asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of a statement (details supplied) made by a member of the Oireachtas that widows are to get an increase of 15 per cent in their pensions and that the provisions for free electricity and free television licences will be extended to them; and if he will make a statement on these matters.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
16.
I have seen the statement to which the Deputy refers but I would remind him that any proposals for increases in social welfare payments, including payments in respect of widows' pensions, or for other improvements in the schemes administered by my Department must await consideration in connection with the Budget.
May I ask the Minister why members of his party who are not members of the Government can make statements like this and whether they represent the views of the Government?
The statement I read from the Deputy concerned referred to a forecast.
Yes, but the Minister is aware that a statement was made.
He made a forecast.
He is the chairman of the Social Welfare Committee and he was speaking on the Minister's behalf.
No, he is the secretary.
Is the Minister aware of another statement having been made by a backbencher to the effect that there would be pay-related social welfare benefits and would he agree with this form of announcement?
No.
He does not agree?
I mentioned pay-related benefits in my Estimate speech.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister agree that when the secretary of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Committee for Social Welfare, Health and Labour makes a forecast of that nature some weight is given to it and that either the Deputy concerned is flying a kite which has no validity or one which has the Minister's approval? Surely the Minister would agree that it is undesirable that this type of politicking should be indulged in even if they are backbenchers?
A Cabinet reshuffle.
What I read was described as a forecast and I suppose one could accuse the Deputy of intelligent anticipation based on past performance.
(Interruptions.)
Based on promises for the referendum. Is that it?
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a large number of disability benefit recipients were disqualified from benefit in Christmas week, 1971; and if he will state why this action was taken.
I am not aware that a large number of disability benefit recipients were disqualified for receiving disability benefit in Christmas week 1971. The answer to the second part of the question does not therefore arise.
Did the Minister make any inquiries in his Department to find out whether people that I can only describe as sadists, officials of his Department, investigated claims of those who were in receipt of social welfare disability benefit and gave a decision that meant disqualification for payment in the week before Christmas and in Christmas week, knowing well that the people concerned would be unable to have any income during Christmas week? Would the Minister say, if he made that investigation, what was the result?
My investigations would reveal that the number of cases occurring weekly around that time were no different from the average.
Did the Minister find that out?
Yes. People may have payment of disability benefit discontinued at any time as a result of a medical referee examining them but the incidence of this in Christmas week was no greater than on previous occasions.
Would the Minister take the necessary steps, if he is still there, to ensure that this does not happen again knowing that these people cannot recover any type of payment during Christmas week if they are disqualified because they are not told about it until afterwards and they do not get any money? Will the Minister do that? Did the Minister say "yes"?
I do not like to see any payment to anybody cut off in Christmas week.
The Minister can stop it if he is still there.
18.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare what effect this country's entry into the EEC will have on unemployment assistance as regards the small farmer in the West.
The entitlement to unemployment assistance of small-holders in the specified areas of congestion will not be affected on entry of this country into the EEC.
Is the Minister aware that the bulk of the small farmers in the West will vote against entry into EEC if they feel that they will lose their unemployment assistance? Would the Minister state that those small landholders in the West will not lose their unemployment assistance as a result of entry into EEC?
I have stated unequivocally in my reply that they will not be affected. Their right to unemployment assistance is no different from that of any other recipient of unemployment assistance.
It is a subsidy to agriculture.
Question No. 19.
Will the Minister not agree that the system for assessment of unemployment assistance in respect of farmers will change when the transitional period has expired and that the present system cannot operate subsequent to——
I do not agree at all.
The question deals specifically with the West.
I shall have a question on the Order Paper tomorrow because the Minister will accept that we got definite information that this payment of direct subvention to farmers will not obtain under the welfare——
That is a general question. Question No. 19.
This cannot continue and——
Question No. 19.
More tomorrow.
19.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why unemployment benefit was refused to a person (name supplied) in County Meath; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The claim to unemployment benefit from 29th September, 1971, by the person in question was disallowed by a deciding officer on the ground that the statutory condition for receipt of unemployment benefit which requires a claimant to be available for employment was not satisfied. The decision of the deciding officer was upheld by an appeals officer after an oral hearing on 22nd November, 1971, at which the claimant attended and gave evidence.
As the Deputy is aware deciding officers and appeals officers are completely independent in the exercise of their statutory functions and are not subject to direction by me in relation to the decisions given by them.
I am not so aware. Is the Minister aware that the person concerned was a nurse and if a nurse is unable to find employment and has been stamping an insurance card surely she is entitled to draw unemployment benefit when she is unemployed? If she was working before this and since this, how can anybody, whether from Social Welfare or anywhere else, say that she was not available for employment? How was this decided?
The fact that she could not find employment was not the only qualification; she had to prove that she was available. My answer says that we were not satisfied that she was available.
How does one satisfy people who make those inquiries? She was a married nurse who was looking for employment. How was it proved? As she has since been employed, how did the Department officials decide that she was not available for work, or what kind of stupid men are they? This has happened in other walks of life and the Minister is aware of this.
(Cavan): They must protect the fund.
