Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Mar 1981

Vol. 327 No. 9

Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill, 1981: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. McMahon

Last night and again this morning we had a great deal of noise over an issue which many people would not consider to be the most important issue today. The noise and confusion in this House did not hit the headlines, but today's headlines must concern the Minister. As I said yesterday, the Minister for Social Welfare is a failure. He has failed, as his predecessor failed, to bring the Department up to 1981 standards. He has failed to provide for the aged, the infirm and those dependent on the social welfare cheques they are supposed to receive. Today people on social welfare are worse off than they were six or 12 months ago and are very much worse off than they ere four years ago.

I do not know if the Minister took the advice I gave him yesterday to compare the prices on the everyday shopping lists of the old age pensioners, widows and many others with the average increases granted by this Government over the past four budgets. If he does that he will find that many of these people are living well below the bread line and are far worse off in real terms than they were four years ago. If he made those calculations last night, he will have to do them again today because, as is reported in the press, we have had a mini-budget. Petrol has been increased by 12p per gallon. It can be said that the price of petrol does not affect the old age pensioner, the widow or the unemployed. Of course, if does. It affects everybody.

A Deputy on the Government side referred yesterday to Opposition complaints regarding the budget and made some comparison with the budget introduced this week in Britain. Let him make that comparison today. Our budget increase in the price of petrol was not the end of the story. Today's newspapers report another mini-budget, following the mini-budget introduced a week before the actual budget which massively increased the price of coal and bread. Those on social welfare benefits have not yet been compensated for these increases.

Some minutes ago I was highly amused that the loud laughter from the Government benches regarding remarks on the neutrality issue came from the Minister for Social Welfare. One would think he was doing the job he was appointed to do and that he was happy in his position. I call on the Taoiseach to consider even at this late stage the appointment of a Minister for Social Welfare holding that portfolio only. The Taoiseach himself formerly held the posts of Minister for Social Welfare and Minister for Health and there were appeals from this side of the House, and even some words from the Government side, that a Minister be appointed to the Department of Social Welfare alone.

It is now over a year since junior Ministers were appointed who have very little to do. We seldom, if ever, hear from them. The Taoiseach almost appointed Ministers for dog licences. The Department of Social Welfare look after the less well-off in our society and those who cannot provide for themselves and who are not highly organised. Nobody would dream of putting the Department of Agriculture with another Department because there would be protest marches in every town and village. Because the Department of Social Welfare deal with old age pensioners, widows and the unemployed who have not a loud voice, the Taoiseach has chosen to treat them in a manner which is not fitting. I am sure he could find another person in his party willing to take on the responsibility of cleaning up the Department of Social Welfare and ensuring that those entitled to benefits received them on time.

Many of those who have been waiting for weeks to receive their benefits will wonder what is going on in this House when they hear reports in the media of the happenings of last night and this morning. What course is the country taking? I hope the Minister will have something new to tell us when replying to this debate so that we can give some reassurance to those of our constituents who are social welfare recipients. Such people form the major part of the queue coming to see politicians and I am sure the Minister and his colleagues have similar experience.

If the Minister gives us some reassurance, can we depend on it? It is not long since he told us that the difficulties in his Department had been straightened out. He had admitted that there were mistakes in the Department and he used the postal strike as an excuse for the nondelivery of cheques. He made use of that excuse for longer than was popular. Then he admitted that there were delays because of a change in reference numbers and the introduction of computerisation. These were supposed to have been straightened out. The junior Minister issued a statement, I forget the date of it, saying that this had been done and that we could expect a free run as far as payment of benefits was concerned. That has not happened and I should like him to explain why he gave the impression that he had straightened out the Department. Public representatives receive more complaints about non-payment of social welfare cheques than ever before and this without a Cork by-election or postal strike. I wonder what the Minister's excuse will be now.

The free fuel scheme allowance has been increased to £3 but it is totally inadequate. We were very lucky that we had such a mild winter. This helped to keep heating costs down and contributed to the conservation of energy. The mild winter is what saved many people from freezing in their homes and not the Minister's miserable allowance of £3. A few years ago recipients of a fuel voucher were far better off when it was for 1 cwt. of turf. However, by the looks of things they are better off today than they will be in October unless the Minister increases the fuel voucher today.

Most of those entitled to the allowance, even those in the Minister's own constituency, use bottled gas and they are faced this morning with an increase of 76p in the price of a cylinder of gas. We no longer have increases of 1p, 2p, 3p or 6p on commodities but are rapidly approaching the stage where we have £1 increases. Can the Minister imagine the inroads that the increase on a cylinder of gas will make on his fuel allowance which was totally inadequate before this? I appeal to the Minister—in case the Taoiseach takes up the appeal I made to him to appoint a Minister for Social Welfare without any other strings attached—to have another look at the free fuel scheme and sort it out before he moves from that Department. The Taoiseach did not pay a great deal of attention to the Department of Social Welfare when he was Minister, so perhaps it would be too much to expect him to appoint a Minister for Social Welfare. There are many Members, both on this side and on the Minister's side of the House, who feel this Department is deserving of a Minister's full attention.

Dr. Woods

You got a national fuel scheme which was a very big improvement.

Mr. McMahon

I know that.

Mr. Keating

After looking for it for about 12 years.

Mr. McMahon

Is the Minister happy with it?

Dr. Woods

I am happy to have moved the financial expenditure from £4 million to £8 million in one year. It is not in the Bill. However, it was an improvement.

Mr. McMahon

The Minister is happy with the fuel scheme?

Dr. Woods

I am happy I was able to increase it as much as I did and, as I have pointed out, I will be making further improvements as time goes on.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy continue his speech and keep to the Bill?

Mr. McMahon

The Minister is happy. I can give him the names of widows who are entitled to the free fuel allowance.

Dr. Woods

I shall give the Deputy a copy of my speech if he wants to check the part dealing with widows.

Mr. Keating

They will have to put it in the fireplace to keep themselves warm.

Mr. McMahon

I could give the Minister the names and address of widows who have the same income. They are all neighbours. One is entitled to the fuel voucher simply because she turns right when she comes out of her house to go to the post office. Her neighbour who turns left and goes to a different post office is not entitled to a voucher. The Minister is happy with that type of scheme. He could rectify the situation with a stroke of his pen. He is happy that two widows in much the same circumstances with the same income——

Dr. Woods

I did not say that. Do not twist my words. The record is there and the Deputy will not get away with what he is doing.

Mr. McMahon

The Minister is happy with such a scheme that allows this anomaly?

Dr. Woods

There were anomalies in the scheme but I got rid of a lot of them.

Mr. McMahon

Why did the Minister not get rid of them all?

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please make his speech and cease this cross questioning?

Mr. McMahon

The Minister is happy with a scheme that gives one person a fuel voucher and does not give it to another even though both are in the same circumstances and have the same income. The Minister is happy that he has done everything to bring that scheme to what it should be in 1981.

Dr. Woods

I did not say that. The Deputy is repeating everything that he said yesterday. The Deputy is aware of the anomalies in the scheme and also of the fact that I removed a lot of them. I have had a lot of letters from people thanking me for doing that.

Mr. McMahon

The Minister has a large post thanking him for what he has done and that is why he says he is happy with the scheme.

Dr. Woods

I did not say that.

Mr. McMahon

I know I said all this yesterday, I said it this time last year and even before that. According to the Minister's attitude it appears I will have another opportunity of saying it before anything is done. I hoped the Minister would have said that he was unhappy with the scheme and would give us a new free fuel scheme on a national basis for the coming winter.

Dr. Woods

There has been a national scheme since this year.

Mr. McMahon

It is not operating. Many of those entitled to free fuel are not getting it.

Dr. Woods

They all get it on a means test.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McMahon, without interruption, and would he get back to the Bill?

Mr. McMahon

They do not get it on a means test.

Dr. Woods

They do.

An Ceann Comhairle

We do not want this sort of cross-questioning.

Mr. McMahon

Perhaps the scheme was intended in that way but it is not happening. There are widows in this city who are handed out vouchers with their pensions——

Dr. Woods

Everyone of them is entitled to it on a means test and some widows in Dublin get it without means tests. I appreciate that there are anomalies.

Mr. McMahon

The Minister is so uninterested in the scheme——

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy make his speech on the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

As the Deputy is not speaking on the Bill can we take it that there is a disgraceful attempt by the Opposition to stop deserving people getting their increases through this Bill?

Dr. Woods

This is the third day we have been on this Bill.

Mr. Keating

The Minister has some neck talking about delays in payments.

Mr. McMahon

Some of the social welfare recipients will get increases of 20 per cent and some will get increases of 25 per cent, but what does it matter to them, when they will not get their cheques? People have been waiting four or five weeks for their payments and I know a person who has been waiting for a cheque since last Christmas, yet Deputy Briscoe comes in here and accuses us of delaying the Bill.

Dr. Woods

I have asked the Deputy to give me details of the case. He has not done so and his attitude now is causing further delays in payments. Deputies opposite have spent three days trying to prevent the Bill from going through.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputy McMahon continue on the Bill.

Mr. McMahon

That is a scandalous accusation. It is our duty on behalf of our constituents to try to have the situation in the Department remedied.

An Ceann Comhairle

You have made that point umpteen times.

Mr. McMahon

And I will make it again because those people have no organisation to speak for them. I am sure Deputy Briscoe has got people who have been waiting weeks for their cheques. Am I correct?

Mr. Briscoe

The deputy is not correct. I encountered very few delays.

Mr. McMahon

I sincerely hope that when he is replying the Minister will give us some hope that this backlog will be cleared up. Social workers in my constituency have told me that never before have they had such enormous queues for supplementary allowances.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has been given considerable latitude to deal with administrative matters, which do not arise under the headings of the Bill. They are more appropriate on the Estimate.

Mr. McMahon

They are queueing up to get supplementary benefits to keep them going until they get their cheques.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy has been told by Deputy Keating to keep the debate going until he returns. I heard him.

Mr. McMahon

If Deputy Briscoe wants to contribute we will give him time. If anybody is employing delaying tactics it is Deputy Briscoe. He has been interrupting all morning. It is bad enough to have the Minister saving the Government purse——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have asked the Deputy to keep off administration which is not relavant on the Bill.

Mr. McMahon

When the budget was announced in the dying days of January trumpets were blowing because it contained 20 per cent and 25 per cent increases in social welfare benefits. I am appealing to the Minister now to make sure that these payments will be made on time.

An Ceann Comhairle

The deputy is persisting in ignoring the Chair.

Mr. McMahon

Surely you can see my point.

