Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 1980

Vol. 95 No. 2

Social Welfare (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill provides for a double week's payment in December 1980 to the recipients of long-term benefits and assistance under the social welfare code. It is the aim of the Government to improve and extend as far as possible social welfare schemes and payments. For example, recently it has been my privilege, as Minister for Social Welfare, to introduce a new national free fuel scheme and also to remove some of the restrictions on the free travel facilities for elderly people.

We are concerned to ensure that long-term social welfare recipients — those who are affected by advancing years, chronic ill-health or the exceptional pressures of widowhood — can meet the additional expenses which affect us all at this time of year. Accordingly, I am very happy that the Government, in the context of the second national understanding for economic and social development, undertook to provide these additional payments this year.

I should also like to mention, although it is not strictly relevant to this Bill, that a double week's payment is also being provided in the case of persons in receipt of disabled person's maintenance allowance, infectious diseases maintenance allowance, blind welfare allowance and domiciliary care allowance for handicapped children, all of which are administered by the Department of Health.

The people who, under this Bill, are being given the extra week's payment are those receiving old age pension, contributory and non-contributory, blind pension, widows' and orphans' pensions, contributory and non-contributory, retirement pension, invalidity pension, deserted wife's benefit and allowance, social assistance allowance for unmarried mothers, prisioners' wives and single women, and occupational injuries disablement pension and death benefit by way of pension.

The additional payment will generally be made at post offices on the appropriate day of payment of pensions and allowances in the second week of December 1980. Old age, blind, widows' and orphans' pensioners will be due payment on Friday, 12 December, the other categories on Thursday, 11 December.

The additional sum to be paid will be equal to the face value of the weekly pension or allowance order and will include all increases in respect of adult and child dependants and any supplements which form part of the regular weekly payments. Certain long-term recipients of occupational injuries benefit by way of pension are paid by cheque monthly in advance. These will be issued with cheques for December at the equivalent of five weeks' payment instead of four.

The numbers of people who will receive a double payment as a result of this Bill totals 345,000. These are made up of 196,000 old age and blind pensioners, 81,000 widows, 1,000 orphans, 32,000 retirement pensioners, 16,000 invalidity pensioners, 6,000 deserted wives, 8,000 social assistance recipients and 5,000 occupational injuries pensioners.

In addition, the increase payable in respect of a further 117,000 persons will also double for that week. The overall total of persons covered by the extra payment will therefore be 462,000.

The cost of the additional payment is estimated at £8.76 million, comprising £5.35 million for contributory and £3.41 million for non-contributory payments.

I feel confident that this Bill will commend itself to all Senators, and I ask for its early passage so as to ensure that the additional sums will be paid in time.

We welcome the Bill and the provision of the double week's payment which will come to the categories of people listed in the Bill. These are the most deprived section of the community, the old, the sick, the needy and the unemployed, the people who have not the organisation, the muscle or the power to insist on obtaining a better slice of the national cake as other sections so often do. Because of the position of these people I hold strongly to the view that those of us who are in any position to assist their situation should consider it a duty and an obligation to do so. There is a category of people whose living standards are poor and, we must admit, are getting poorer day by day. We debated the Social Welfare Bill, 1980 some months ago but the increases provided therein have been eroded by circumstances such as inflation and so on. We welcome this meagre increase, this little boost to the spending power of these categories up to the Christmas period. It will, I hope represent some small measure of satisfaction to the people who receive it.

Before I conclude I want to make one point to the Minister. I am aware, and I am sure many public representatives here and elsewhere are also aware, that there are people entitled to these payments who will not receive them because their claims and applications have been gathering dust on Department's shelves. In one particular case I know there has been a delay of 13 months. I feel that these people deserve consideration. They deserve the right to have their applications dealt with speedily. To fail to do so is to inflict an injustice on them. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that every possible effort would be made during the weeks between now and Christmas to deal with and decide on these payments and applications, some long outstanding. We support the Bill.

