Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 May 1991

Vol. 408 No. 7

Social Welfare and Justice Matters.

I am receiving correspondence from a variety of women who were deprived of their livelihood when there was a ban on married women working in the public service in the 1950s. One lady who was a teacher wrote to me last week from County Mayo with a most sorrowful story. She was stopped from teaching in the mid-fifties when she married, and because she was a member of the Church of Ireland her chances of getting a school after the ban was lifted was even more difficult. She eventually obtained a teaching job in a Catholic school but missed valuable years of service for which she has been penalised severely. She now lives on a pittance of a pension compared to what she should have got.

There are thousands of these cases coming up now. What consideration has the Minister for such people? There must be a huge element of discrimination here. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some women or a group of women will contest this issue in a court of law. Do we want another protracted and costly case in the European Court? Fair play demands that such women do not suffer twice in their lifetime. They suffered as a result of being told to stay at home when they should have been allowed to work and now they are suffering because they are not receiving the same pension entitlements as every other person in the service who had been allowed to continue to work on marriage.

There is a very reasonable case here. This will be a very serious problem because it is only at this stage that this sort of case will arise. In all justice the Government should take a very close look at this issue because there is discrimination, and it will have to be addressed some time. It is in this country that it should be addressed and not in Europe as in some former cases which have cost the taxpayer dearly.

The case to which the Deputy refers is still before the courts, as the Deputy may know, and it arises from a delay in implementing equal treatment.

In relation to the case raised by the Deputy, where a person leaves the work force, entitlement to short term benefits is retained only for as long as the contribution conditions continue to be satisfied. This can be for a period of up to two years after leaving work. Any contributions paid are of course reckonable for pensions in the longer term. Credited contributions which maintain social insurance cover, including cover for pension entitlements, may be awarded for periods of proven unemployment or certified incapacity. Where a person leaves the work force to take care of their family, they do not in the normal course qualify for credited contributions.

I know that in the past, many women felt that they "lost out" on social welfare entitlements because of the time which they spent working in the home and out of the paid workforce. I have taken a number of initiatives to improve their situation and to bring the social welfare system into line with the requirements of today's society.

I recently extended social insurance to 27,000 part time workers. This is a major step in providing these workers who are mainly women with entitlements to social welfare payments in their own right. I also extended social insurance to self-employed workers. This has given independent cover for pensions to thousands of spouses, all of whom would have had to rely on means-tested payments in the event of their husband's death. They also now qualify as contributory adult dependants on their husbands attaining age 66.

The carer's allowance which I introduced last November provides an independent weekly payment mainly to women who care for elderly pensioners.

The extension of the dental and optical benefit schemes to the dependent spouses of qualified insured persons was a positive move by the Government. It recognises the real needs of dependent spouses, mainly women working in the home, for dental and ophthalmic care. To date some 160,000 dependent spouses mainly women have received treatment under the extended schemes.

Increasingly, today's women and men in balancing their time between their families and the workplace, want options which meet their individual needs. Career breaks, worksharing and flexitime are examples of developments which have taken place to accommodate this trend.

The question of providing protection for social insurance entitlements already built up by workers in the light of these developments is one with which I have been concerned for some time. One way of providing such protection especially for women is to extend the credits facility to cover situations where time out from the workforce is taken for family responsibilities. I am very interested in the possibilities of this approach and we are examining this issue at present.

What about the woman in County Mayo?

The final report of the National Pensions Board will be completed this summer. The report will cover the development of the national pensions system well into the next century. Pension entitlement for women who work in the home or who have taken time out from work for family responsibilities are aspects of pensions which will be considered in that context. In other words, I am aware of the difficulties expressed by Deputy Connaughton and the National Pensions Board will report later in the summer on that aspect of pensions. However, they are very complex issues, as the Deputy will appreciate.

The very efficient and courteous manager of the employment exchange in Lismore, County Waterford, is retiring on 31 May, that is, next Friday week, and there is no guarantee that the employment exchange will be retained in the town after that date. I am asking for an assurance from the Minister tonight that such an exchange will continue to operate in Lismore.