An Ceann Comhairle

The deputy has been dealing with this for a considerable time. It is not appropriate on the Bill.

Mr. McMahon

I am appealing to the Minister to arrange for the prompt payment of these increases and to forget the Department of Health for a few days and his big public relations deal. I would say he surpasses the Taoiseach in public relations ability. I hope he will take people off the starvation line. At the moment they cannot get their entitlements from the Department. They are having a hard time as it is without having to endure delays. I do not consider that these increases have kept pace with inflation and we have seen another illustration of that today with further price increases. I am sure we will see further major price increases in benefits reach those who are entitled to them. I do not want to mention the commodities in case I would tempt the manufacturers to apply for price increases.

In January there were increases in the cost of butter, bread and sugar. If the 25 per cent increase in social welfare allowances had been granted last November it would probably have brought up the standard of living of social welfare recipients to what it was in January 1980. Benefits given to old age pensioners in the last budget should have been available to them no later than three or four weeks after the budget. The sad fact is that many old age pensioners will not live to receive the increased benefit. Last year I appealed to the Minister to reduce the time lag between announcement of an increase and payment. With all the computerisation and modern technology that exists, it should not be beyond the capacity of the Department to do this. I repeat my appeal to the Minister to do something about this matter.

I hope the Minister will take notice of the points made during this debate. I have a grave suspicion that to date the Minister has not taken seriously his responsibilities as Minister for Social Welfare. If we have not a change of Minister in the near future, at least let us hope there will be a change of attitude on the Minister's part. Perhaps he does not get the same press out of social welfare matters as he does out of health matters, although I do not see why that should be the case. He is a good man at working up publicity. Even though very many people are not social welfare recipients themselves, they are very concerned about the aged, those who have given service to the nation and widows. The state should do everything possible to assist them.

Mr. Briscoe

It is an absolute disgrace the way the passage of this Bill is being deliberately delayed by the Opposition. This has been the case for the past three days. We know that the Bill contains provisions regarding increases for social welfare recipients, increases they are entitled to receive on 1 April. If they do not get the increased benefit in time, let it be clear that the delay is due solely to the behaviour and antics of the Opposition. We have refrained from putting in speakers to the debate——

Mr. McMahon

We cannot blame the Deputy for that.

Mr. Briscoe

If the Deputy were given an increase of 25 per cent I am sure he would be crowing from the roof tops.

Mr. McMahon

The Deputy has not read the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

The blame for any delay in the matter will be laid fairly and squarely on the heads of the Fine Gael Party, no matter what they have going for them. I will not delay the House any further. I know that Deputy Keating will speak next and no doubt he will be followed by others. I do not know how long they intend to drag on the debate.

Mr. McMahon

Of course it is embarrassing for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Briscoe

They should not use the old, the sick and the unemployed for their political gimmicks. Give them the increases that they are due on 1 April. If Fine Gael say those people are sorely in need of benefits, they should not be the cause of any delay in payment. The Minister stated clearly that if he does not get this Bill quite soon implementation of the increases will be held up. The Opposition have been told the position quite clearly. We will see how long they intend to delay the debate. If this is a deliberate tactic, I warn them it will backfire in their faces. We will make sure the people know who has caused delay in payment of the increases.

Mr. Keating

If in the wake of Deputy Briscoe's admonition I choose not to make a contribution, is the Minister here to reply to the debate?

Mr. Moore

We will get him here very shortly. He had to go outside.

Mr. Keating

Therefore, we are not holding up the debate now?

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please continue with his speech?

Mr. Moore

We can have the Minister in the House right away.

Mr. Keating

The point is, he is not in the House. It is extraordinary that somebody should accuse us of endeavouring to hold up payments. I will not deal with that in detail but will just point out it is not true. I appeal to those who say they believe that accusation to accept our integrity in this matter. There is validity in an opposition making contributions to a debate like this. It is not our desire to hold up payment or delay implementation of the proposed increases. Our concern, voiced very strongly during the week, on delays existing in the system is testimony to that. The suggestion just made is a mischievous one.

I should prefer to deal as constructively as possible with the proposals before the House. The way increases in social welfare benefits are presented at regular intervals underlines a myth that is propagated by government about social welfare recipients and the payment to be made to them. The myth is that we are genuinely endeavouring to improve their lot, but the facts do not bear that out. In fact, the reverse is the truth and I will show that clearly and without emotion, based on cold, factual logic.

I want to make three suggestions that I consider essential. They should be included in the Bill and the Minister may reply to them if he wishes. For example, there can be no doubt that the proposed increases have been completely overshadowed by the daily increase in the cost of essential commodities for people on social welfare benefits.

We have another mini-budget today. The cost involved to the person on social welfare as part of a pattern of continual price increases clearly shows that the increases proposed in this Bill are not enough. The increases in this morning's announcement included 76p on a cylinder of gas, bringing the new price in the 550,000 homes which use that gas to £5.68p. We know from researches, our own experience and commonsense that old people, many of whom are badly nourished, need at least decent heating. How can the Minister for Social Welfare justify the attitude the Government are adopting in relation to the increases proposed in the budget without reference to the increasing costs of living and heating?

Social welfare payments are unjust if they are not index-linked. It is scandalous for a Minister for Social Welfare or a Government to blindly go about, head in the air, pretending there is a 25 per cent increase for social welfare recipients when that increase is not enough to deal with one-and-a-half year's inflation because that increase is spread over a two year period. There was an announcement this morning of a 20 per cent increase in ESB charges and an all time high in relation to the gallon of petrol. The cumulative effect of any increase in the price of petrol is passed on to the cost of living index and consumer prices. I imagine, on a rough calculation, that the increase proposed this morning will probably add I per cent to the cost of living index. The increase in the budget was of the same order. The cumulative effect of such increases, by the time they get down to the loaf of bread, the half pound of butter and the bag of coal, will make a major impact on the meagre subsistence of many people on social welfare.

I ask the Minister to introduce index-linking of social welfare increases. I accept the Minister wants to do a good job and I believe that in part he is doing a good job. We understand the constraints on him, but at the same time there is a touch of the superficial about the way things are being handled in that area at the present time. One gets the impression that the surface features are being handled well but nothing is changing at heart. It takes more than a little neck from the Members opposite to suggest that we have somehow a vested interest in holding up payments, which are not due to be paid for the next three weeks, when we have seen the spectacle over the last couple of weeks of the Minister pathetically admitting that the longest ever delays in the payment of cheques are causing him concern and he is working on this. Let people in glasshouses not throw stones.

The second request I have for the Minister is to introduce a subsidy for essential commodities for people in this category. I am talking about light, food and the cost of accommodation. The three survival needs are food, heating and shelter. Those areas are causing concern to a large number of people. There is no way round the problem if there is not a new resource commitment in this respect. Minor or major increases on a very small base in relation to social welfare recipients will not make a significant impact in this area. We want to ensure that the old age pensioner and the person on social welfare does not have to open his morning paper, if he can afford to buy one, with fear in his heart wondering what new increases will erode his very small income.

Index-linking is very essential. It is vital as well, wherever a private company consider it necessary, or where the National Prices Commission consider it necessary, to impose increases in the cost of essential items, that certain categories of vulnerable sections of our society are cushioned against those increases. This is supposed to be a Christian country, and sometimes we even say it is a just one. It is clear in the wake of this morning's mini-budget that any pretence at price control has gone out the window, that the lavish promises of the manifesto in relation to what would happen in the prices area, the overhaul of the National Prices Commission and this that and the other have also gone out of the window. The most vulnerable section of the community are being hardest hit. The reason is that the Government operate on the basis of putting their finger in the air, seeing what way the wind is blowing and bowing to the strongest lobby.

In the economic area as well as in the social welfare area the Government's policies have been dictated exclusively by political expediency. They have conceded every claim, yielded to every pressure and given in right, left and centre. They have left the country in a shambles. There is not any great pressure from social welfare recipients because they are not organised and too many of them are mobile and have not got roots in the community and a strong voting block. A measure of a nation is the manner in which it deals with those who are not strong enough to insist on their rights, who depend on wisdom, justice and good government to give them a fair share of what is going. We are far down the league if that is the criterion.

The third thing I want this morning, which I suggest with some trepidation, is a formal inquiry or a commission set up immediately to get rid of the anomalies the Minister admitted earlier are involved in social welfare and to try to bring about, as urgently as possible and with goodwill from all sides of the House, genuine progress in this area rather than papering over the cracks and pretending that real progress is being made when we all know it is not. This morning's mini-budget will add 4 per cent to 5 per cent of an increase to the cost of living of people on social welfare when it has worked its way through the economy, but no allowance is being made and no increase is being given on figures which were deemed to be, even by the most impartial observers, just enough to keep pace with last year's inflation. Even using the cost of living index is not an appropriate criterion in respect of the people in this category. The cost of living index is a relatively wide and comprehensive yardstick which includes aspects of living costs not applicable in many social welfare cases.

There is need for fundamental action and I should like to explain why. Despite the fact that we pretend that things have changed for the better, the reality is that for many people on social welfare things have got worse. The kernel of judgment in this respect is not the precentage increase or, indeed, the amount of money. The Minister is fond of referring to the fact that so much extra money is being given to such people. That is a misleading approach and one which is open to great distortion. The key to it is to view increases and actual figures in the context of other economic criteria, to see them relative to what other costs have been and compare the table to see what progress has been made. If that is the criteria I should like to demonstrate how things have got worse.

With one exception the relative position of families dependent on social welfare, especially those with children, has disimproved considerably since 1973 relative to those in receipt of industrial earnings. Since 1973 onwards people in the social welfare category have disimproved in terms of their income. Even more startling is the size of the gap between the less-well-off and those on average incomes. In general, single beneficiaries get between one-fifth and one-quarter of average male industrial earnings while married couples with two children get less than half these average earnings. Those with four children get only slightly more than one-half. It is important to remember that in any discussion on social welfare increases. It is important when we look at the horrific, savage increases we learned of this morning: 76p on a cylinder of gas that a few years ago cost less than 76p. The increase on that product in one morning is 76p. We must remember the proportion of the high share of income that must be spent by poor families on food, often about 50 per cent and sometimes higher, but yet when the Government came to power they removed the already slight food subsidies that existed. I do not accept that there is concern in Government ranks or, certainly, by the Minister. There is not true concern about the social welfare people because it is not reflected in the actions of the Government.

