Vol. 423 No. 5
9 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that at least one health board has received legal advice to the effect that his recent directive to them restricting certain supplementary welfare payments is illegal; and, if so, if he will now withdraw the directive.
16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the severe difficulties caused by the implementation of social welfare Circular 14/92 which severely restricts the ability of community welfare officers to make discretionary payments to those in need; if his attention has further been drawn to the strong criticism of the circular made by caring organisation; if his attention has been drawn to doubts as to whether he was within his powers in issuing this directive; if he will place a copy of the circular in the Library of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
17 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that at least one health board has received legal advice that the Circular No. 14/92 could be ultra vires; and if he intends to implement the circular despite this advice.
41 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for cutting the access of people on very low incomes to the support provided under the exceptional needs discretion given to community welfare officers, in the light of doubts as to whether he has the power to do so; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 16, 17 and 41 together. Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, health boards are empowered to make a single payment to meet an exceptional need. The essence of such payments is that they are occasional and, therefore, should arise only under conditions which are out of the ordinary.
One of the main items for which payments under this heading are made is electricity or gas. In certain areas such payments have been made regularly to the same clients. This is not in keeping with the intention of the scheme.
The fact that regular payments in respect of electricity or gas are made in certain areas and not in others has also resulted in considerable inconsistency between different health boards in the administration of this aspect of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
Under the legislation, I am responsible for the general direction and control of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. It was clear to me that measures were required to introduce greater consistency in relation to this payment by drawing up guidelines to provide a reasonable level of assistance to people in need while at the same time achieving the necessary consistency across the country. The issue of Circular 14/92 was designed to achieve this.
The circular indicated that exceptional needs payments for electricity or gas should be limited to one per client, per year and should not exceed a maximum of £100. There was no intention, in issuing the circular, to remove the basic discretion or responsibility which health boards have to make payments under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, nor indeed could it, as this discretion is built into the legislation. The circular was intended as a first step towards introducing a more comprehensive set of guidelines for health boards to assist in the administration of the scheme.
In this connection I recently established an advisory committee, including representation of all the health boards, to assist in achieving consistency in the operation of the scheme. This committee is working, inter alia, on a comprehensive approach to new guidelines on all the discretionary aspects of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
I would envisage publishing these guidelines when they are completed and making them available to groups or individuals who wish to have them and supplying copies to the Library of the House. I am also reviewing the legislation and, should changes be required to ensure greater consistency in the application of the scheme, I will bring forward appropriate proposals in this regard.
In the meantime, following consultations which I have had with SIPTU, which represents many of the staff administering the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, I propose to remove any doubts which may have arisen regarding the intention of Circular 14/92 and to clarify that the limits provided for are intended as guidelines and not to override the basic discretion which health boards already have. Where circumstances warrant it, health boards have the discretion to exceed the guidelines in particular cases. At this point, however, I am satisfied that the general limitations set out in the circular are reasonable having regard to the original intention of the scheme and the increases in basic levels of social welfare payments since them.
Be a man and withdraw the circular.
Please, Deputy.
The Minister has capitulated to a certain extent under pressure — it is only to a certain extent. Would he acknowledge that what he has done is illegal?
I do not. In order to remove any doubts about Circular 14/92——
The way to solve the problem is to withdraw it.
——I will issue new clarification to the health boards, as announced yesterday at the meeting with SIPTU, to ensure that discretion is not removed from the community welfare officers. It was never intended to remove the discretionary element from the community welfare officers. It is my intention to introduce some sort of uniformity into the scheme. It is fair to point out that only 88 per cent of the exceptional needs payments are made in the Eastern Health Board area which comprises only 34 per cent of social welfare recipients.
This is a poverty stricken city.
There is no consistency with the other health board areas and it is my intention to bring uniformity into the scheme. At no stage did I intend to remove the discretionary element from the community welfare officers. To ensure that this is clarified, I will communicate with the health boards, as announced yesterday.
The Minister should resign.
I have with me the circular which is categorical. I also have details of the Kershaw and McLaughlin cases in the courts and the text of section 212 of the 1981 Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act. Will the Minister not admit that the Eastern Health Board have been advised by their legal advisers that to implement the Minister's directive would be illegal and it is under that pressure that he has capitulated?
The Deputy and I would be very brave if we attempted to guess what the court might decide in any particular instance.
There are precedents in cases like this.
It would be a brave and foolish person who would guess what would be decided in court. I am satisfied that the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and the exceptional needs payments discretion within that scheme are not being run in a uniform way throughout the country or in the different health boards areas. It is my intention to try to bring some uniformity into the scheme. I recognise that the discretion must be left with the community welfare officers in cases where there is exceptional need. But the basic purpose of "exceptional need" is, by definition, to provide for exceptional need. An "exceptional need" cannot arise on a recurrent basis. Deputies here know as well as I do that each time a bill arises in respect of gas or heat certain people participating in this scheme refer it for payment. We must remember that the majority of social welfare recipients nationwide do not resort to "exceptional need" payments continuously or have them paid continuously. But in certain areas of the country it is regarded as a regular payment which is not the purpose behind the "exceptional need" payments. Some uniformity must be introduced into the system.
Would the Minister not accept that always it has been regarded as an exception if a mother with five or six children is having her electricity supply cut off, especially if she has no other means of cooking or heating? That has always been regarded as exceptional. Why would the Minister want to take away that discretion on the part of health boards to help such people?
Let us not forget that brevity should be the keynote of our proceedings at this time, when 15 minutes is allocated for five questions. I am now calling Question No. 10.