I welcome this Bill for several reasons. The first reason is that, together with the 20 per cent increase which was given by the Government in the budget to old age pensioners, it shows the Government's concern for the more deprived sections of the community. These two measures show the Government's reaction to the effects of inflation on pensioners as being immediate, sensitive and effective. I welcome this Bill also because it is part of the national understanding and it shows that the concern of the trade union movement is with decent living standards for elderly people rather than with a wages free-for-all. Another reason I welcome it is that it permits one to comment in a necessarily brief way on certain aspects of the social welfare system as they affect the elderly.

The social welfare system is designed to help those in need over what has been described as the "through" in the poverty cycle. For most people this "trough" occurs in families when their children are young and there is only one breadwinner. They are helped through the social welfare system by family and children's allowances. At the other end of the scale there is a "trough" when the same children are grown up and have gone away from the family leaving elderly parents alone and often destitute. Our system of social welfare payments is based on a community care system and this is a very good thing. The community cares for the elderly and one can see this particularly in rural areas. It is very difficult for someone who is old and destitute to be in real want in a small country community. There is always somebody to see that you have a meal or a fire; there is always somebody to go out for some wood. But what happens when the community in which you have lived all your life has gone, as has happened in the inner city area in Dublin? What happens to people who still cling to their homes? There is a very real need in this area and it has been illustrated by the reports of voluntary associations which have been formed to combat this need.

I know a Government's choice of priorities in the social welfare system is dependent upon public support, dependent upon the public's willingness to pay. It is also dependent upon informed public opinion on what its priorities should be. I know that the system is not boundless, that there are people always on the periphery of the social welfare system. I know that the public purse is not bottomless but surely the burden of looking after people on the periphery should not be left to voluntary organisations. The role of the voluntary organisations is merely to inform the public and surely the elderly have a very special place in the Government's list of priorities.

I should like to point out to the Senator that the scope of this Bill is limited.

Yes, I take the point but surely the claim of a society to be regarded as civilised should be based upon awareness of the needs of the old.

We in the Labour group also welcome this Bill. It is a small but nevertheless welcome measure for those who are recipients of long-term benefits and assistance who will have their benefits doubled for the week beginning 12 December. The Minister mentioned in introducing the Bill and Senator Cassidy also pointed out that it is something that was negotiated and agreed in the national understanding and therefore it is part of the Government's commitment.

I would like to make two serious criticisms of unnecessary restrictions in the Bill and I would ask the Minister to respond to these in his concluding speech. The first is a matter that was raised in the Dáil by my Labour colleague, Deputy John O'Connell, that is, that the Bill will only double the benefits of those who are in receipt of or are entitled to a particular benefit during the week beginning 12 December. If they were to become entitled on the day following the end of that week, on 20 or 25 December, Christmas Day, then they will not get the doubling up.

It is clear from the Minister's first sentence in introducing it that the idea is to provide a double week's payment in December 1980 to recipients of long-term benefits and assistance under the social welfare code. If that is the intention, and I support that intention, is does seem to be unnecessarily restrictive and basically discriminatory and unfair to take a very narrow point of reference, a particular week, and therefore exclude those who would become eligible a week later or before the end of December. The needs of these families, the needs of the old people concerned, if they were to become eligible after the week that the Minister has chosen in this Bill, are the same as those of any comparable families who will be getting the double benefit. I understand that the Minister said he would consider and look into this point and I would be grateful, even at this stage, if he would be prepared to amend the Bill and extend the period to cover anybody who is either in receipt of or would become eligible for the particular benefit during the month of December.

I appreciate that this may be inconvenient, that it may cause problems for the bureaucracy, but I would submit that those problems although they might be inconvenient in so far as implementing this is concerned, do not weigh against, first of all, justice to recipients of the benefits in comparison to other recipients of benefits, or against the needs of the families or the old age pensioners or of these more deprived and more vulnerable sectors of the population.

That is the first point on which I ask the Minister to comment. The second one is an omission from the Bill which I feel is hard to justify and seems to me to be unfair. It is one that was brought to my attention by an individual constituent and also by a number of social workers who are very concerned about it. The point is that unemployment assistance has been omitted. Senator Howard referred to the hardship of the unemployed, and we do not need to emphasise it at any great length, but these are families for whom Christmas is a hard time, particularly with very sharply rising costs in general and which are aggravated around the Christmas period. I appreciate that the scope and intent of the Bill is to cover long-term benefits and assistance, but a considerable number of people in receipt of unemployment assistance have been in receipt of it for a considerable time, sometimes in excess of two or three years.