The real value of children's allowances, of which the Minister has made so much play, has fallen since 1973—a fact. The real value of child tax allowances has fallen over a much longer period—a fact. A study done for a child poverty action group in the UK estimated that in May 1980 the minimum cost of raising children ranged from £7.86 per week for a child of two to £11.55 per week for a child of 11. Obviously, one cannot automatically compare both but there are major similarities. If we do a rough comparison we find that the Irish rate of children's allowances, the comparable figure, is less than one-quarter of that. We should bear in mind that I am not including the fact that the UK figures are in sterling. Is the Irish child worth no more than one quarter of the UK child? I do not believe it is.

I should like to ask the Minister to accept the pleas of certain farming and producing organisations to avail immediately of the opportunity arising at EEC level for the introduction here of a scheme of free milk to Irish school children. The Minister is aware—I certainly am aware in the areas I am privileged to represent—of the fact that there are many children going to school hungry.

Mr. Daly

I do not accept that for one minute.

Mr. Keating

I can tell the Minister, if he is not aware of that point. If he does not accept it I should like to tell him that three years ago I asked the Minister for the Environment to accompany me on a tour of my constituency and, although he promised by letter that he would, he has not done so. The Minister of State does not accept that statement because he does not know it happens. Some children go to school hungry. If the Minister of State has any doubt about that he should ring the school attendance department of Dublin Corporation this morning, or ring any school attendance officer or teacher in the city and he will be told that that happens. I am not suggesting that it is a national phenomenon, but it is happening. If the Minister is agreeable there is a possibility of facilitating Irish school children, in the social welfare situation in particular, with a modest opportunity of getting a degree of protein, some milk daily at a very small cost. The Government have refused to accept that offer which has been made available to them. It is a shame that they should have done that. It is not too late to take it up. Not alone would it be good for the children but it would be good for the economy also, and we need that.

The people who are hit most in this area are the elderly. Frankly, I have never understood why it is that we expect people who have given their lives to the State when they reach 60 or 65 to suddenly accept, lamb-like and without demur, their passing into retirement—if not into oblivion— and also a marked decline in their living standards which they have worked for. To some extent it is reminiscent of the attitude I saw in East Berlin earlier this year where people are released from that gigantic prison only when they become 65 and are a burden on the State. The thinking is not dissimilar. The most scandalously treated people are the elderly and the old. In many cases they live in hovels and exist, or subsist, in very meagre incomes. What has the Minister to say to the person on fixed pension? A lady who came to see me recently told me that her pension was £1.10 per week. That woman has so calculated her budget that she has to go to bed at 11 o'clock so that the light will not be on for one extra hour. That lady does not drink or smoke and is a good house minder.

Mr. Daly

That is wrong.

Mr. Keating

I can take the Minister to see that lady or give him her name and address. It is the truth. I am not telling lies. I know it is difficult to comprehend it. The Minister of State has problems in his constituency which I would find it difficult to understand and I have problems in mine which he may have difficulty in understanding.

Mr. Daly

What pension has she?

Mr. Keating

As far as I am aware, she has an old age pension. I am trying to bring home to the Minister that there are people whose budget is so tight——

Mr. Daly

I thought the Deputy mentioned the figure of £1.10.

Mr. Keating

That is a pension from a company where her husband worked. That is what she was expected to live on. I do not know whether she is able to go to work herself but the £1 pension is the judgment that the company concerned have passed on her husband's service to them. The point I am making is that none of us comprehends the poverty in which some people are living. The woman I am talking of finds it necessary to turn out the light each night by 11 p.m. because she cannot afford to pay for any more electricity. I admit that I am not always impressed by people who come to me with that sort of story but I was impressed by this woman.

Mr. Daly

Is she an old age pensioner?

Mr. Keating

I do not know.

Mr. Daly

The Deputy is making sweeping statements without knowing the facts. If the woman concerned is an old age pensioner, she is entitled to free electricity.

Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should not be interrupted by anybody.

Mr. Keating

On the question of free electricity for old people, I might make the point that many old people have great difficulty in availing of this concession. I am referring to those who live in private rented accommodation where there is a common slot meter. The Government, under pressure from all sides in the House, accepted the difficulties involved in such a situation and, consequently, an allowance was introduced but despite this, there remain some people who, because of fear of their landlords perhaps, are not getting the allowance. They are afraid to send in the necessary documentation that would enable them to avail of the allowance.

We all know that to go into a shop today with anything less than £5 is a waste of time. If one buys only a few loaves of bread and a pound of butter plus a few sweets for the children, one's bill will be at least £3. We are talking of income of about £30 in some cases. Last week a worker came to see me. His story is that his take-home pay is £64 per week. He is employed as a fitter and he has a wife and four children. This figure does not represent the average industrial earnings and I do not understand why it should be so low but in a situation of an employers' market, this man considers himself lucky to have any job. Consequently, he is not in a position to press for higher wages.

Mr. Daly

I find it difficult to understand this since there is a shortage of fitters.

Mr. Keating

I have not had the opportunity of checking out the story but I am taking the man's word for it.

Mr. Daly

The Deputy would appear to be failing to check anything he is told.

Mr. Keating

I check everything out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Are we still dealing with the Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. Keating

Obviously, I cannot come here with a file full of constituency cases but the Minister may take it that what I am saying is fact. I assert unequivocally that a lady has indicated to me that because of her social welfare payments being so low, she cannot afford to keep the light on in her house later than 11 p.m. at night.

Despite what we are told about a general improvement for people in the social welfare category, I do not believe that there is an improvement. Researchers can show, for example, that one-quarter of all households living on low incomes are headed by elderly persons whereas the elderly comprise only 11 per cent of the total population. It has been shown also that households headed by elderly persons are 2.7 times more likely to be poor than are other households. Many of these elderly people lack basic amenities. Therefore, we need, by way of the social welfare approach to complement where such deficiencies exist. A Society of St. Vincent de Paul report, called Old and Alone, indicated that 30 per cent of those surveyed lacked all five basic water amenities, that is, they had not wash-hand basins, no kitchen sink, no flush toilet, no bath nor shower nor hot water.

These are people who have given a life's service to the State. We know also that people in the elderly category rely totally for heat on open fires because they can no longer afford to use even a one-bar electric fire. These people spend at least £1 per day in each case to heat one room for 16 hours. This represents £7 per week for a 200-day heating season. An outlay of £7 a week represents either one-fifth or one-sixth of their incomes depending on which category one takes. It is the highest percentage spent for fuel for heating by any category in our society. We learn by way of this morning's budget that those costs are to be increased but there is not a whimper of support for these people in the budget or in the Governments bland assertions that much is being done for the less well-off.

Since about 10 per cent of old people do not have the facility of electricity, they at least will be spared the increased cost but at what price? Another interesting matter which I should like the commission that is being set up to inquire into the anomalies that exist in our system is the fact that many people fail to use their full entitlement to free units of electricity. The reasons for this should be ascertained and remedied. Perhaps the people concerned are in fear of exceeding their quota but there may be another reason concerning those in private rented accommodation, people who are particularly vulnerable. In the light of developments in the courts in the area of rent restrictions people in private rented accommodation are more fearful than ever.

I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul on their excellent submission to the Government prior to the budget. I hope that the Minister has had the opportunity of reading that document. It emphasises that nothing fundamental has changed, that the resources distribution pattern still dictates the people classified loosely as being in the social welfare category are still in the welfare category and have no opportunity of bringing themselves out of that category, that they are being given just enough to keep their stomachs full so that they do not take to the streets. Is the Minister aware that the unemployment benefit for those who were out of jobs in 1973 was 23.9 per cent of average disposable income? That was for a single person. For a married couple the figure was 38 per cent and for a couple with two children, the figure was 59.9 per cent.

After all the ballyhoo about improvements in this area let us consider the corresponding figures today. When the Minister is replying I wish him to refer specifically to those relativities not vast sums of money now being spent which have not been spent previously, because that is meaningless. It is as meaningful as the phenomenon during the last depression, of wheelbarrows of money being brought in. It made one look wealthy, but one knew one was not because of the rampant inflation. Talking about so many more millions than last year is not accurate. What is pertinent is the percentage in relation to other economic indicators.

I have given the Minister the 1973 figure. In 1980, what is the situation? The single person's unemployment benefit as a percentage of his disposable income is 23.1 per cent — that is a drop of .8 per cent compared with the 1973 figure. However, it gets worse. What is the married couple's situation. Their unemployment benefit as a percentage of average disposable income in 1980 is 34.2 per cent as opposed to 38 per cent in 1973. If that couple had decided to have a family of two children, their lot is worse still. Their level of unemployment benefit as a percentage of average disposal income is 46.6 per cent as opposed to 59.9 per cent. Who would have thought that in 1973 unemployment benefit was worth more than it is today? Those relativities do not change, because if the Minister argues that these figures are outdistanced or outpaced by improvements about to take place or proposed, remember that we are talking about percentage of average disposable income which is going up, too, even if it is going up mainly on a huge raft of borrowed money which will sink. We will leave that aside for now. Those are the facts.

Let us look at unemployment assistance. In 1973, the single person's unemployment assistance as a percentage of average disposable income was 19.5 per cent, the married couple's 32.5 per cent. Again, for a married couple with two children, 52 per cent. What are the figures for 1980? For the single person it has decreased from 19.5 per cent in 1973 to 19.2 per cent. For the married couple it had decreased even more, from 32.5 per cent to 29.6 per cent; and for the married couple with two children it has gone down from 52 per cent in 1973 to 40.9 per cent, a drop of almost 12 per cent. Incredible and shameful.

What is the situation with regard to the old age, non-contributory pensioner under 80? In 1973 that person's unemployment benefit as a percentage of average disposable income was 22.4 per cent. What then, in the wake of all the ballyhoo and baloney and public relations exercise which we have had about the major new strides for old age pensioners, is the position today? That person's benefit as a percentage of average disposable income is 23.7 per cent, an increase of 1 per cent. That is some major advance for people in this category.

Let us look for a moment at the overall picture in relation to family allowances for a two-child family on average earnings. How do we relate to other countries? The figure for Belgium of family allowance as a percentage of gross average earnings is 14.1 per cent, that is, the equivalent purchasing power of £842 sterling. The figure in Holland is somewhat lower, at 9.1 per cent or £589. In Britain, the figure is 8.7 per cent, or £416. In France, it is 8.4 per cent, or £402. In Luxembourg — and the table is declining all the time — it is 7 per cent, or £567. In West Germany, it is 6 per cent or £400. In Denmark, it is 3.9 per cent, or £266. In Italy — not, I think, a country that one, by and large, would want to ape in terms of their economic prowess or, indeed, their political stability — the family allowancce as a percentage of gross average earnings is 3.1 per cent, or £155. Ireland is bottom of the league, as so often. Its figure is a shameful 2.2 per cent. That is the brave new advance for people in the social welfare categories which this Minister heralds.