There are 310 people signing on at this exchange currently and if it was closed, the alternatives would be for these people to sign on at the exchanges in Dungarvan, Fermoy or possibly Youghal or to sign on at the local Garda station in Lismore, Tallow, Cappoquin and Ballyduff. We should not call on these stations to provide the service. They would probably not be very happy about it, nor would they be able to cope with the work involved if the exchange no longer existed. It is vital that the exchange service be continued for the convenience of the public. It is a black spot where employment is concerned and the Minister for Labour has included it in his scheme of particular deprived areas. He has introduced a new scheme whereby 12 areas in the country are to be given special treatment to deal with unemployment and this area, around Lismore, has been designated as one of the areas in question.

Will the Minister tonight give a firm commitment that the employment exchange in Lismore will remain in that town, in that premises or in some other premises in the town? It is imperative that a commitment be given. I do not want to see the exchange closing on 31 May, because it may never reopen, and I do not want to see it kept open on a very temporary basis just to carry over through the local elections. I want to see it retained on a permanent basis. The Ceann Comhairle, as a Dáil Deputy, who represented that part of west Waterford so nobly for so many years will understand how remote an area it is and how difficult a problem it would create if the exchange were to close permanently.

My Department's services to unemployed persons who are resident in the Lismore area are at present provided through a branch employment office located in the town. Branch employment offices provide a limited range of services. Their managers are employed under a contract for service which requires them to provide their own staff and premises.

The Lismore office serves 275 unemployed people. Eighty-one of these claim unemployment benefit, 181 claim unemployment assistance and 13 sign for credited contributions. Of these, 207 people attend the office in person each week to sign the unemployment register and receive payment. The others sign at Garda stations and are paid at their local post office.

The branch manager in Lismore is retiring from his position with effect from 1 June next. I would like to pay tribute to the retiring manager. For almost 40 years he has provided for my Department's clients in Lismore a standard of service which has been exemplary in all respects. I would like to formally record my appreciation of his dedication and commitment. He and his wife and family have my best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

The retirement of the branch manager affords me an opportunity to review the arrangements which have been in place for many decades. While these have worked well in the past, recent developments, particularly in the information technology area, have seen major changes in the way in which my Department can deliver their services to our clients. Clients now want more information at local level, not only about unemployment payments but also about their entitlements generally.

My aim is to provide improved access to social welfare services. As part of this plan I will shortly announce a major restructuring of my Department. The new structure will be based on local and regional offices, each of which will administer the full range of my Department's services and provide improved access to information for clients across all our schemes. I am at present reviewing all the options available to me to achieve these aims in the south-east.

I can assure the Deputy that in the interim arrangements have been made to ensure continuity of the existing service to clients in Lismore following the retirement of the branch manager. From 2 June next the office will be staffed by officials of my Department. This arrangement will continue until such time as a decision is taken regarding the nature and scope of the service which best suits the people of Lismore.

That does not mean 28 June, I hope.

Not at all, Deputy. It is beneath the Deputy to think such things.

We have seen that before. Does the Minister remember the Mark Killilea telephone kiosks?

The Deputy should not even make that suggestion, because somebody might think that it was relevant. My Department are examining a total reorganisation of services and are aiming for an improvement in service delivery. The interests of the people of Lismore will be taken into consideration, the Deputy can be sure of that.

I take the Minister at his word. He is a man of his word, otherwise Larry Kelly should be representing Fianna Fáil in County Waterford.

There has been an alarming increase in juvenile crime in recent times in the town of Tralee. Many young offenders involved are allowed to walk the streets unpunished because of the lack of places available in juvenile detention centres. In one case both a young offender and his family pleaded with the authorities to have him placed in a detention centre. However, there was no place for him.

Tralee has recently experienced a large number of break-ins, both to businesses and private houses. The residents of Boherbee, Tralee, recently set up a special traders' association to organise themselves against the threat to their livelihoods posed by local criminals, both juvenile offenders and more seasoned criminals.

The people of Castleisland are very concerned about the spate of vandalism in their town that has taken place recently and during the past few years. Break-ins have occurred in schools, the convent, shops and lately in private homes. I have a list of 54 households the occupants of which live in fear, most of them are living alone and those who have been victims of robberies and threats find it very difficult to get over the trauma of their experiences.

