Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Feb 1993

Vol. 426 No. 1

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Exceptional Needs Payment.

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social Welfare the status of social welfare Circular 14/92; if he intends to withdraw this circular; if he will publish or place in the library of Dáil Éireann this circular and Circular 18/92 which was issued as a clarification of the earlier circular; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that some community welfare officers are continuing to apply Circular 14/92 in its original form, especially in regard to ESB payments, leading to hardship for families in need and to an increase in the number of disconnections and furthermore that some community welfare officers believe that Circular 18/92 makes the situation even worse; if he will withdraw the circular in full and revert to the practices operating prior to Circular 14/92; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mary Flaherty

Ceist:

15 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will withdraw the instruction issued to community welfare officers which limits assistance for help with rent and heat to once a year and a maximum of £100.

Mary Flaherty

Ceist:

21 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, he has to allow community welfare officers flexibility to deal with exceptional payments for rent and heating bills; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Seán Barrett

Ceist:

47 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to a change in Eastern Health Board policy whereby the Community Welfare Officers are no longer permitted to provide assistance in hardship cases towards the cost of ESB bills; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 15, 21 and 47 together.

On a point of order, I suppose we have no opportunity to protest.

I wish very much to dissuade Members from raising points of order during priority question time, for which 15 minutes only, very precious time, is allocated.

We will have no opportunity to ask supplementaries on our questions. Two of the questions are in my name.

The problem is that Question No. 11 comes first.

Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme health boards are empowered to make a single payment to meet an exceptional need. The intention was that such payments would provide a safety net for people at times when they cannot manage because of circumstances which are out of the ordinary.

In recent years one of the main items for which payments under this heading have been made is electricity or gas. In certain areas such payments have been made regularly to the same clients. 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.

Circular 14/92 was designed to introduce a degree of consistency into the administration of exceptional needs payments across health boards by offering guidance to boards in respect of such payments. The circular did not remove the basic discretion or responsibility which health boards have to make payments under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Indeed it could not remove this discretion. It is built into the legislation.

Circular 18/92 replaced Circular 14/92 as guidance on exceptional need payments for fuel debts. It was issued to remove any doubts which might be expressed with regard to the discretion of health boards. The circular offered guidance on the circumstances in which exceptional needs payments might be used to help with fuel debts. The circular advised that health boards should consider assistance only where exceptional circumstances, such as ill health, have given rise to higher consumption or where inability to meet a fuel bill arose from other exceptional circumstances. The circular also said that payment should be conditional on the client making use of schemes such as the ESB or gas easypay schemes or, where available, a card meter. In general payment should not exceed £100.

It was considered that the above guidance would cover the majority of exceptional needs requests. However, the circular made it clear that a health board may authorise a payment in excess of £100 or indeed a further payment, if a board considers it justified in a particular case.

That is a total misrepresentation.

The circular did not limit the number of such payments which may be made in a particular period.

Whitewash.

The question of achieving consistency across and within health boards in the operation of the discretionary elements of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is a major priority with me.

That is totally misleading.

I have just said it is a priority with me. It is not misleading. I am telling the Deputy what my position is.

The Minister is not entitled to mislead the House.

If the Deputy wants to answer the questions let him do so.

I can answer them; my constituents can answer them.

Only the Deputy who put down the question may intervene at this stage, that is Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.

None of the Deputies who put down questions can intervene.

Question No. 47 is in my name, a Cheann Comhairle.

I know that Deputy, but this is priority time.

This is an abuse of democracy, so much for so-called Dáil reform.

The Deputy would want to sort that out within his party and with his Whip.

It is an abuse.

An advisory committee, including representation from all the health boards, was set up in September 1992 with the objective of addressing the problem of inconsistency in decision making. This committee is working on a comprehensive set of new guidelines on all aspects of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme but especially those aspects which include a discretionary element.

Equalising downwards again.

Interpretation in practice of Circular 18/92 is among the matters being addressed by the group. I would envisage publishing the new guidelines on the supplementary welfare allowance scheme 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.

When the previous Government and the one before it wanted to introduce cuts they called them "savings". Now the Government is calling them "introducing consistencies". The Minister must be aware that Circular 14/92 and its so-called clarification have given rise to a huge degree of poverty and anguish for many hundreds, if not thousands, of people who face problems, particularly with ESB bills.

It is No. 10 of the "dirty dozen".

There has been a huge increase in the number of disconnections of ESB supplies to people around Dublin city. I wish to ask the Minister the nub of the question: is he prepared to withdraw completely from Circular 14/92 and its so-called clarification Circular 18/92 and revert to the position where the community welfare officers have discretion as to whom they may help under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme?

Let us not forget the time factor; the time for Priority Questions is fast running out today.

The Deputy is giving a very misleading impression of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The expenditure on the scheme in 1992 was almost £100 million; it increased very steeply.

So has poverty.

This, of course, has been in response to the difficulties which are being experienced.

There are 300,000 unemployed.

In relation to the review, I have told the Deputy that, first, an advisory committee was set up to look at the whole scheme, and secondly I will review the operation of the scheme. Reference was made to consistency. Under the legislation, the health boards still have the discretionary power in this area. The purpose of the circular in the first instance was to introduce a degree of consistency across the different health boards and within health board areas. When difficulties arose with the circular, a meeting was held between SIPTU and the previous Minister. Following that meeting the second circular was issued. That is how the second circular came about.

There are people with no ESB supply. The Minister is engaging in flimflam. People in my constituency have had their supply cut off.

The second circular clarified the position——

The first circular was illegal.

It clearly outlined——

The CWOs refused to operate it. That is the reason.

——that the discretion still lay with the health boards.

If Question No. 12 is responded to immediately I will call it; otherwise it cannot be disposed of.

A Cheann Comhairle, may I ask——

I am sorry, Deputy, I have called Question No. 12.

This is a very important question——

I am sorry Deputy, but there is a time factor involved.

In relation to the supply of electricity to hundreds of people around the city.

I want to dispose of the fourth priority question, question No.12, please.

The Minister is pretending that he is not making cuts. May I point out to him——

Question No. 12 please.

——that the report on area No.6 of the Eastern Health Board, published in January of this year.

Deputy De Rossa, please desist.

——points out that the number of people who were helped by the community welfare officers in the area——

The Deputy is making a speech rather than asking a question. Could we have a response to Question No. 12, please?

——fell by 50 per cent and the amount of money paid out fell from £8,000 to £5,000?

Deputy De Rossa must resume his seat now.

Will the Minister admit that he is engaging——

The Deputy must resume his seat or leave the House.

——in cuts against the most poverty stricken people in our city——

Deputy De Rossa please leave the House.

——and that he must withdraw Circulars 14/92 and 18/92?

Deputy De Rossa, if you do not leave the House I shall have to name you.

A Cheann Comhairle, I am not prepared to put up with this kind of nonsense from the Minister today. He is pretending that people are not suffering as a result of circulars which his predecessors issued.

I was anxious to dispose of another question, Question No. 12.

It is a disgrace that the Minister is prepared to stand up here and ignore the hardship he is causing. It is nonsense.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 42 together.

I have been particularly concerned for some time about the problem of moneylenders both in rural and urban areas.

May I ask the Minister why Deputies of this House are refused copies of these circulars?

Deputy, I shall have to ask you to leave the House forthwith.

I do not intend to leave the House, a Cheann Comharile.

That is a challenge to the Chair, I must ask that the Deputy be named.

Barr
Roinn