As I said earlier when the Minister was not here. I believe that this Minister wants to do a good job. I know that he is putting in many long and hard hours and credit is due to him for that. However, if he is to do his job properly there must be a fundamental change of heart in this Government. The resources must be committed to people in our society who have never had a share of those resources. No amount of cosmetic titivation will change fundamental patterns of poverty and deprivation in our society. That is the change which is necessary. If we had any decency all of us in this House would hang our heads in shame at what some people have to live on, or survive on. We would join together in some form of formal inquiry or grouping to undertake immediately an overhaul of the disgraceful anomalies which exist with a view to getting all-party agreement on major advances in these areas.

The Minister has in the recent past given an undertaking to groups which he has not been able to honour because he has not got the money. He has not been given the money because it is not there. How could it be there if it is being borrowed and frittered away at every hand's turn, with the Government caving in to every whim of political expediency, every demand from anyone who comes knocking at their doors? The louder the knock, the more prompt and greater the response. How could this Minister have more than just compassion in his heart for people on social welfare? How could he have the resources to match it? It is not there because it is given away to the biggest, the strongest and the loudest. Instead of that we have the occasional vague, general references to social welfare abuses. The Minister in his budget statement referred to it again. It meets the political need of people who believe that any attempt to recognise injustice is somehow a concession to people who are basically inferior anyhow and who preferably should be out of mind and out of sight.

When last did I hear any Minister refer to the boardroom abuses, the companies with three or four sets of accounts? When last did we hear of corruption at the other end of the scale? What determination is there on the part of this Government to deal with that? None, not even a gesture of public concern about it. No, they concentrate on social welfare abuses. I have no doubt that there are abuses and they should be stopped. However, let nobody pretend that there are hundreds of millions of pounds, or many millions of pounds, being frittered away in abuses in this way. There is not. If the government tackled the abuses at the other end of the scale, abuses in company law at boardroom level, the yield economically and fiscally would be much greater. There would, however, be very detrimental effects, particularly for the Government.

Mr. Briscoe

Another liberal, liberal in Opposition, despot in office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Briscoe should not get into this argument. Deputy Keating, on the Bill, please.

Mr. Keating

I asked the Minister to refer specifically in his reply to this query. Why, if we are generally concerned, do we allow social welfare payments of increases to be deferred until months after tax increases in the budget are implemented?

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy's Government were paying them in August.

Mr. Keating

Why has the policy of the former Government, who not alone genuinely made improvements in this respect but endeavoured to do so twice yearly to take account of inflation, been dropped? Why should social welfare improvements come into effect in May or June when the tax on food, and the mini-budgets we get every day until people are practically punch drunk from price increases, come in immediately? I suggest it is because, fundamentally, Fianna Fáil do not care. The truth is that what we are seeing is a Government of potholes, penury and patches which do not have the money, even if they had the will, which they do not——

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy is digging a very large pothole for himself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Briscoe should not interrupt and Deputy Keating should speak through the Chair.

Mr. Keating

I have domonstrated clearly this morning that the rate of social welfare increases in real terms, because that is what we should look at, has declined significantly during this decade. Groups like St. Vincent de Paul, ALONE, people who are trying to deal with poverty, the National Poverty Committee which this Government chopped — they know the truth. If the Minister takes courage and appeals to the latent good and Christian instincts of Irish people and asks for their approval for resource commitment of a new order in respect of these categories, he will get support. The Irish people have never been found wanting when an appeal of leadership and integrity was made. It is right and fitting that these groups have been putting pressure on the Government. Tribute should be paid to them and to the churches because few others have held up these examples.

The National Poverty Committee produced a report, which was, unfortunately, their final report. They are the first to admit that they, like everybody else, made mistakes. I want to ask the Minister publicly if he gave them an undertaking that the least he would do would be to make resources available to them to continue the projects they had in hand when the Government decided to get rid of the committee. I want to know if he will clear up the existing situation with regard to the assets of that committee and the jobs involved. These people are at present existing on social walfare payments. I have been given reliably to understand that the Minister said that he could not guarantee the future of their organisation but he said he could ensure that existing projects, 11 of them, would be funded to their completion. Is the Minister going to implement that undertaking and, if so, when?

When we talk about social welfare payments we have to look not just at the vast sums of money, which are increasingly irrelevant and which are dwarfed by soaring inflation rates, but at the relevant figures which are the ratios between these benefits and other economic indices. In that context the facts show that there has been a decline since 1973. Accordingly, I ask the Minister to take at the very least the three steps I suggested, that is, to index-link social welfare payments so that increases in basic living costs can be accepted by these people without making major cutbacks in their standards of existence — nobody could call them standards of living.

Mr. Briscoe

If they were index-linked they would be lower than they are now.

Mr. Keating

At present many people have to go without meat. That should not be. Everybody is entitled to at least a good daily meal. I want regular index-linking which will make sure that, for example, the price increases in this morning's mini-budget would automatically be reflected in appropriate increases in the payments involved. I am talking particularly about the essential commodities. Nobody expects the Government to wave a magic wand, especially during the present times of economic stringency, but I would demand this of the Minister so far as food, heating and lighting are concerned.

Second, I want him to introduce a subsidy in respect of these items and recognise that there is grave hardship and fear being caused. This subsidy could then be replaced by index-linking. Third, I want him to set up a commission of inquiry into standards of justice in the social welfare area with particular reference to getting rid of anomalies.

This is one of the areas where this Parliament should be exemplary in its behaviour and should be able to work closer towards making genuine improvements. We are talking about people who are at the bottom of what the sociologists call the pecking order. In this respect the role of the public representative is particularly onerous because these people are not organised and in many cases are too preoccupied trying to live.

I appeal to the Minister to take a couragous stand in this respect, to hammer the Cabinet table, to raise funds, to commit resources and to bring about real change, because all we are doing at present is putting a cosmetic veneer on fundamental patterns of injustice which have wracked this society since its foundation. Unless they change, that injustice will not only continue but will be visited on the heads of the children whose parents were victimised. This is a cycle of poverty and deprivation which has been in existence and which will continue to exist unless we honestly analyse how we distribute our resources and make the decision that percentage increases and the redistribution of such resources will go to those who need it. That is not happening at present.

Mr. Bermingham

I will be as brief as possible. I do not believe in statistics. I firmly believe in the evidence presented to me by the people I meet and know. My principal interest in life is the social welfare scene. The increases granted under this Bill may look good, and the Minister has boasted about them, but I want to know if we are any nearer to giving our social welfare recipients an average standard of living. I believe we owe that to them. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, despite these increases. It may be said that a 25 per cent increase is greater than the increase in the cost of living during the previous year, but mini-budgets are introduced with such frequency that increases to social welfare recipients are eroded.

Almost four years after the general election Fianna Fáil have not reduced to the civilised standard of other European countries the old age pension qualifying age. The National Coalition Government reduced it by four years in their anxiety to introduce the same standard which applies in almost every democratic country in Europe. During 40 years of Fianna Fáil Government there has been a blank refusal to reduce the qualifying age for retirement and old age pensions. If a decent standard of living could be assured for those in receipt of such pensions more people would be encouraged to retire, thus helping to make employment available for young people.

Some people have expressed the view that the present Minister for Social Welfare is concerned and is doing his best. I do not believe it because his actions have not indicated any concern. The Minister has boasted about increases of 25 per cent, but the increase for dependants is only 9 per cent, half the rate of inflation. I understand it was argued yesterday by the Minister that the family allowance makes up for this, but this allowance is available to the richest in the land and does not help social welfare recipients to achieve a normal standard of living.

I feel a duty to talk about the chaos in the Minister's Department. I had a question down to him on Tuesday last concerning this matter, but he was attending the funeral of one of the greatest benefactors of the poor, the Bishop of Ossory, the Most Reverend Dr. Birch. He was one of the people who had advocated the setting up of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty. The Minister attended his funeral and recognised Dr. Birch as a man who had the interests of the poor at heart. However, by disbanding the committee of which the bishop was one of the instigators, the Minister showed a grave lack of concern.

I wish to give details of two cases which highlight the delays in the Department of Social Welfare. A neighbour of mine who has worked all his life was absent from work due to illness for two weeks before Christmas and two weeks afterwards. He was not dependent on social welfare benefits to which he was justly entitled because his employer agreed to pay him during his illness on the understanding that the social welfare cheques would be given to him. The man in question is now under serious suspicion because the cheques have not arrived, even though his card has been stamped for many years. I brought this case to the notice of the Minister by writing to him.

Dr. Woods

Was the matter the subject of a parliamentary question?

Mr. Bermingham

No.

Dr. Woods

When did the Deputy write to me?

Mr. Bermingham

About a month ago.

Dr. Woods

Is he saying he has not received any reply?

Mr. Bermingham

I have received an acknowledgement.

Dr. Woods

Will the Deputy let me have the name of the person concerned?

Mr. Bermingham

Yes. I mention this case as an example of what is happening in the Department. I also wish to mention the case of a man who returned to work last June and has not yet been paid his benefit. This matter was the subject of a parliamentary question last week, although it was not put down by me. I would advise the Minister——

Dr. Woods

As Minister for Health I would ask the Deputy to be careful of his blood pressure at present.

Mr. Bermingham

The Minister's medical qualifications are in some doubt. My blood pressure is my problem and it has nothing to do with the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It should not arise. The Minister will not interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. Bermingham

He has interrupted me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He should not do so. The Deputy will be allowed to raise a couple of matters of this kind since every other Deputy was allowed to do so. However, they relate to administration and should not arise on the Bill.

Dr. Woods

It is very unfair of the Deputy to make allegations against myself and the Department without giving me notice. If the Deputy will give me notice of cases I will deal with them.

Mr. Bermingham

I have done so and have received only an acknowledgement.

Dr. Woods

Let him give me the names.

Mr. Bermingham

Am I in possession or is the Minister allowed to be disorderly? I supplied the Minister with the names and his answer is disgraceful. He is not capable of running his Department and should resign.

Dr. Woods

Give me the names. Write them down here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should not act in that manner and he knows that.

Mr. Bermingham

I will not tolerate the Minister trying to obstruct me and put me off my contribution.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will continue his speech. The Minister is entitled to invite the Deputy to give him the names but not to provide him with paper across the House.