There has been a very worrying increase in vandalism and the number of break-ins in the town of Listowel recently. That town is usually very quiet.

The Garda Síochána are coping with the problem as well as they can. Extra gardaí are needed on the ground in those towns so that more foot patrols can be provided, otherwise the situation could get out of hand.

The allocation of Garda manpower to individual areas is entirely a matter for the Garda authorities who inform me that measures are being taken to deal with the particular crime situation in the Listowel, Tralee and Castleisland areas. These include the effective deployment of regular foot and mobile patrols in the areas concerned and, in addition, extra patrols have been put into operation to meet the specific needs of certain areas. The gardaí are actively involved in promoting community based crime prevention schemes, such as Neighbourhood Watch and Community Alert, in the areas concerned and a number of such schemes have been established and are operating satisfactorily. The gardaí also offer crime prevention advice to all sections of the community and, in particular, close liaison exists with local traders, with a view to making their premises more secure.

I have studied the figures relating to both gardaí manpower and crime in the district. Manpower has remained at the same strength for the past three years; there has been no depletion in the number of gardaí available; crime decreased from 204 reported crimes in 1988 to 139 reported crimes in 1990 and for the first three months of this year the number of reported crimes stood at 33.

Perhaps there has been a major increase in crime in the past two months, but for the first quarter of the year the figures were static or reducing.

Then why are the local people so concerned?

The effectiveness of the measures to which I have already referred is being monitored closely by the Garda authorities, who have assured me that whatever further action may be required to tackle the problem in these areas will be taken. I thank the Deputy for raising the matter.

My grievance arose from a public relations scam on the part of the Minister for Justice last week.

The Minister announced, in a blaze of publicity, the opening of legal aid centres in Letterkenny and Dundalk. Those centres had been promised by the Minister and, indeed, also by his predecessor some three years ago.

My problem relates directly to the legal aid centre at Portlaoise, which has ceased operation, in effect, that centre has closed down. I do not intend to enter into argument with the Minister on the history of legal aid services in Ireland, suffice to say that placing the scheme on a statutory footing was promised as long ago as 1986, when the then Minister of Justice stated that the Department had the required legislation at an advanced stage of preparation. Nothing has happened since.

Portlaoise had a legal aid centre but that centre was closed down. It is one thing to have no service at all, but it is reprehensible and disgraceful to have a service withdrawn overnight. Clients and people with problems had entered into commitments with officers of the legal aid service in the area. Work is unfinished and uncertainty and confusion are now the order of the day.

There are hundreds of family law problems throughout County Laois and County Offaly that are at present being ignored. Clerks of the District Court, officials of the Minister's own Department, are now operating the service by means of issuing District Court summonses and applications. Surely the Minister will admit that is most unsatisfactory.

The fundamental thread of the legal aid system is service, but there is no service to the people of County Laois or County Offaly when they are expected to travel as far as Waterford or Dublin as a result of the service at Athlone being grossly understaffed and overworked.

I ask the Minister why the midland area has been abandoned and why we hear promises of the same funds being allocated when, in effect, those promises are nothing more than a public relations effort before the local elections. The Minister would accept that the issue of family law is expanding to meet the needs of the public, yet areas such as County Laois and the town of Portlaoise have been completely abandoned and the service is crumbling. I ask the Minister to address the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Initially, the Legal Aid Board operated a part-time law centre in Portlaoise. Due to staffing problems experienced by the board, which became acute about four years ago, the service from the law centre was suspended. The amelioration of the board's staffing difficulties in the interim has not been such as to allow the board to resume the part-time service from Portlaoise.

With the significant expansion of the scheme, which will take place this year as announced recently by the Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, and referred to by Deputy Flanagan, I am confident that the board will reassess the position in relation to the provision of legal services under the scheme at Portlaoise. I will bring the discussion in the House this evening to the attention of the board; I should point out that while the Minister's formal approval for the opening of full time law centres is specifically required under paragraph 6.1.2 of the civil legal aid scheme, the board can open part-time law centres — such as the one previously in operation in Portlaoise — on their own initiative and without reference to the Minister in accordance with paragraph 6.2.3 of the scheme.

