
——what the Deputy is doing now is equally seriously disorderly and I cannot permit it.
We can have a nice tidy debating society here or we can have something that will impact on the realities of life at the moment. It seems to me that what we are trying to do is run away through rules and regulations from the realities of life.
Deputy Wilson will resume his seat. I have to abide by Standing Ordes. There is nothing I can do.
We are asked to vote equity in the House for this company.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the closure of educational facilities in Cork and Arbour Hill prisons and the transfer of juvenile prisoners to adult prisons.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
For the fourth time I am asking to raise on the adjournment the issue of Top Quality Products, Gorey, which is now in receivership with the prospect that the Government could save 250 jobs.
I will communicate with Deputy Byrne.