I would like to drive home the point on the actual example of a husband with a wife and five children who is getting unemployment assistance of £52.15 a week. He has been on unemployment assistance certainly in excess of two years, possibly even longer than that. That is his only source of income and he will not get anything under this Bill; he will not get a doubling up at Christmas. If a deserted wife with five children got the deserted wife's allowance her take-home allowance would be £55.50 and she would get it doubled up for Christmas. That is not an artificially contrived example — it happens to be a real case — nor do I believe it is that unusual. There are certain areas, particularly in certain housing estates, where there are a number of families whose only income is unemployment assistance.

If the Minister wants to confine the doubling up benefit to those on long-term benefits he can do this without excluding those on unemployment assistance. I am not suggesting that it is necessary to limit it in this way but, for example, if he were to extend it to those drawing unemployment assistance who had already exhausted the period of unemployment benefit, it would then be clear that they were in fact in receipt of a longer term benefit or social welfare assistance.

There is really no distinction between the needs of those families and in the actual amount that they are getting. They can be worse off than some of the other recipients of benefits, for example, the deserted wife's allowance. A deserted wife who is getting the deserted wife's allowance may be employed. I am very much in favour of this benefit and I do not want to be thought critical of it. The deserted wife's allowance may be subject to taxation but not to means testing and she will get a doubling up at Christmas. I am not arguing against that. That is the case of somebody who is in a demonstrably better position to feed and clothe and provide for the needs of her family at Christmas than somebody on unemployment assistance for a considerable period. In view of the very serious unemployment situation and the fact that there are people unemployed who have been drawing this benefit for a number of years, I would ask the Minister very seriously to reconsider the matter and to amend the Bill. If necessary he should go back briefly to the Dáil with an amended Bill on those two issues, extending the period to cover the whole month of December so that people will not be discriminated against artificially by its present operation and extending it to those on unemployment assistance. If he wishes there could be some kind of stipulation that they must have been on unemployment assistance for a certain period but the Bill should not seriously and harshly exclude some families who are in very real need of this kind of benefit. Limited though it may be, it certainly would be a great help to these families around Christmas time.

It is very easy for Senators on both sides to support a measure of this kind because it has been provided for in the Estimate and it is part of the national understanding. I agree entirely with the concept that the Minister is promoting here. It is similar to the new national fuel scheme which he has recently introduced in order to make some additional means available for those in the category who badly need it. It is very easy for us on both sides to support such a measure because the necessary budgetary means have been made available. I suggest to the Minister that if it is possible for him to do so he should consider those who have recently become unemployed, perhaps for two or three months, as falling within the category. Although they are not long-term nevertheless anybody who has been in this position for a period of over three months is trying to adjust to a new situation for the time being. It is a situation which would be intolerable to any individual with a wife and family. Perhaps the Minister can manage to include that category for a double benefit at Christmas. It would make a considerable addition to the general purpose of this Bill.

Like other Senators, I welcome this Bill. It is obviously an imaginative and humane thing to make these extra payments coming up to Christmas. That is self-evidently benign and well judged.

There are two points I want to make. The first is that the Bill dramatises the need, that Senator Cassidy raised, of people who are deprived in the community, particularly old and lonely people in the inner city and such places. There are such people in certain areas of rural poverty also. Some of the benefits mentioned here, like the fuel provisions, are sometimes negatived by the fact that the community has broken down and these old people are at the mercy of unscrupulous young delinquents, and sometimes old delinquents. It draws our attention and, I hope, the Minister's attention, to the need for the increase in social services and social workers, people who can make these benefits flow uninterruptedly to the people for whom they are meant. That is merely a point which I think is worth emphasising in relation to the Bill.