The Deputy will be aware that Portlaoise was previously considered by the board as a suitable venue for a full-time law centre in 1986. This formed part of a proposed expansion under the Funds of Suitors Act, 1984, for provision for civil legal aid. The Deputy's party in Government at that time did not proceed with the proposal due to funding problems with the scheme.

The Minister for Justice hopes to continue with the development of the civil legal aid scheme on a phased basis depending on the overall budgetary position. Accordingly, the position regarding the provision of a full-time law centre in Portlaoise will be considered in this context.

The House must acknowledge and accept the fact that the Minister for Justice has made trojan efforts in providing extra staff and funding for the free legal board which is a measure of his commitment to the scheme and the people.

The House will now hear a two minute statement from Deputy Cotter.

I want to speak about the difficulties in operating the provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, relating to teenage drinking. The law in relation to teenage drinking offences should be repealed because teenagers in their thousands are breaking it every week. However, there were only 140 prosecutions during 1990 for teenage offences under the Act. This part of the Act is clearly in disrepute and has done nothing to protect teenagers from ruthless exploitation. For those reasons it is bad legislation.

Why was the legislation updated? The reason was — I remember it well because I was teaching at the time — that there was enormous public demand for more effective legislation. Sadly, however, there has not been any change, if anything it has got worse. The law was intended to protect teenagers from exploitation by people who are interested only in making money. The Act has spectacularly failed in that respect and as a result many people are saddened and disappointed. Why has the Act failed so lamentably? Is it because the Minister does not have the will to apply it? Is it because the legislation is inoperable? Whatever the reason, it has resulted in disaster because 140 prosecutions is the highest number recorded; in previous years the numbers were fewer. I should like to hear the Minister's response.

The Minister for Justice has already forwarded to Deputy Cotter details of prosecutions for supplying or selling drink to persons under 18 in 1989 and 1990. If the Deputy compares those figures with the number of prosecutions under this heading instituted in the six years before the 1988 Intoxicating Liquor Act came into force — these figures are available in the reports of the Garda Commissioner on crime for the relevant years — he will see that there has been a dramatic increase. In the seven year period from 1984 to 1990 the numbers are as follows: in 1984, when the Deputy's party were in power, there were 18 prosecutions; in 1985 there were 22 prosecutions; in 1986 there were six prosecutions; in 1987 there were 21 prosecutions; in 1988 there were 29 prosecutions; in 1989 there were 121 prosecutions, the 1990 figures are being compiled at present and will be in excess of the 1989 figures.

One of the new curbs on under-age drinking contained in the 1988 Act is that it is now an offence for a person under 18 years of age to purchase or to consume drink in any place other than in a private residence. In the two years since the operation of the Act, the number of prosecutions under this heading was 135 in 1989 and 133 in 1990, which is a very encouraging sign in such a short space of time. On the basis of these statistics the provisions are working as it was intended they should.

It should not be forgotten that the question of implementing the very wide-ranging and comprehensive legislative provisions to combat under-age drinking is a matter for the Garda. Everyone has a part to play in that process and breaches of the law must be reported to the Garda if the law is to be implemented with the necessary vigour by them.

On the related question of identity cards and controls over drink outlets in supermarkets, the Minister dealt with both of these issues in some detail in this House on two occasions, on 6 March last and again on 2 May and I have nothing to add to those remarks.

We are simply deluding ourselves if we think that more legislation is the panacea for the problem of alcohol abuse by young persons. We already have in place a sound legislative basis for action. Further moves lie ahead in the area of education, particularly to help young persons themselves to make informed decisions about alcohol. Indeed, a comprehensive major research project has been commissioned by the Advisory Council on Health Promotion as a prelude to the drawing up of a national policy on alcohol and I am pleased to be associated with that. This matter was outlined in detail by the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon, in this House on 26 February last. This policy will address the broader issues involved in alcohol abuse by young persons, such as the economic, social, educational, cultural and health factors, which impinge on the problem. The Minister will await developments in this regard with interest.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 May 1991.

Top
Share