It is not my job to comment on what may or may not have influenced the decision of a deciding officer who is an absolute authority unto himself and I would not like it to be otherwise. The lady in question, if we are talking about the same person, whose husband is a bank official and who is a nurse, employed domestic help when she worked and when she was not working she did not.
She stamped an insurance card.
This is the important thing.
When she worked.
The Minister admitted he was dissatisfied with the way in which some of his own constituents were treated. Surely he should do something about this.
When did I say I was dissatisfied?
Here in this House and it is on record. I will produce it for the Minister.
Would the Minister consider replacing these individuals by a committee——
The Deputy will have to put down a question.
I am asking a question.
No matter who replaces them they will have to abide by certain regulations and conditions. There will be cases in which we will have to refuse and people will not like it then when they are refused.
Every married woman is refused but they take the stamps from her just the same.
20.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if it is a fact that domestic servants who lose their employment are not entitled to unemployment assistance unless they have ten years insurance contributions paid.
The statement in the question—which, it is presumed, relates to unemployment benefit and not to unemployment assistance—is not correct. The position is that all persons, men and women, employed mainly in domestic service, private or otherwise, are insured for unemployment benefit and, with the exception of females in private domestic service, qualify for that benefit under the ordinary contribution conditions.
In the case of females in private domestic service there is a special reduced rate of contribution and an additional contribution condition applies which modifies the general scheme of unemployment benefit to meet the needs of this particular class of insured persons. The additional condition requires that the claimant be in social insurance for at least ten years and that she satisfies a yearly average test, related to her age, of contributions paid during that period. The test requires a yearly average of paid contributions of (a) 40 where the claimant's age is up to 30 years; (b) 35 for the age bracket 30 to 50 years; and (c) 30 where age is from 50 to 65 years.
The additional condition does not apply if a woman is over 65 years or if she has changed from private domestic employment and has become regularly engaged in another occupation and 26 contributions reckonable for unemployment benefit have been paid in respect of her since she changed her occupation.
Will the Minister tell us why this discrimination exists against one of the most helpless sections of the community, namely, girls engaged in domestic employment? Surely the time has come to change this out-dated system and treat these in the same way as other employees are treated. The Minister will agree that a change was made recently so far as agricultural workers are concerned. Both the employer and the employee pay for the stamp during the period and surely there is no justification for this discrimination. To my mind it is quite unconstitutional. I hope the Taoiseach is listening to this because it is no harm for the Taoiseach as head of the Government to know this.
(Cavan): Would the Minister not agree this regulation is quite out of date? Would he not think it fairer to revise the regulation now so that those in domestic service can qualify in the same way as everybody else? Would he not agree there is not much point in setting up a committee on the status of women when certain women are discriminated against in this way?
Is it true that the reason why this regulation is there is to keep a cheap supply of domestic servants?
Will the Minister reply to the supplementary? Will he answer my supplementary question?
The Deputy asked the Taoiseach a question about the constitutionality of this and it is not for me to answer. I have answered this question on numerous occasions in this House.
(Cavan): The Minister is ashamed and I do not blame him.
Not so long ago they were not entitled to anything. I do not want to go back on this again. I have answered this question on many occasions. The regulation has been updated on many occasions. I hope it will be updated again. I would ask those who ask these questions to reflect on the past and on how these things came about.
(Cavan): It is the present and the future we want to think about.
Why should there be a differentiation between employees cleaning a house, washing cups and clothes and those engaged in other employment? Why should there be this discrimination against this particular group? It is no harm to air the matter here in the hope of getting the position rectified.
There is no discrimination. The contribution is lower and the conditions are different.
21.
(Cavan) asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a widow who is in receipt of a non-contributory widow's pension and a blind pension has in effect her pension reduced to half on reaching the age of 70; and, if so, if he will take steps to have this amended in the regulations.
A widow who is blind may be entitled to a non-contributory widow's pension under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts and to a pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts as a blind person. A non-contributory widow's pension is not payable after age 70 and a blind widow, like all other widows, ceases to receive such pension on attaining that age.
Legislation would be necessary to effect any change in this regard in relation to widows who are blind. Such legislation is not contemplated.
(Cavan): Will the Minister agree that a widow, who is blind and in receipt of a widow's pension and a blind pension, has her pension reduced from £8.50 to £4.40 when she reaches 70 years of age and does the Minister not agree that it is harsh, even cruel, to deprive a person of £4.40 of a pension for no other reason than that she had reached the age of 70, a time when she is in more need of money, and will the Minister now give an undertaking that he will initiate steps to introduce legislation to change this unfair state of affairs?
Any alleviation of this problem would have to be considered in relation to the whole category of persons who lose particular social welfare benefits when they reach 70 years of age. There are many other benefits——
(Cavan): They are not reduced.
——payable to people which are discontinued when they reach 70 years of age. One would have to examine the matter over the broad spectrum.
(Cavan): Is there any other category which has its pensions halved on reaching 70 years of age? I do not think there is.
A widow with a poor farm carrying a high valuation is cut in her pension when she reaches 70 years of age. This is most unfair.