The second point is, perhaps, a contradiction of the first. It is a point on which I feel it is necessary to cast a cold eye. I notice that the additional payment involved here is £8 million. This is a lot of money and it is to be disbursed in this one week. There is no doubt that the benefit is good and that the spirit of Christmas is behind it, but it makes one think about the wisdom of this kind of seasonal, ephemeral and transitory improvement in the lives of people. The sum of £8 million would build a good mental hospital somewhere. Very recently our attention was drawn to the national scandal and disgrace of our mental hospitals throughout the country and notice has been served on the Government and on the Minister for Health to do something about that in a short space of time. Whereas it would be heartless and Scrooge-like to say that this increased payment is not a good thing, on the other hand it is impossible not to think that £8 million could be put to something that is not as transitory and ephemeral as a one-week bonus in the course of one year. With that reservation, which I throw out towards the Government benches because there are better heads there to decide on priorities than I would lay claim to, I congratulate the Minister and the people who framed the legislation. Perhaps such matters as I have raised could be borne in mind when a benefit of this kind is contemplated at a future date.

I welcome the terms of this Bill because to some extent it helps those who are in most need. Mention has been made of the ephemeral nature of this Bill, but anybody who lives close to an old person or a person who has not got the means to help himself will know that coming up to Christmas this person will watch other people getting benefits from their jobs and other payments. Such people have to watch the shops getting brighter and brighter and they find that their houses are getting colder and colder. It is very necessary at this time of the year that they should be helped. People on long-term unemployment assistance might be brought into the scope of the Bill. They are regarded as people who are eternally out of work and never look for it, but there are many people in that category who cannot get work and who definitely need the benefit of a Bill such as this.

One of the problems I see about the Bill is that we are coming towards Christmas when there is maximum usage of the postal service and there will undoubtedly be problems in regard to the receipt of this benefit by people in areas where there may be delays because of postal difficulties. If they do not get the benefit in the week in which they are supposed to get it, it will cause a lot of people to make representations to public representatives. The unfortunate part is that because of the over-burdening of the phones in the Department of Social Welfare it will be impossible for us to get through. People will have to pay visits to Dublin and there will be a lot of problems for public representatives. I do not know what the answer is.

I suggested in the past that telex or computer terminals should be set up in various areas around the country so that public representatives and also the people who are in need of the benefit could go to a central point in a regional area and get the answer to their problem immediately. The reservations I expressed here are because of the time of year and because of the problems of the postal service at this time. The Bill undoubtedly will help many people. Like many others here and in the other House I feel that everybody who is in receipt of social welfare benefit should have the advantage of the double week, not only at Christmas but at any other time of the year when money is available. The Bill goes a long way towards helping people who need benefits. I sincerely hope that in the future its scope can meet the needs of people who have not got the means to help themselves.

I do not intend to delay the House very long. I feel obliged to say that people who are in receipt of unemployment assistance should certainly be included in the Bill. In the part of the country where I come from a large number of people are elderly. They may not be old age pensioners but they would certainly be in the 55-56 age bracket. A large number of them are living alone or with nobody in the house but a husband or wife and I am disappointed that this category has not been taken into the Bill.

I would like briefly to mention the number of applications to the Department of Social Welfare, particularly for non-contributory pensions. Recently I spoke with somebody who was inquiring about the delay in relation to an application for an old age pension which he applied for in July and he has not got any benefit yet. That man may or may not be in receipt of his old age pension by the given time in the Bill and this means that he is going to be debarred from the benefit in the Bill. I certainly think that the Minister should do something about the number of applications to the Department which have not yet been decided.

With the permission of the Cathaoirleach, I would like to refer to the fuel scheme which is mentioned in the Minister's speech. We clap ourselves on the back about this scheme but when we break it down it is not such a great scheme. Naturally it is an improvement on the old scheme in some cases because a greater number of people qualify for benefit or fuel under it than did under the old one. These people will get a voucher for £60 per year, that is for a period of 30 weeks. That will give them half a stone, or a bit less, of coal per day, just enough to light the fire each morning for the 30 weeks. If that is the best we can achieve with the free fuel scheme it is not a great achievement. I certainly think that this whole free fuel scheme will have to be looked at again. I am prepared to say that it is an improvement on the previous one but it certainly is no great achievement because the poorer people who were last year getting maybe three tons of coal per year are now down to the given amount of half a stone of coal per day.

The Minister just made a passing reference to that. It was not strictly relevant.

The Chair should have ruled him out of order. I asked the Chair's permission.

I am not ruling the Deputy out of Order.

