On a point of order, the Minister was accusing me of not listening but the Minister was not listening to me.
Questions — Oral Answers (Resumed).
There is no need for a point of order, Deputy. I would like to proceed to the questions. I wish to facilitate your colleague, Deputy Higgins and Deputy Keogh and others, so let us proceed expeditiously.
I wish the Minister would answer the question which I asked him and for that reason, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I will rephrase it. In regard to a beneficiary who reaches the age of 66 whose spouse is perhaps between the age of 60 and 65, will the Minister not agree that his Department should allow the free telephone allowance to apply in such cases? I am not talking about the demise of any of the parties.
I read out for the Deputy the conditions which apply to the scheme generally——
Please do not read them again, Minister.
——and those conditions would have to apply in the first instance.
I want the Minister to change the conditions, I want him to address this question.
The Minister without interruption, please.
The Deputy asked me specifically about the over 15 year olds.
The Minister reads a script all the time.
The Deputy has had his answer to that.
Please allow the Minister to respond to the question.
In case the Deputy did not hear the answer the first time, as far as the 15 year olds are concerned——
The Minister should not waste the time of the House. He should answer the question I asked him.
— this is part of the scheme and to go above the limit would be a budgetary matter. It has always been assumed that children over the age of 15 were capable of getting assistance if it was required. In relation to the 66 years olds, where the beneficiary dies——
I am not talking about——
The scheme only applies to people who are——
I am asking the Minister to change the conditions. I gave him a scenario of changed conditions and I am asking him to comment on that and not to waste the time of the House or my time.
Please allow the Minister to respond.
The scheme is for those who are so permanently incapacitated that they could not get help in an emergency.
We know that.
The Deputy is asking me now to change——
That goes without saying. Will the Minister please answer my question?
If a beneficiary with a spouse is over 66 years of age and the beneficiary dies——
That is not the question.
In the first instance, if there is a beneficiary the assumption is that the person who is 60 plus is incapable of getting assistance.
Answer the question.
Surely the Deputy is familiar with the operation of the scheme.
Why will the Minister not answer the question I asked?
The question the Deputy is asking is if the beneficiary is over 66 and is incapacitated——
Why will the Minister not extend the telephone allowance in cases where the spouse is between 60 and 66 years of age?
Is the Deputy going outside the terms of the scheme?
I am asking the Minister to broaden its terms.
Is the spouse incapacitated also?
She may or may not be.
If she is she is in the scheme——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Connor, we cannot proceed with Question Time in this way. You have put your question and you must allow the Minister to respond.
We cannot proceed because the Minister is impossible. Pure waffle.
Any change of the nature suggested by the Deputy — to give a short reply — would have budgetary implications.
Not that mantra again, please.
That is the reality. The Deputy referred to the over 15 year olds but that would also have budgetary implications. There is also the question that that person would be regarded as someone capable of getting assistance. If the Deputy is talking about someone over 66 and a beneficiary, where the spouse is between 60 and 66 years of age and is incapacitated——
It is straightforward; extend the scheme. The Minister should be generous. Why will the Minister not address the specific question? He puts himself forward as a generous man. This is a small measure of suggested generosity by me; why will the Minister not take it on board?
I do not know if the Deputy understands the question he is asking.
I never heard such waffle in my life.
I do not think the Deputy has his question straight.
If my question is not straight, the Minister's answer——
That is what led me to the change in the budget, that if a beneficiary's spouse is left a widow, she will continue to have the additional benefit.
Well done. The Minister should acknowledge it. Perhaps if I praise the Minister he will answer my question.
It is well done. Widows are delighted——
They are not delighted since the Minister is applying a means test.
——that they will continue to have the free bus pass and the free ESB units. That is a tremendous development.
The Minister made the point that anyone over the age of 15 should be capable of summoning help in the case of an emergency, which seems to be a reasonable assumption. However, will the Minister also accept that there are 140,000 people of 15 years of age and over up to the age of 18 in school? A total of 98 per cent of 18 year olds are doing the leaving certificate and for eight hours a day, five days a week, eight months of the year, these people are absent from the home but, because technically these people are sleeping at home, the parents are disqualified from this scheme. Will the Minister agree that there would seem to be valid grounds for extending the conditions in this case?
The Deputy is talking about a considerable extension of the scheme to include families with children up to the age of 18 instead of 15. That would have significant budgetary implications and would have to be considered in that context.