Dr. Woods

I did not want the Deputy to mention the names publicly.

Mr. Bermingham

The Minister is capable of doing his job. I have given him the names——

Dr. Woods

I will investigate the case if the Deputy gives me the names.

Mr. Bermingham

I was in correspondence with the Minister a month ago. I suggest that the Minister use his entertainment ability on the queues in Pearse Street and Townsend Street.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister's entertainment ability has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Bermingham

People waiting down there with flasks would need entertainment of some kind.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is entitled, in his own time, to do whatever entertainment he likes.

Mr. Bermingham

People in my constituency have to queue up there to try and get benefits to which they are entitled.

Dr. Woods

Give me the names and do not make scurrilous remarks.

Mr. Bermingham

I have already written to the Minister about 20 cases and there has been no action on them.

Dr. Woods

This is all part of a stunt by the Opposition.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to raise administrative matters on the Bill. I allowed every Deputy to mention a few but it should end there.

Mr. Bermingham

The Minister is tender on that point because he knows what I am saying is true.

Dr. Woods

I will reply to that when I am given an opportunity.

Mr. Bermingham

The Minister has shown that it is a tender spot. He knows well that the average waiting period in the number 66 area is six weeks. He also knows that health boards are not providing the services necessary to supplementary welfare allowances. I have made my point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has and should now resume on the Bill.

Mr. Bermingham

The Minister should consider putting the Minister of State, Deputy Hussey, in charge of social welfare and look after health himself. Deputy Hussey is very concerned about this whole area. If the Minister was not concerned about publicity that would be done. If Deputy Hussey had charge of that section he would do what is necessary to ensure that people get the benefits they are entitled to. Many people think that those on social welfare are getting something for nothing. People claiming social welfare have contributed over the years to these benefits as have their employers. I accept there is a subvention from the State but when the Bill dealing with increases in contributions comes before us the amount of subvention will be substantially reduced. Benefits were introduced by the State to ensure that people would have the necessities of life if they were unemployed or ill. They are entitled to this as a right.

Deputies who hold clinics know that the non-functioning of the Department of Social Welfare is a bone of contention in all constituencies. Many explanations have been given but they are not much use to people who are left without money to buy food and clothing. We heard a lot about the great increases the Minister gave but today we hear about increases in petrol and gas. In order to resume work some people will need to use their cars. The price of petrol will inflate the whole economy.

It was suggested by the previous speaker that social welfare allowances should be index-linked. Every year in the budget we should increase the basic amount by whatever we feel is necessary in order to bring people on social welfare into an average income position in relation to the rest of the community. If social welfare benefits were index-linked when we gave an increase it would be a real one. It was also mentioned that during the time of the previous Government there were two basic dates on which social welfare was increased — October and April. This is no longer the case. The Government now give a full year's increase. This gives a false impression because of the increasing cost of living.

There are many categories of people on social welfare but I have a great interest in widows with young families. My mother was a widow with a family of three children. She suffered a lot at that time. For most of the time there was no pension but later there was a small one. Widows have been badly treated under every social welfare Act that has come before the House. A young woman with small children has to clothe, feed and educate them. The same facilities should be afforded to widows with young families as to old age pensioners. I refer, of course, to such items as free fuel and electricity. We make great play from time to time about treating all our children equally, but how can a widow with a young growing family be expected to give her children equal opportunities in education, in clothing, in food, if she is not being treated equally under the social welfare code?

There is, of course, a social welfare content in the health services but the social welfare element is not administered uniformly throughout all health board areas. In one health board area free fuel is given automatically but in another area health board officials will tell you that people with contributory pensions are not entitled to free fuel. When bringing out the scheme the Minister failed in his obligation to spell out clearly how it should be operated. If that had been done poor people would not be depending on the whims of health board officials. I wish to refer to the means test as it is being applied. It must be said that there are officials in the Department investigating claims in regard to both social welfare and health entitlements who seem to have one object, and that is to stop people from getting any benefits. There seems to have been a stepping up of that kind of attitude in the Department. I will cite one case, but before doing so I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister — in fairness, I do not always attack him——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would hope there would not be attacks on officials. The Minister is responsible for his officials.

Mr. Harte

I have been trying to get through to the Department since 11.40——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bermingham is in possession.

Mr. Harte

I have been trying to get information about a number of constituents on whose behalf I have been fighting for the past two weeks. I wanted to be told what is happening in the Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is interrupting Deputy Bermingham.

Mr. Harte

The officials in the Department are at the point of breaking down and walking out because the system is breaking down. We have reached the stage——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is there no respect for the Chair?

Mr. Harte

My patience has broken down. I have been trying to get through for the past hour.

Mr. Bermingham

Deputy Harte has just proved the case I was about to make.

Mr. Harte

It is outrageous. I have been on the telephone for one hour. I asked for the Minister's secretary. I tried to phone the secretary of the Department but the number would not answer. I tried to get through to the Minister's office and I could not get a reply——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bermingham is in possession. Have you no respect for either the Chair or the Deputy in possession?

Mr. Harte

There are people in need of benefits——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You cannot get them in this way. The Deputy cannot raise it in this manner.

Mr. Harte

There are thousands of them and the Minister will not do anything.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Harte is disorderly——

Mr. Harte

I do not give a damn if I am disorderly. If this is the only way I can do something——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I know.

Mr. Harte

There are thousands of people in the streets who cannot get benefits that they have been waiting for, and if this is the only way I can try to get it for them——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Harte has already spoken on the Bill.

Mr. Harte

It is outrageous and inexcusable.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy has got his publicity.

Mr. Harte

I do not have the Minister's bad habits. If the Minister did some work and forgot about his publicity——

Dr. Woods

I do not look for publicity.

Mr. Harte

It is disgraceful and the Minister, personally, is responsible.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy's behaviour is disgraceful.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bermingham is in possession.

Mr. Harte

The buck stops on the Minister's desk.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This conduct is not good enough in the House.

Mr. Harte

I do not care. You can do what you like with me. I am making a protest in the only possible way I can. I cannot communicate with the Minister's office. I cannot get information about my constituents who need money. This has never happened before.

Dr. Woods

Will the Deputy come out with me now and ring?

Mr. Harte

I have spoken to one of the Minister's civil servants who gave me a direct line to the Minister's office. I rang the numbers and I did not get a reply. I cannot get the information from anybody.

Dr. Woods

This is all nonsense.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is completely disorderly.

Mr. Harte

This is the depth of the Minister's understanding of the problem. It is scandalous. Those people need payment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy wish the Chair to adjourn the House again?

Mr. Harte

I do not care what you do.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I know. I will not oblige you.

Mr. Harte

I do not want you to oblige me. All I want is that payment be made to cold, hungry people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask Deputy Bermingham to continue.

Mr. Harte

The Chair is talking about disorder. There are people who have been waiting for payment for the past two months. What do you expect them to do — live on air? It is all right to talk about being disorderly here while people go hungry and cold. I have no respect for the type of order you believe in while people are going hungry and cold. I will fight for them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair did not make Standing Orders. Deputy Harte, please.

Mr. Harte

Will the Minister get these payments made or pack it in? I am told in the Department that the officials are ready to walk out, to go on strike.

Dr. Woods

They will not be very pleased with the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bermingham to continue.

Mr. Bermingham

I agree with everything Deputy Harte has said. I found the same situation myself so far as the Department are concerned. I was outlining a case and I was paying tribute to the Minister. In the case of a non-contributory old age pension the woman concerned was threatened by an official of the Department about what would happen to her if she made a false statement. Her husband had qualified for unemployment assistance but an investigator from the Department of Social Welfare insinuated——

Dr. Woods

On a point of order, in the past two minutes my Department have been phoned by an official and he got through.

Mr. Harte

I want to put on record that I phoned the Minister's Department at 11.40 and I could not get through to them——

Mr. Bermingham

I want to protest at the way the Minister has been interrupting me continuously.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is being attacked from all sides. Deputy Bermingham is in possession and he should not be interrupted by either side.

Mr. Bermingham

The Minister interrupted me and he had no right to do that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling on the Deputy to speak on the Bill. It is not in order to attack officials. The Minister is responsible for his officials.

Mr. Bermingham

I do not give one damn about officials. I have pointed out what they are doing. I was trying to congratulate the Minister for dealing with one case and ensuring that the person concerned got their rights without being threatened by officials.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please deal with the Bill? I have given him every opportunity to make that point.

Mr. Harte

I want to record that what I said is true. Everything I have said is quite correct.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

At the moment we are dealing with the Bill, not with administration.

Mr. Bermingham

It is necessary for somebody to deal with administration because the system has broken down completely. We are not getting any satisfaction in this House. Apparently what we are saying is hurting the Minister. This administration have not done anything about insurance and sickness benefit for the self-employed, who are willing to contribute to a scheme. When Fianna Fáil took office all the preparatory work on a scheme for the self-employed had been done by Deputies Corish and Cluskey in the previous administration. That scheme was on the desk of the Minister's predecessor — the person who is now Taoiseach — but nothing was done about it. The self-employed represent about 25 per cent of the total employed people. Most of them are afraid of the prospect of falling ill because they will have nothing. It is essential that something be done to help the self-employed. I am not suggesting that they should not pay towards that help. People in the self-employed category would be quite prepared to contribute to a system that would give them benefits in the event of illness.

The Minister is failing in his duty if he does not do something in this area. In rural areas it is quite usual to have small businesses run by one person who is prepared to deliver goods to remote areas where the larger companies will not operate. All of those self-employed people are frightened about what will happen if they fall ill because there is no State scheme available for them. Even though all the homework on a new scheme was done before Fianna Fáil took over, neither this Minister nor the Taoiseach, who was his predecessor in that office, did anything about the matter. The Minister has a duty to provide a scheme that will cover the self-employed.

The Minister does not deserve congratulations on the administration of social welfare benefits. Neither does the Taoiseach deserve congratulations in this matter. Both men present a fairly good public image of themselves but advances in the area of social welfare have been very limited. The increased prices in the past week will erode all the benefits about which they boasted on budget day. I judge a Government and a Minister on what they do to help the poor and those in the lower income groups. We have shown that this Government have failed in that regard.

Mr. White

I should like to sympathise with the Minister. When he was appointed as Minister for Social Welfare it was a popular decision and most people thought he would do a tremendous job. However, in the past few months things have gone drastically wrong for the Minister and for the Department. The main reason is that there has been a dreadful mix-up in the Department with regard to payment of benefits.