I will finish briefly. I would not have taken the opportunity of mentioning it if it had not been mentioned in the Minister's speech. I am sorry if the Chair does not agree with me. I certainly think that this fuel scheme will have to be looked at because an old age non-contributory pensioner living alone is getting £21 per week and there is not enough in that to buy coal for the whole week and then he is given half a stone of coal per day which is of no use to him.

I, too, am very pleased that the Government are taking steps to implement this particular part of the non-wages elements of the national understanding. I take it that we will receive an assurance of the Government's intention to implement the other provision relating to the social welfare recipient's family, the provision requiring the Government to keep all long-term benefits in line at least with the inflation rate over the past 12 months. I wonder if we could have an assurance and a definite date in relation to the Government's intentions in that respect.

I hope, too, that the Government will act with equal speed and determination in implementing the other non-wages elements in the national understanding, especially in regard to unemployment. The Government have a major responsibility in respect of the wages elements in the national understanding in so far as they relate to the public sector. In this connection I am informed that many local authorities and State and semi-State companies are already in difficulty in that they have not received authorisation from the Government, or financial aid for that matter, to enable them to implement the national understanding. I am told, in fact, that the RTE Authority have notified all their employees of their inability to pay the retrospective money this year.

This is not relevant to the Bill before us.

I should like to add my voice to the voices of the other Senators in relation to this Bill. I welcome here today the Minister for Social Welfare who is a forward social thinker and whose concern for the people in the welfare area has been evident over the period he has been in office. The Minister, being a forward social thinker will take note of the grave and depressing problems that sometimes confront the people. The Bill shows the Government's concern to meet their responsibility fully and effectively. The increases in the budget and the increases before us here are an indication of the Government's concern to deal with this problem in its entirety. No matter what amount is made available I am sure that every Member of the House will say that it is not enough. When we examine the situation and we see the way that half a million of the weaker section are being treated here we can see that the people who formulated the national understanding are concerned and are implementing it.

But there is another side to the social welfare problem. That is the abuse of the system that probably deprives these people of some additional benefits. Indeed, many public representatives are assisting people in the abuse of the system. On the day we can say that these abuses no longer continue to benefit the people who are abusing the system and depriving the weaker section of benefits, we will have done a good day's work. I would like to know what is a deserted wife. I have known deserted wives who while they were getting the deserted wife's allowance were not necessarily living apart from their husbands.

The Senator will have to relate more to the Bill.

The grave abuses of the system are depriving the very needy sections, which the Government and the trade unions are endeavouring to help, of additional benefits.

The Senator must understand that the abuses do not arise on this Bill. This is a specific Bill dealing with doubling the amount to be paid over Christmas.

I understand. However, the situation is that the abuses within the social welfare code can have a detrimental effect on the people who are so deserving of and entitled to every assistance in the overall situation.

The overall situation does not arise on this Bill either.

We will have to have some action taken in this matter and I hope public representatives will stand up and be counted when it is time to take action.

I would like to welcome the Minister, Deputy Woods, and to thank him for including handicapped children in the Bill. I rarely say anything here but this is a field I have served in for a long time. I thank the Minister and I welcome the Bill.

Senator Brugha said the Bill is unusual in that it was being welcomed on all sides of the House, something that does not happen to too many Bills. As to the level of welcome, I discern a slight difference in the amount of enthusiasm with which the Bill has been greeted. Let me say straight away that my enthusiasm will not equal the enthusiastic reception on the other side of the House. The Bill is welcome because it gives this section of the community extra money at an emotive time of the year; it gives one extra week's payment. But what is really needed for these people is increases to keep their allowances in line with inflation. I do not know if the increases which the Minister granted in the budget this year, which in any event did not come into effect until April after a quarter of the year had gone, kept in line with inflation. I would be glad to hear from the Minister if the increases have matched inflation. If not it would blunt my feeling that the Bill is less generous than it might be.

Senator Robinson mentioned — and she was supported by Senator Reynolds, speaking from experience in his part of the country — the omission from the Bill of the persons getting unemployment assistance; they are numerous and often living in conditions of real hardship. I would like to support the pleas at this eleventh hour for their inclusion in the Bill. I appreciate that there is a considerable number of people in that category. But having regard to the rather ruthless weeding-out that has been taking place among the recipients of unemployment assistance in the last year or so, I am quite certain that the numbers have dropped considerably and that the financial burden on the Exchequer is not beyond its capacity to bear. The amount of relief that it would give to the people would be significant in their individual terms.

