Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 1971

Vol. 254 No. 10

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

23.

(Cavan) asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a deserted wife with a qualified child in receipt of a deserted wife's allowance ceases to be entitled to that allowance when her child reaches the age of 18 and if she is still under 50 years of age; and, if so, if he will amend the relevant regulations.

In the circumstances mentioned by the Deputy the allowance would cease unless the child continued to receive full time education in which case the allowance would continue until the child reached 21 years of age. The scheme of allowances for deserted wives has been in operation only since 1st October last and, as I pointed out in replying to a similar question some time ago, it is being kept under review with a view to making such improvements in it as experience may show to be desirable. A reduction in the age limit is one of the possible improvements which will be considered in due course. Such a change in the scheme would, of course, require legislation.

(Cavan): Would the Minister agree that the intention of the scheme for deserted wives was, broadly speaking, to put the wife in the position of a widow and if that were so in the case of a widow in the circumstances outlined in the question she would not lose the pension, as the Minister informed me last week? In the case of a deserted wife who had been receiving a pension since the scheme came in, her one child attained the age of 18 and got a job as a trainee. The wife was about 48. She is deprived of this pension or allowance until she reaches the age 50. Would the Minister not agree that it is harsh to give the allowance to the wife and then take it from her? Would the Minister consider remedying this in the Social Welfare Bill which he will be introducing in the near future?

This matter was fully discussed when the Bill was before the House. A few Deputies had some reservations regarding the age limit of 50 and I indicated then that my ideas were flexible as regards changing this if at some time it appeared the limit was too high.

I thought the Minister said he was going to go ahead with it. My recollection is that is what happened.

(Cavan): The widow is in a different position. The deserted wife is not in as favourable a position as the widow in this respect. I would ask the Minister to avail of the Social Welfare Bill which he will be introducing, I presume, before the recess, to remedy this position.

24.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if steps will be taken to abolish the means test in respect of all blind pensions; if he has received representations on the matter; and, if so, what decision has been reached.

No representations in respect of abolishing the means test as applied to blind pensions are currently under consideration and no change in the present position is in contemplation.

25.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider extending the free travel scheme to include persons in receipt of disabled persons (maintenance) allowance.

The free travel scheme administered by my Department was devised primarily for old people, aged 70 or over, who are receiving social welfare type pensions. Further extension of the scheme is not contemplated.

26.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the percentage increase in old age pensions and disability benefits in each of the past five years.

As the answer is in the form of a tabular statement I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Chomhairle, to circulate it with the Official Report.

Following is the statement:

Percentage increase in each year

Year

Non-contributory old age pension

Contributory old age pension

Disability Benefit

Personal rate

Married couple

Personal rate

Married couple

1966

10.5

20

22.8

23.5

27.6

1967

9.5

No increase

No increase

No increase

No increase

1968

13

8.3

9.3

9.5

10.8

1969

15.4

11.5

12.8

13

14.6

1970

13.3

(a) 13.8

(a) 15.1

(a) 15.4

(a) 17

(b) 21.2

(b) 11.5

(b) 12

(b) 11.3

(a) increase effective from January 1970.

(b) ,,,,,,October 1970.

27.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (name supplied) in County Cork had his contributory old age pension withdrawn.

The person concerned was not receiving contributory old age pension, not yet having reached 70 years of age.

He was, however, in receipt of a retirement pension up to 10th March, 1971, when pension was terminated on receipt of evidence that he had resumed employment.

Is the Minister aware that this man is in receipt of home assistance from the county council because of the circumstances in which he is living and were it not for this home assistance he would be in a very bad way?

I understand he has a current application for unemployment benefit in respect of the days he does not work. I believe the application has been granted in respect of four days per week which is the best that can be done under the regulations.

Is the Minister aware that the home assistance officer investigated this case and he along with Cork County Council and the authorities permitted this man to be given £3.50 per week? I would ask the Minister to look into this case again. This man gave service to his country.

I have looked into the case which has been dealt with in accordance with the regulations.

28.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of people disqualified from receiving any form of assistance under the recent Unemployment Assistance (Employment Period) (Amendment) Order, 1971.

The number of men resident outside municipal towns who have no dependants and who have been disallowed unemployment assistance so far since the commencement of the employment period on 14th April last is 15,172. Since 28th April 1971, however, 6,964 such men have been admitted or re-admitted to unemployment assistance, these being islanders or persons aged 50 and upwards who are exempted under the provisions of the Unemployment Assistance (Employment Period) (Amendment) Order, 1971. The difference of 8,208 is the approximate number of men at present disqualified for unemployment assistance by reason of the employment period.

Does the Minister not agree that it was a dreadful thing for the Government to dispossess 8,000 poor people living in the worst areas of this country from the meagre subsistence given to them which allowed them to eke out a living in order to save such a small sum of money? These people have been reduced to starvation level; they are not fit to emigrate which in their case might be something of a blessing.

I do not agree.

This is a statistical question which does not lend itself to such supplementaries.

As the Chair knows, I try at all times to be in order and I appreciate the Chair's rulings, but this is a very important matter. I have waited a number of weeks so that the matter would be clarified before asking this question and I feel I should be allowed to ask the Minister if he does not agree that this was a mistake. Would he further agree that it has now been shown that 8,000 of the poorest people in the poorest parts of this country have been dispossessed by this Government of the smallest pittance they were ever offered?

I do not agree and furthermore, I repudiate what the Deputy is trying to state that these are the poorest people. They are single people under 50 with no dependants. I have included round the year persons with dependants, persons over 50 and islanders which is something which was not done heretofore. That side of the House has never had a favourable word to say about it until now.

Does the Minister not agree that whatever may have been done for people with dependants, the 8,000 people without dependants, are considerably poorer now? When the Minister says he repudiates my statement is he dealing with fact or fantasy? I prefer to deal with fact.

I am dealing with fact here.

What proportion of that number are now on home assistance and how much is it costing the State?

That is a separate question.

It is costing the State more through the local authorities although the Minister may not be aware of that.

Would the Minister be able to get that information for us?

After some time I will be able to give information about the number of persons who may have applied for unemployment assistance. I have mentioned before in relation to this matter that if there are people who are applying for unemployment assistance or disability benefit they were not, under a strict interpretation of the Unemployment Assistance Act, eligible for unemployment assistance anyhow.

If the Minister says that he cannot know what the rules are. Of course, they were entitled to unemployment assistance and if they were starving they were then given home assistance. The Minister should at least know that.

(Cavan): Can the Minister say when it is proposed to introduce the scheme promised in the Budget speech—a sort of health scheme—to deal with the people the Minister has been talking about? Is it proposed to go ahead with that scheme?

Not merely to deal with these people but to deal with all people in receipt of unemployment assistance.

(Cavan): Can the Minister say when?

No, I will not be precise.

Would the Minister like to bet on the number of seats Fianna Fáil will lose in the next election?

I have been listening to talk about the number of seats that Fianna Fáil have been going to lose since I came into the House 20 years ago.

How much a seat?

(Interruptions.)

Every time the Opposition see a bit of adversity they look for an election.

Fine Gael had their chance in Donegal.

(Interruptions.)

Order, order. I am calling Question No. 29.

Barr
Roinn