I have a high regard for the Minister as a person but I am obliged to point out the dreadful state of affairs in his Department. My constituency is poor and in the past few months more and more people have complained to me about delays of up to five months in respect of payments. The Minister asked Deputy Bermingham for details of cases about which he had written to the Department. I will have no hesitation in giving the Minister in this House the names of people who have been waiting for months for payment. Last week I met a woman who was waiting since November for a disability payment. She had a brain operation six months ago and there was no doubt about her entitlement to the benefit. She had plenty of stamps, but the Department refused to pay her. There was another case of a physically disabled person to whom benefit was cut off on 1 December 1980 and that physically handicapped person has not received any benefit to date. I can give details to the Minister of 40 serious cases in the poorest constituency in the country. These people have been barred from receiving disability allowances even though they are entitled to them.

I am not making these accusations lightly. I can back up each of them with representations I have made to the Minister and questions I have tabled, when I have received the usual answer that this case is being looked into and the Minister will reply further. The Minister knows as well as I do that there is something wrong with the Department of Social Welfare. People feel that he is more interested in health than he is in social welfare. The system is on the point of breaking down, the staff are on the point of rebellion and the chief executive officers are losing control of the system in social welfare. I am making those accusations from my knowledge of trying to get social welfare payments for the people I represent.

Surely, if this is the case, a Minister of State must be given, as Deputy Frank Cluskey was given in the previous administration, full responsibility for social welfare and the Minister should deal primarily with health. If I was in the Minister's shoes I would seriously look at what is wrong with this system because the full blame will eventually come back on to his head. I have listened to his replies day after day in the House. We are told that the Department have changed to a computer. Many people in business have to change to computers, but if the computer is not right it is thrown out. If the computer is not working right the Minister should see that the Department go back to the old system, because at least that gave the people payments.

I represent the poorest constituency and it is becoming very difficult to get payment for the people. My colleague, Deputy Harte, made the point a few minutes ago about not getting through on the telephone to the Department. I do not believe that any Minister or any official can state that the Department's telephone is the easiest one to get through on. There is a number to dial for dealing with disability benefit, but it is impossible to get through to that number unless one telephones at 9.45 in the morning. Can the Minister not give Deputies a special number which they can ring with their problems so that they can be looked after? The only way a lot of us can get through at the moment is to deal with the Minister's Private Secretary in the House which is not a satisfactory way to deal with social welfare problems.

I am trying to be helpful to the Minister and to make suggestions where the system can be rectified. We should remember that in the area I represent one out of every three people is on social welfare benefit. I have never had as many complaints about lack of payment as I have had during the last few months. If this goes on any longer the position will become much worse as far as the Department are concerned.

When the Minister introduced this Bill he said that the Government's priority was to look after the weak, the deprived and the underprivileged in our society. He also said that the increases provided in the Bill were well beyond the Government's commitment to keep social welfare payments in line with the cost of living. We had the budget five weeks ago and the Minister then spoke about the increases in social welfare payments, the 20 per cent increase for the short-term benefits and the 25 per cent increase in the long-term benefits. At the time the Minister probably believed that. We see in this morning's paper that we have another mini-budget. Petrol is increased by 13p per gallon and gas is increased by 76p a cylinder. The price of a cylinder of gas will now be £5.68. Bus fares are being increased by 25 per cent. The old penny bus fare we used to have when I went to school now costs 22p.

The Minister has told us that social welfare payments are in line with the cost of living. How can they be in line with the cost of living after the increases announced today? We had a petrol strike last week and the Government agreed to a rise of £30 to tanker drivers. An old age pensioner, even with the increases granted in this Bill, is expected to live on £25 per week. The Minister has the audacity to talk about keeping social welfare payments in line with the cost of living. We are in the third month of the year and price increases have already eaten up the increases granted to social welfare recipients less than two months ago.

I asked a question yesterday about price increases as far as fishermen are concerned. This new price increase means that the average weekly price of diesel for fishermen will be over £1,000. The greatest complaint which Deputies come up against is the small farmer's assistance scheme. It is no longer called the small farmer's dole, because it is an assistance scheme. Without it the people in Donegal and Mayo could not exist on their small holdings. Those people did not get any rise during the last few years unless they changed from the valuation system to what is called the factual system, where they have to make it known if they have one or two cattle and ten or 12 sheep. There are many people living alone who have to exist on £14, £15 and £16 a week on the small farmer's assistance scheme. We have only to visit those people, not alone at election time but at any time, to see the bad conditions they are living in. Most of them would not have been able to afford to change their suits in the last ten years and I am sure many of them have not been able to buy a pair of shoes because of the meagre allowances given by previous Governments and, in particular, by the Fianna Fáil Government. It was ridiculous not to give such recipients the two increases they were entitled to. It is unrealistic to expect those people to live on the amount of money they are given. How can people live on such meagre allowances? The Minister should give those people the same increases as those who are in receipt of dole allowances in the towns and cities. Those people are not as well off as those who live in the towns and cities.

It seems to be more difficult now for married women to obtain a disability allowance. It is because of the cost of living that many wives must go out to work to keep up a fair standard of living. Many women who receive maternity benefit find after their child is born and if employment is not available for them that they do not get unemployment benefit. They are sent before a panel when they seek disability benefit but they are told they are not able to work because they must stay at home to look after the child. Regardless of the proof tendered on behalf of those people — in some cases the grandmother looks after the child — the appeals officer turns them down. That has happened a lot in the last three years. In fact, as many as 75 per cent of the married women who look for that benefit are turned down for no reason other than that they are not available for work.

There is little point in the Minister telling us he is caring for the social welfare classes when a directive is being issued — it must have been issued in the case of married women seeking disability allowance — telling the appeals officers to make sure such people are turned down. I am sure this is happening in the area the Minister of State represents just as it happens in Donegal. Another group affected are single women, 18 years and upwards, who find that they cannot get work. At present 127,000 are on the unemployment register and when one takes into consideration that between 10,000 and 12,000 people are on part-time work that figure jumps to 140,000 on unemployment benefit. Single women from 18 years of age and upwards often cannot find work, yet they must wait up to five months for their first unemployment benefit payment. I cannot understand why there is such discrimination against females. I have not found the same problem as far as young males are concerned. I wonder if a directive has been issued by the Department not to give single women the dole.

Mr. Calleary

No directive was issued.

Mr. White

Has the Minister of State come across this problem in his constituency?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy White is in possession and he should confine his remarks to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. White

I am sure the Minister of State has come across this problem in his constituency. In this debate I am anxious to be constructive and point out the defects in the Department of Social Welfare. I am aware of the difficulties because I represent a constituency which has the highest number of people living on social welfare benefits. The Minister should inquire as to why females have to wait up to five months before they get their first unemployment allowance.

I should like to know why we do not have a system whereby the benefit year starts in January instead of the present system of the benefit year for females starting in June and that for males starting in January. It would be a lot simpler all around if all people could claim unemployment benefit from the last day of the previous year. I am sure it would cut down the cost of administration.

Mr. Calleary

That will be the situation from this year on.

Mr. White

I hope my pleas in previous years were listened to in this regard. I should like to compliment the Department on doing this. It will make life a lot easier for many people.

It is hard to understand how it is that so many people seek the benefit of the free fuel scheme, but it is even more difficult to understand the number of people who need the benefit of that scheme and do not get it. We are all aware that single people living alone are automatically entitled to that but I should like to know why the Minister has not made the recommendation that two old age pensioners living alone do not qualify for benefit under that scheme. Two old age pensioners living alone get only £30 towards the cost of a ton of coal. I should like to know how it is that disabled persons under pension age do not benefit. Others who do not benefit include those on supplementary allowances. This is a good scheme and there is no doubt that if it was not in operation many old people would not have fuel during the winter but the principle behind it should have been extended to the less well off sections of our community such as those living on supplementary allowances. They should be entitled to benefit automatically.

In some areas certain categories benefit under that scheme but people in similar circumstances in other areas do not. I understand that applications are considered by committees and it is the members of those committees who decide who should benefit. The scheme should be extended to all sections of the poor. The free travel for old age pensioners was a good idea but it should be remembered that in some country areas there is not a bus service within 20 miles of some homes. Pensioners living in such remote areas should be given some assistance towards the cost of car hire if they wish to travel to visit their friends. They should get an extra allowance of about £1 per week towards the cost of such travel. This system works all right so far as towns and cities are concerned, but in areas where a bus service is not available those entitled to the travel concession cannot avail of it.

I must compliment the Minister on his intention to set up more welfare homes. A move in this direction is long overdue, but the problem appears to be that the money is not available. What is happening in this sphere on the Continent is that welfare homes are being set up in flat complexes and old people are being encouraged to take accommodation in these places.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a matter for the Department of Health rather than for the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. White

I am merely referring to accommodation for old people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of welfare homes is one for the Department of Health.

Mr. White

That may be so, but we are talking here about such people as the old, the deprived, the disabled and so on. The point I am trying to make is that the system of welfare homes within flats is worth considering. The system on the Continent in this respect is one in which there are 100 or 120 one-bedroom flats in a complex in which there are communal dining halls and television rooms. I have found during my visits to old age pensioners in rural areas that their greatest problem is that nobody really cares for them. Old people living in areas in which there is in operation a group such as the St. Vincent de Paul society are very lucky, but in many rural areas there would not be any such group. The greatest problem seems to be one of loneliness. I have come across some very sad cases of old people living alone and isolated to the extent that their nearest neighbours may be as far away as a quarter of a mile. These are the people we should be encouraging to move into communal buildings where they would be looked after properly. They are the forgotten people. It is very sad that this should be the case.

One of the achievements of the Coalition of which I was very proud was the reduction in the old age pension age from 70 to 66, but I am very disappointed that there has not been a further reduction. We should be thinking in terms of a retiring age of 60, because a person who starts work at 20 and who works hard for 40 years is entitled to retire at that stage. If we continue as we are in this respect we will be faced with a problem of many more of our young people not being able to find work and many of our older people not being able to retire because of not qualifying on age grounds for an old age pension. I should like to see all sides of the House working towards a gradual reduction in the old age pension qualifying age from 65 to 60.

Another matter that I have spoken about also in previous years is that of an insurance stamp for the self-employed. Coming from a self-employed background I have often wondered why we have failed up to now to introduce a scheme whereby people in this category would pay towards insurance that would provide benefit as a result of redundancy or that would ensure that a pension would be payable on reaching pension age. There is such a scheme in Britain. I often meet people who have come into the Republic from Northern Ireland or from England and who, although self-employed in the other jurisdiction, are in a position to avail of benefit because of the contributions they have made to the relevant scheme.