There is another category of persons whose omission I find difficult to understand. That is the people in receipt of the blind person's pension. The Minister in his speech said that the objective of the Bill is to assist recipients of long-term benefits and assistance. Obviously there is no person going to be in receipt of a longer-term benefit than the blind person who has to suffer that disability for a life time. I am puzzled as to why the Minister has omitted blind persons because there is a means test and the rates are roughly equivalent to the old age non-contributory pension. It would seem to be the type of benefit that the Minister meant to include. I would be anxious to know——

It is in it.

I am glad to hear that. I take back all I have said.

Another point I would support the previous speaker in is the question of the delays in getting out payments from the Minister's Department. I am quite certain that the Minister's machinery to pay the double week's benefit for the week of 12 December is well advanced. I hope that the attention which that has to get, and properly get, has not compounded the arrears position within the Minister's Department because, like any other public representative, I am constantly getting complaints from members of the public entitled to benefits and allowances who are not getting them in a reasonable time. It does confirm what many of us see from other areas of Government, that there must be a cash shortage and it is being concealed by the Minister's inefficiency.

The rate of payment of housing grants is scandalously slow. Agricultural grants are a constant bone of contention to every representative from a rural constituency. There seems to be a deliberate administrative delay in order to ease the Exchequer burden. I hope that some steps will be taken and if steps cannot be taken, let us know that at least there is going to be delay. Let us end the situation where people have expectations of getting grants and become disillusioned and frustrated with the public representatives and their whole contempt for the system grows. If they were told that there is a cash crisis, that there is a cash shortage and that there will be delays in payment, it would be much healthier that people would know this, instead of the Government trying to conceal it by contrived administrative delay. That would be a preferable position.

The next point I want to make is that the practice in the Department in relation to the means test has become significantly harsher. I would not say that there is a witch hunt going on among recipients of non-contributory benefits of one kind or another but many people feel that it is approaching those proportions. It is very difficult when there has been an alteration in somebody's means as a result of an investigation and a change in the level of benefit to get from the Department the precise figures on which the change has been made so that it can be argued as to whether it is just or valid. I hope that that is not the spirit in which these people are being approached.

I take the point made by Senator Dowling that there are abuses; there are unscrupulous people who undoubtedly abuse the system. I do not think it is fair to say that they are assisted by Oireachtas Members. To say that would be unfair and inaccurate because Oireachtas Members get lots of abuse from people who feel that the system is being abused and are being constantly asked what they are doing about it. But, of course, when we ask the six mark question, "Give us the name and address of the person who is abusing it?" they say "Well, we would rather not do that".

The Chair feels that the Senator is going outside the scope of the Bill.

I am reflecting on an earlier contribution. To get back to the point I was making with regard to the recipients in the Bill, some of them will not get the benefit for a considerable time because their means may have been revised upwards so as to disqualify them and those means may be on appeal. I would ask the Minister to ensure that, if there is an appeal against a revision of means, it is dealt with quickly and that the full information is made available in the first instance to whoever makes the inquiry. I welcome the Bill; everybody must welcome an extra week's payment for the categoties concerned. I hope that in next year's budget it will be possible to provide for substantial improvements for all these people, not just for one week but for the entire year.

I am not standing up to put any reservations; I welcome the Bill. That is not to say that I disagree with the reservations being made. It is a good development in the area of social services and, having regard to the fact that it had to be negotiated, one must take into consideration that the negotiators on both sides have to deal with the circumstances they find themselves in. Had there been much more leverage on it, it would have yielded something better. However, it is a good precedent in the area of social welfare. I welcome the Bill and I hope we will see something in the same direction in the not too distant future.

I would like to add my voice to those of the previous speakers. I also welcome the Bill. I am sure the Minister had the best intentions in the world in trying to get it through for this Christmas. I would suggest that he introduce legislation to ensure that in future years Governments will be found to make these double week payments each Christmas.

While I am on my feet I want to mention that I am very concerned about the delay in social welfare payments and the delay in taking decisions because of problems in relation to cases going for examination. I would suggest that the Minister must have the machinery at his disposal to enable him to avoid these undue delays.

