Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

Although I do not pretend there are no widows over 65 or 66, we nonetheless have a group of young widows and widowers. This category of people do not do very well under the State. There has been an historic and deliberate attempt by all Governments to ignore this group as its circumstances will not always exist. The people involved, the Government and everyone else know that the group is in a transient period. That a mother or father of young children can find himself or herself in unplanned for circumstances is unfair, especially given that his or her lifestyle is based on two incomes. Their situations arise from tragic circumstances and are not a case of a marriage breaking up or one spouse deciding to leave the family home. However, they receive no secondary benefits.

In this day and age, most of us would accept few houses do not have televisions. I do not want to generalise because, if I do, I will get a telephone call from the person who does not fit the norm to tell me I am wrong. Recent reports inform us that virtually every bedroom has a television set. However, young widowed mothers do not get free television licences. Licences are not inexpensive items and widows must find the money for them every year. In most cases, television is their only entertainment. They do not have free electricity or fuel. No one should be expected to live without the benefits of energy in his or her house. However, widows are expected to provide out of miserly pensions the comforts they have come to expect for their children.

That they are young widows means a pension deriving from employment or a private pension is not available. They find themselves in circumstances near to but not in the welfare allowances net but have lifestyle expectations gained when they were married and their partners worked as well. We must examine this issue concerning this group of people. The social welfare code and needs of people have changed.

I spoke to the Minister about lone parents previously but in a different context. We are now speaking on this Bill in which the only significant measure I see is the disregard of earnings in respect of the one parent family allowance. Before entering the transitional payment stage, one will be able to earn €375 per week, which will be increased from €293 per week. I welcome this measure. People will appreciate it as the money involved is serious to a significant extent.

I was approached last Friday by a young woman who received a letter from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I am not unique and am sure the Minister, Deputy Ardagh and others have also been approached by such people. I am one of those who believes the Department has changed radically over the past 15 years as to be unrecognisable. Its staff is courteous, available, anxious to help and, if one is mistaken in looking for one payment, they will direct one appropriately. This is important as the people being dealt with are vulnerable.

I spoke to the Minister previously about the young woman in question. As in other cases with which I have dealt, the letter she received told her she owed more than €12,000 but, because she was unknowingly entitled to family income supplement since the date from which she owed money, the bill dropped to €6,500. One might as well have told her she owed the State €5 million and to repay it at €5 per week. She could not get this money together and has entered the appeals process. The Minister and I know that, if this young woman had stayed at home rather than worked, she would not have been billed. She does not receive a rent allowance, only a transitional half rate payment because she went out to work, and was honest, compliant and up front in giving the Department the information it requested. Approximately 4,000 people are in this position or so I am told. Fortunately, the cases I have appealed were successful.

In this context a special unit has been established in the Department to examine payments made to workers. It is not this young woman's fault she went over the limit for the transitional payment. When she was asked to return her books, as it were, to reduce the payments by half, she did so. When she was asked to send in her P60, she did so. She did everything the Department requested of her. It has discovered it overpaid her by a certain amount and she is now in a state of panic.

While a number of cases may have been dealt with because the process has continued for two years, approximately 4,000 other people are in the same position. If people owe the State money, they owe the State money. If this young woman had stayed at home, she would not owe the State anything and would still get a rent allowance and the other benefits to which she, as the mother of a young child, is entitled. However, she did not stay at home. She went out to work. Her income is paltry which is why she receives family income supplement.

While I do not know how, something must be done in respect of that cohort of people. Many amnesties have been introduced by the Dáil for people who owed more than €6,500 and could afford to repay many times the amounts this young woman owes. I appeal to the Minister to introduce an amnesty for the group in question. That we would decide to crucify and cause such angst among all young women who choose to work, better themselves and inform the Department without underhanded dealings is astonishing. That 3,700 women have already paid is terrifying and I wonder how they managed to make the repayments.

People with disabilities is my favourite subject. I read a report yesterday on people with disabilities who want to live independently. We automatically assume people with disabilities are young men and women in wheelchairs, but this is not the case as there are all types of disabilities. For example, the elderly can have disabilities. Reasons for disabilities include strokes, severe heart attacks, accidents, births, diseases, etc. We must not force people with disabilities to return to sheltered workshops or to sit in the corner of their homes.

We have grown accustomed to seeing people with disabilities who we did not believe would venture out into the big bad world at every street corner. I welcome this as it creates diversity and gives us a different view of the world. It ensures we listen to the point of view of people who see the world in a very different way. I will not refer to access because it is so poor in this country that it terrifies me. The private sector will not deal with this until 2015.

Why is there no indication that the Minister accepts it costs more to live for people with disabilities? Most people can get from A to B under their own steam but many people with disabilities cannot. They must rely on taxis, public transports or lifts from others. We must examine the idea of a cost of disability allowance. Perhaps this could be done as a first step, with the intention of implementing the full allowance sought in the equal citizens document. We must begin to examine this measure and it will eventually happen. The Minister's colleague on the backbenches, from a neighbouring constituency, Deputy O'Connor, sees him as the Che Guevara of the Government, and if the Minister wishes to make a mark he should introduce the measures I have suggested. If the Minister amended his budget to introduce a starter payment for disability allowance it would be deeply appreciated and he would forever be remembered for it.

See this speech in context