It is regrettable that there is no such scheme here. I understand that a couple of years ago the Department were hoping to introduce a scheme for the self-employed but, as there has not been any progress in this regard, I should like to hear from the Minister on the reasons for this failure. There are many people who have given long service to the community through their initiative in opening small businesses and so on but who find in the later years of their lives that they have no entitlement to a pension of any kind. If their business goes to the wall, they are not entitled to unemployment benefit. Usually such people are too proud to seek assistance from a social welfare officer. In these circumstances the Minister should consider seriously the introduction of an insurance stamp for the self-employed. I not that the VHI contributions are to be increased in the coming year by 23 per cent. There is a link between the VHI and a scheme of benefits for the self-employed.

Another anomaly in the Border area is that somebody who is signing either for unemployment benefit or for disability benefit in England finds that, if he becomes ill and wishes to move to Ireland, he will not be paid the benefit here unless he has signed for at least three days in England. What I am saying is that people who have been working in England and whose homes are in Ireland do not know that when they are sick they have to sign in England before they transfer their residence to Ireland. They apply to the Department of Social Welfare, and when the Department of Social Welfare, through their EEC office, apply to Britain they find that they cannot get benefit because of this anomaly. I suggest to the Minister that he should take this up with his British counterpart to see that this anomaly is stamped out.

Dr. Woods

For the information of the Deputy, it is an EEC regulation.

Mr. White

Will the Minister take the point up?

Dr. Woods

Yes.

Mr. White

I know that it is an EEC regulation but at the same time we are discriminating against people. On the one hand we are able to give them money regardless of what EEC country they are living in and, on the other hand, if they do not sign in the EEC country that they were working in before they come to reside at home, they cannot get the money. There is an anomaly there and it is all wrong.

The other point regarding the EEC is that I honestly cannot understand why, when people are being paid from Britain they are not getting the equivalent of sterling here. I know the Minister will probably say that they have agreed this with Britain but we have probably ten times more people getting money from Britain than there are people residing in Britain and getting money from Ireland. Let me illustrate the point I am making. Under EEC regulations the British Government are paying an old age pension to the Irish Government in sterling. Why then is the pensioner paid in Irish money. There is a 25 per cent difference between the punt and the pound sterling and the pensioner is 25 per cent worse off. I brought this matter up in a Dáil question a couple of months ago and I was told that arrangements had been made with Britain but it is the Irish pensioner who is not getting the right amount of money and it is completely unjust.

At present everybody admits that there is something wrong in the Department. I suggest that the Minister should look very critically at it and try to sort out what is wrong. The Minister should give Deputies in this House a direct telephone line so that they can contact the Department with queries. The Minister should see that the Minister of State is put in charge of the social welfare system in the Department. Will the Minister also, for goodness sake, find out what is wrong that those people are not getting paid. In my length of time in this House I have never had as many complaints about late payments as I have had over the last five or six months. Even though we agree with what the Minister states here, that this is a Social Welfare Bill and we are glad to see social welfare people getting an increase, I will prophesy that within six months the Minister will have to bring in another Supplementary Estimate to see that these people receive the extra percentage to allow for such terrible price increases as we are having weekly at present. I hope that when the Minister is replying he will state that if necessary and if inflation continues at the present rate he will have no hesitation in bringing before this House another Supplementary Estimate to ensure that the weaker sections of the community do not suffer. Other people are getting £30 and £40 per week in increases and at the same time the old age pensioner is expected to live on £25 a week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An tAire chun deireadh a chur——

Mr. Harte

Deputy Myra Barry has offered to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I waited for a full minute. I will give Deputy Barry an opportunity, but she did not offer. I waited for practically a minute. I am sorry.

Mr. Harte

A minute?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Barry. There is no need for any hassle. The Deputy must stand up and offer. Deputy Myra Barry.

Miss Barry

Is léir domsa faoin am seo nach bhfuil an tAire in ann Béarla a chloisint ná a thuiscint. Gach uair, le bliain anuas, a tháinig mé isteach sa Teach seo, d'iarr mé ar an Aire rud éigin a dhéanamh faoi na daoine a bhí ag feitheamh le pá leasa shoisialaigh ach ní dhearna se faic ná fríde. Bíonn sé ar na páipéir agus ar an teilifís agus mar sin de, ach is cuma leis faoin a Roinn féin, is cuma leis faoi na daoine atá ar phá leasa shoisialaigh. Sa deireadh thiar thall scríobh mé litir chuig na páipéir. Dúirt mé san litir sin nach raibh suim dá laghad ag an Aire ina Roinn féin. Is iad na daoine a chuir an tAire sa Dáil, na daoine a chuir sinne go léir san Dáil. Teachtaí Dála isea sinne.

Is í an chiall atá le "Teachta Dála" ná "messenger to the Dáil". Tá mé anseo gach seachtain agus gach lá le bliain anuas ag tabhairt teachtairí don Aire sin ach níl sé ag éisteacht liom ar chor ar bith. Is ait an scéal ach ní chuireann an tAire aon tsuim in a Roinn féin. Tá Teachtaí anseo ó gach áit san tír, ní hamháin mo Dháil cheantar féin, ach is cuma leis faoi. I rith na Nollag bhí an scéal go hole ar fad. Bhí daoine ann agus ní raibh fiú arán acu gan trácht ar turcaí agus mar sin de. An bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire cad a chaitheann daoine a fhulaing toisc nach bhfuil a Roinn ag rith i gceart? Ní haon mhaitheas a rá linn nach bhfuil uimhreacha árachais againn mar gach uair a théann mise go dtí an Roinn bíonn uimhreacha árachais agam ach is cuma. Bím anseo ar an nguthán gach seachtain agus 786444 i gceist agam an t-am go léír ach ní thagann aon duine chun an guthán a fhreagairt. Is féidir leis an Aire teacht chun caint a dhéanamh ar an teilifís agus ráitis a eisiúint do na nuachtáin, ach fanann na daoine seo ocrasach, go mór mhór na leanaí. Ní bhíonn faic le cur ina mbéal.

Cuirim fáilte roimh na méaduithe a fuair na daoine seo sa cháinaisnéis, ach cén maitheas iad nuair nach bhfuil aon phá le fáil ag an gcuid is mó acu. Tá an costas maireachtála ag árdú gach lá, fiú amháin inniu tá ráiteas faoi ardú 76p ar bhuidéal gáis. Tá an boillsciú ag cur isteach ar na daoine seo gach lá. Tá an saibhir ag eirí níos saibhre agus an daibhir ag eirí nios daibhre. Tá an tAire ag iarraidh dalladhmullog a chur orainn go léir agus go háirithe ar na daoine atá ar leasa soisialaigh agus a rá leo go bhfuil suim aige ina gcás. Ceapaim i ndáiríe nach bhfuil suim dá laghad aige sna daoine seo.

Ba mhaith liom a iarraidh air rud a dhéanamh ar na sean daoine go léir sa tír seo, na daoine nach mbíonn ag ruaille buaille agus ag beiceáil, na daoine nach bhfuil guth láidir acu in Eirinn inniu. Ni iarrann siad faic air. Ba mhaith liom ar a shon a iarraidh ar an Aire cárta dochtúra a thabhairt do gach duine atá ar phá sean aoise. Ceapaim i ndairíre gurb iad seo na daoine a d'oibrigh ar son na tíre agus ba cheart i ndeireadh a saol go bhfaigheadh siad cárta doctúra. Tá a fhios aige féin gach uair a théann duine isteach go dtí seomra doctúra go gcaithfidh sé íoc sula dtagann sé amach, gan trácht ar an leigheas. Os rud é nach bhfuil guth láidir acu agus go gcaithfidh tú bheith laidir i do ghuth anois chun aon rud a fháil sa tír seo ta mé ag cur guth láidir chuig an Aire cárta dochtúra a thabhairt do gach duine acu.

Rud eile ba cheart a dhéanamh dar liom ná féachaint ar an prescribed relative's allowance. Is ait an cárta é sin. Má théann mac nó iníon abhaile chun aire a thabhairt dá dtuismitheoirí ní fhaigheann siad faic. Tugann siad suas a bpostanna agus go minic postanna maithe, agus téann siad abhaile agus níl faic le fáil acu. Ar an dtaobh eile den scéal, ma thagann aoinne eile isteach faigheann siad pá chun aire a thabhairt do na sean daoine seo. Iarraim ar an Aire go mbeadh an pá céanna le fáil do mhac nó do iníon a théann abhaile chun aire a thabhairt dá dtuismitheoiri. Dá bharr sin, seo é an uair dheireannach atá mé chun teacht isteach don Dáil seo chun a rá leis an Aire rud éigin a dhéanamh faoin a Roinn féin. Nil aon fheabhas ag teacht ar an scéal — nil feabhas ar le bliain. Iarraim ar an Aire teacht suas do mo sheomra anois agus guthán a usáid chun 786444 a fáil agus deirim leis nach mbeidh aon duine ar an dtaobh eile den líne. Nílimid chun cur suas leis a thuilleadh. Tá sé de dhualgas air mar Aire féachaint chuige go bhfaighidh na daoine seo an pá atá riachtanach chun maireachtála.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Go raibh maith agat. An tAire chun deireadh a chur leis an díospóireacht.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

Perhaps I should mention that I have had a communication from one of my officials in relation to the point raised by Deputy Harte. On the information here — I will give it to the Deputy afterwards — the official took this query very seriously. No certificates were received in the case, but on the Deputy's say-so that the person concerned continues to be ill they are making a payment.

Mr. Harte

That is not my complaint. My complaint is that I could not get anyone to speak to me for an hour. I held a dead telephone in my hand for an hour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, please, the Minister should be heard at this stage.

Mr. Harte

I am not reflecting on the civil service in the Department. I am reflecting on——

Dr. Woods

The Deputy rang regarding a particular lady last week and he was rung back almost at once by the person concerned to say that a cheque for £33 was issued last Friday and that they would check and see what was due and come back to the Deputy. No more certificates have been received. The case was followed up——

Mr. Harte

It took me 40 minutes to get that information.

Dr. Woods

No RSI number was supplied. Notwithstanding that, they are paying benefit. There are six queries which the Deputy gave in yesterday and he asked to be rung about the replies on these. All are being dealt with at the moment. They relate to OAP, disability benefit and other schemes. No claim number was quoted on the OAP query and an incorrect number was quoted for the disability benefit case. As far as the officials are concerned——

Mr. Harte

She did not have an RSI number.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must intervene at this stage. Now we will get back to the Bill.