While this Bill is welcome from the point of view of those who will get the extra week's pay or allowance I suggest to the Minister that there are certain categories, particularly the old age pensioners, who are very badly off. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how old age pensioners can live today in any sort of decent circumstances on the allowances that are available to them. I would suggest to the Minister that he might regularly review this position in the future.

I would like to thank the Senators for their contributions and for the general welcome which this Bill has received. I will deal with the individual points that were made.

Senator Howard was concerned particularly about the delays. A number of Senators instanced delays and were concerned about delays, particularly in relation to non-contributory pensions of one sort or another. Of course some delay is inevitable there because there is a question of determining whether a person is eligible or not and the extent to which he or she is eligible. That involves delay on both sides. I can only say that I have taken some measures already this year to facilitate and speed up claims, in particular in relation to the transfer of lands, and these are working fairly smoothly at this stage; or so Deputies and Senators tell me. I will do anything I can to facilitate that, but I would say that in relation to this measure it is important to be clear that anyone who is eligible at the time, even though his eligibility may not be finally determined, he will still be entitled to the increases. There may be no fears in that respect because of assessments going on.

Senator Cassidy spoke about the budget and she mentioned the 20 per cent — it was 25 per cent in the case of the long-term beneficiaries and 20 per cent for the short-term. I noted a point which the Senator made and it was made again later, in congratulating both the Government and the unions on co-operating and agreeing to this as one of the measures to be included as part of the negotiations. Senator Harte brought that out again later.

Senator Robinson raised two points, firstly in connection with those who are eligible in the relevant week and asked what would be the position in relation to people who became entitled subsequently. First and foremost, to be quite clear about the technicality, the national understanding is quite clear on that — it provides that additionally as a special measure, the Government will make a double payment for one week in December in weekly social welfare payments to long-term social welfare recipients. I appreciate the problem raised by the Senator and by other Senators. The number of recipients who would be affected in that way would be very small. There will be new beneficiaries but they would normally have come from a situation in which they would have had better benefits and they will be coming on to some long-term benefits. They would not have been on it for any long term or medium term, they would be only commencing on it. I said that if it is feasible, I would certainly subsequently consider any measure which might bring them in. Certainly in relation to this Bill I feel that to go back and amend it at this stage would be very difficult administratively.

On this particular question, some of the very late claims will not be decided until well into next year in any event — into January. Nevertheless, I will see if anything can be done in relation to this matter but it is very important to get this Bill through now without delay. It is very urgent. If it does not go through now, then the effects of that will be to delay the payments before Christmas, which I trust the Senators would not want.

The question of omissions from the Bill was mentioned. There are no omissions from the Bill in relation to the undertaking that was given in the national understanding and that was that the long-term recipients would receive benefits. To include unemployment assistance would add about 194,400 beneficiaries or 64,300 payees. These have not been regarded to date as long-term. I appreciate the points made by the Senators but the Bill is entirely in agreement with the arrangements which were made under the national understanding.

I would also like to point out that some people were concerned about possible delays in paying this money. In effect, the approach on this occasion in that people with existing pension books will be paid on the double — in other words, you just bring in your existing pension book and you are paid twice on the face value of the relevant payable voucher. I can assure Senator Lanigan that there will be no postal delays in this case; postal cases will go out in late November and that should, hopefully, be an advantage to a small number that are involved in that area.

These were references to the fuel scheme; it is important just to mention, very clearly, that the national fuel scheme does include an additional 26,000 people; it does represent approximately 70 per cent overall increase in expenditure in that area this year. That is very substantial. I appreciate that some Senators said that they would like to see further improvements and certainly would like to see them in the future. I note the point made by Senator Honan in relation to the handicapped and I thank her for the welcome which she has given me here.

In relation to the consumer price index, it is fairly clear that the increases given in April of this year of 25 per cent are greater than the 18.85 per cent being the annual increase to August or, if you relate it to our total expenditure, you will find it very much greater in effect.

I would say to the Senators that we will advertise this widely to make it known very clearly and implement it as expeditiously as possible. I would hope that the Senators would facilitate me in getting it through the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share