Mr. Harte

I do not like hypocrisy and I will not stand for it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Specific cases should not come up or be asked about or answered on a Bill. There are Question Time and other times in this House for those matters. The Minister, please, on the Bill.

Dr. Woods

I am prepared to be reasonable in regard to any fair criticism.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Woods

I have accepted it very reasonably and fairly here in the House, but I am not prepared to accept unfair criticism of my officials.

Mr. Harte

It is not unfair. If there is anything unfair about this——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, Deputy Harte, the Minister has been criticised and he is entitled to his time to reply.

Mr. Harte

He is so entitled but at least let him face the reality about the standards of his Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Harte was not interrupted but he is not prepared to allow anybody else to speak.

Mr. Harte

They are ready to go into the mental hospitals——

Dr. Woods

Over the last three days a very well-orchestrated political stunt, a hypocritical attempt to delay the passage of this important Bill, has been taking place. One Deputy after another has been putting down parliamentary questions for written and oral answers as a lead-up to the Bill, and then there were three days of filibuster and delay on matters not related to the Bill. The objective, of course, in part is to frustrate and delay the passage of the Bill through the House, and secondly, to try to divert the media and the people from the very real benefits and increases in the Bill.

Miss Barry

The frustration is from the Minister's Department.

Dr. Woods

I did not interrupt the Deputy while she was speaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not interrupt.

Dr. Woods

The outcome of this can only be further delays——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is entitled to reply.

Dr. Woods

The more parliamentary questions are put down the more my Department's Officials are tied up in answering these questions. Their time is taken up in this way. The senior officials and, indeed, the junior officials in the Department of Social Welfare are sick and tired of the repeated misrepresentation and abuse they receive from Deputies here in the House. Some of the members of the staff of the Department of Social Welfare were beaten up outside their offices during the postal dispute because they insisted on going in to give a service to those people the Deputy is talking about now. Yet I heard Deputies here in the House claiming in those periods that there were also delays at that time. I also had to listen to Deputies here in the House saying that there were delays at these other times as well, that there are recurring delays on the part of the Department of Social Welfare and that this goes on year in and year out. That situation of the postal dispute was particularly difficult for us. Several Deputies mentioned that period here.

Mr. Harte

It was their postal dispute.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy was not here at that stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is entitled to make a speech.

Mr. Harte

Why did he not own up to the fact?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Harte should leave the House if he is not prepared to listen to the Minister.

Mr. Harte

Everything is gone wrong. Why did he not indicate——

Dr. Woods

A number of Deputies asked for things to be explained and I will explain them now if Deputy Harte can contain himself.

Miss Barry

The Minister should bring us on a tour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Barry should not get in on this. The Minister is entitled to make his own statement without interruption.

Dr. Woods

This House must make up its mind. The House makes the laws. The House decides on the regulations and the Department have to implement them. The Department must provide the benefits, but at the same time it is called into account if conditions for eligibility are not complied with. Eligibility is a fundamental requirement of the whole system.

Mr. Harte

The Minister has no money, no sense, no kind of system.

Dr. Woods

We have a system which is based on contributions. If you have contributions in the general governing contribution year which applies, then you are eligible. If you do not have contributions in that year, then you are not eligible. I want to explain one thing about which several Deputies have asked and that is that the governing contribution year which governs one's eligibility since January 1 is the year April 1979 to April 1980. That is the year which governs the contributions. Various Deputies have made comments here which relate to that situation and which show that they do not actually understand how the system works.

Mr. Harte

No, no, it is not that they do not understand; it is that they know.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, Deputy Harte.

Mr. Harte

They know that nobody is being paid.

Dr. Woods

I was asked to explain and, in fact, Deputy Desmond said when he was in the House——

Mr. Harte

It is the Minister's own fault. He is on record as having said that he would spread around a much better deal for these people.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is being most disorderly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry, Minister, Deputy Harte, please. If the Deputy is not prepared to or does not wish to listen——

Mr. Harte

It is high time that somebody brought it to the attention of his Department that there are people in need of these allowances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Harte, are you going to allow the business of the House to continue? This sort of conduct is disgraceful and nothing else and the Chair must say that.

Mr. Harte

There is nothing more disgraceful than people having to wait for their allowances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Harte must allow the business of the House to go ahead or the Chair will have to deal with it.

Mr. Harte

I am more concerned about people than about myself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We know that you are concerned about the people, but that is no reason for interrupting the business of the House.

Mr. Harte

This has gone beyond a joke now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It certainly has, as far as the Chair is concerned.

Dr. Woods

I have attempted to make the position clear.

Mr. Harte

The Minister is doing nothing, if he tells people what he is now telling me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy Harte going to allow the business of the House to continue, please?

Mr. Harte

I am not obstructing the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has a lot of patience, but the Deputy has not stopped interrupting since the Minister began five minutes ago.

Mr. Harte

Why is the Minister not honest? Why does he not say that his Department have got stuck?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy may not be interested but other Deputies have asked me the question and I will explain it, even though the Deputy is not interested in it.

Mr. Harte

The Minister is no worse than he Minister who was there before him.

Dr. Woods

I am very proud to be associated with the man who was there before me.

Mr. Harte

Ask some of the people who are in need of benefits. It is a mutual admiration society.

Dr. Woods

We have, as I said, a system based on contributions.

Mr. Harte

A mutual admiration society between the Minister and Deputy Haughey. They ought to speak to the people on the ground.

Dr. Woods

The contribution year is the year——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry, Minister. Does Deputy Harte intend to allow this debate to go ahead?

Mr. Harte

I am totally frustrated and so is every other Deputy. It is my responsibility as spokesman of this party to voice my opinion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The chair is now totally frustrated. The Chair is not going to oblige Deputy Harte by taking the action he wants it to take.

Mr. Harte

I do not want any consideration from the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am asking Deputy Harte to conduct himself and to allow this debate to go ahead.

Mr. Harte

I am making a protest because it is necessary to make it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a time when a protest stops and the Deputy has not stopped. Does he intend to stop?

Mr. Harte

It is only the start as far as I am concerned, and the results from the Minister's Department show why the protest is only starting.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy is particularly upset because of the size of the increases which have been given in this Bill.

Mr. Harte

Ah, go away and get lost.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy knows well that in the recent budget in Britain the single old age pensioner got £2.45 whereas in the budget here the single old age pensioner gets an additional £6.15. The Deputy is also aware, and consequently wants to shout and roar to distract people and take them away from the harsh reality——

Mr. Harte

That is nothing to what the Minister would hear if he were to ask the people in need. We are listening to them every day. He should get down to the ground and meet the people there.

Dr. Woods

——the harsh reality of the very substantial increases which are being given here in this House by Fianna Fáil. He is also aware, I am sure, that those increases given in England do not apply until November——

Mr. Harte

We are talking about Dublin, Donegal and Cork. We are not interested in Britain.

Dr. Woods

——whereas the increases which we are trying to put through here apply from 1 April. Concerning old age pension couples——

Mr. Harte

When is the Minister going to pay the benefits which are due?

Dr. Woods

—— the Deputy also knows that in regard to an old age pension couple in England and in the North of Ireland, which he so often cites here in this House, the old age pension couple in the North of Ireland have an additional £3.90 to come to them on November 1, whereas the old age pension couple here in the Republic are getting £10.75 extra bringing the income of that couple to £53.55. The Deputy must recognise that——

Mr. Harte

The Minister is running away from the problem. Why is he not honest enough to say that his Department have broken down?

Dr. Woods

——this is a very substantial increase. I can understand how the Deputy does not want to hear about it or does not want the people outside this House to hear about these increases. These increases are being paid to the beneficiaries. The Deputy raises the question, and keeps raising it, about the disability benefit. I am sure the Deputy is aware that the old age pensioners are paid by means of the old age pension books and consequently are getting their benefits very directly.

Mr. Harte

Six months after they apply for them.

Dr. Woods

There are 954.805 total beneficiaries and, of those beneficiaries, disability benefit accounts for 68,000. Within that 68,000, 45,000——

Mr. Harte

Everybody is out of step except our Michael.

Dr. Woods

——45,000 are paid automatically, so that we are left with a maximum of 23,000 disability benefit claims which vary repeatedly. Of these, a percentage have been having difficulties as a result of the changeover to the new governing contribution year.

Mr. Harte

A percentage? A percentage of 99.9 per cent.

Dr. Woods

I have said in the House that we are making every possible effort to rectify that as quickly as we can and, indeed, the Deputy will find that outside the House, as well as hearing it from me here. At the same time, we ask the officials in the Department of Social Welfare to apply the regulations and rules which we make here. Looking at the various questions which have recently been raised, in many of these cases it has transpired that where employers made no returns there has been some delay in determining eligibility. There is no way of avoiding some delay there because of the legal onus and responsibility lying on the officials in those cases. The questions show many cases where medical referees said that a man or woman was fit for work, but the claimant did not agree. Of course, there is a delay here because the Department will provide a second medical referee and will go further to provide an oral hearing and, in certain cases, provide specialist consultations. The questions also showed cases where people who were not eligible for benefit got nothing. Naturally, they were aggrieved and keep coming back about the matter. Opposition Deputies, again and again, refer to such cases as ones of delay. This is grossly false and unfair and they know it.

Mr. Harte

Deputy Conaghan knows all the complaints he is getting in Donegal. He gets many complaints each week. He will tell you exactly the same as I am telling you.

Dr. Woods

In any one week, the Department receive 1,500 claims for disability benefit which have no name, no number or a wrong number and, naturally, with the changeover to the PRSI system and the new governing contribution year effective from January, the number of these instances rose and that number is being dealt with. This is a very specific, direct problem which is being dealt with very urgently.

I have said to the Deputies who are making the case that it is the computerisation which causes this. That the computer depends on the information fed into it. The Department are just as expert at handling computers as people on the other side of the House and their friends are who are involved in business. The problem arises in the input information. In advance, various measures were taken, like special regulations which would allow assessment on the 1978-1979 governing contribution year in the event of problems.

Mr. J. Ryan

What about extra telephones?

Dr. Woods

The Deputy has raised the point about telephones in the House on several occasions.

Miss Barry

They just do not work.

Mr. R. Ryan

I cannot get through.

Dr. Woods

I undertook a programme, which I mentioned earlier, during last year to improve a variety of areas. For instance, Gandon House is one which we have been trying to get under way. I am glad to tell the Deputies that the phones will be functioning very shortly.

Mr. Harte

Why not admit you failed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does he ever stop?

Debate adjourned.