Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)

Despite the budget in December, people are feeling the pinch more than ever. Since the Minister announced his generous provisions, the increases have been wiped out by major increases in the cost of food, fuel, light and gas. People on low incomes are finding life very difficult. Every time they go to the shop or supermarket, they find there has been an increase in the cost of foodstuffs. The Minister must do something to help these people before the summer. The increased payments they received, while generous, do not cover the increases in costs and they are feeling the pinch. I am disappointed by that.

I support Deputy Deenihan on the matter of the CWOs. The current system is working and should be left in place. I will give an example. On a Saturday evening a month ago I was contacted by a person who had a hospital appointment in Dublin. The HSE refused to bring the person to the hospital despite the fact the person was in very bad health. This person had cancelled a previous appointment because he could not afford to attend. I contacted the manager of the community welfare office on the Saturday evening about the case and he contacted me later to say the person could go ahead and bring the bill to the community welfare officer on Monday where it would be dealt with. This person got very bad news when he attended the hospital. He had to deal with the stress and pressure of not having the resources to keep the appointment and almost failed to keep it because of his lack of resources. If the community welfare officer was not available, there would have been no point in ringing Sligo. I challenge the Minister to ring the Sligo office, or the Letterkenny office or the Donegal office, now or at 2.15 p.m. or 2.30 p.m. I will tell him the response he will get — Mr. and Mrs. Voicemail. That is all he will get; he will get no answers. The only time one gets answers from the Department of Social and Family Affairs is when one tables a parliamentary question. I compliment the Department in that regard. It is good at that, but it is not good otherwise.

What is this daft proposal of swipecards for the elderly which the Minister is now proposing? This is an attack on the most vulnerable and weak. It is a scandal. It is also an attack on rural post offices. The Minister is now proposing that if the Department provides a person with a swipecard and the person does not collect his or her money within 12 days, when he or she comes with the swipecard to collect on the 13th day the computer will show that there is no money there for him or her. What if that person is in hospital? What if that person is sick? What if that person has nobody to collect that money for him or her? The Minister will state it is a means tested payment, but there are many elderly persons in rural Ireland who cannot get to the post office because there is no rural transport and the Minister and his Department have failed to introduce a voucher to allow them use taxis. In a few minutes the Dublin Deputies will defend the Minister. Why would they not defend him, given that their constituents have DART, Luas and Dublin Bus? People in Dublin have everything while we in rural Ireland have nothing.

The Government has taken away the quality of life in rural Ireland. The people used be able to go to the pub. They can no longer do so because they are now being met by gardaí. Due to every kind of regulation, they cannot even go out on a Friday or Saturday night for a drink because they are afraid. If they do not get them at night-time, they will be waiting to get them in the morning. They have attacked and destroyed rural life.

Why is it now necessary to introduce the swipecard to which I referred earlier, and why is the Department not out checking the people who are defrauding the State of rent allowance? The Department should get out and attack the people who are defrauding the State, not the innocent people who cannot collect their pensions for one reason or another. I ask the Minister to get rid of that daft regulation immediately.

I heard Deputy Deenihan speak of pensions. A man who came into my clinic last week has worked for 50 years. For 42 years that man worked for an employer and he paid his full contributions. For eight years he was self-employed. He became of pension age last week. He did not get a full contributory pension — he got 98% of it. That is a scandal. That is an anomaly in the social welfare system.

In 1988, people such as farmers who never paid a contribution in their lives were allowed into a system where they paid contributions for ten years as self-employed persons and became entitled to a full contributory pension. That is an anomaly with which the Minister must deal. There are five or six persons known to me in my constituency who have worked over a 30 or 40 year period and, because there were gaps in their record of contributions, they do not get a full contributory pension. There is a man who worked over a 50 year period and who paid stamps for approximately 30 years, but, because there was a gap, the Department calculated his contributions over the 50 years. This meant he got only a percentage of a full contributory pension. This affects very few people and I ask the Minister to investigate this matter immediately.

I was disappointed with the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. When the Bill was announced last week, I expected that we would see something done about a refuse service waiver for persons on social welfare. I hoped the Minister would include such a waiver in the household benefits package because a serious situation is developing among all local authorities. Incidentally, maybe we should look at getting rid of them because they are unable to run the service or do their job any longer. It appears that they cannot run a refuse service even though they were able to pick the cream of the people from whom to collect it. Every one of them is telling us that they are losing money.

These are the same officials in the local authorities who are putting levies on business, people who apply for planning permission and others. All that is wrong with these officials in the local authorities is that they never worked a day in their lives outside the public service and they do not know how to make a euro, to make a profit and to pay staff. They get their cheques on a Friday evening no matter what happens and they are the ones who are lecturing the private sector on how they may do business.

The people are angry. They are getting sick and tired of the levies and charges which are paying for benchmarking for local authority staff. They are no longer able to continue in business. People are telling me on a daily basis that they have had enough and are getting out. It is not good for the country when small businesses and enterprises trying to create employment and provide a service in rural areas are being wiped out by the State.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not introduce a waiver scheme for the elderly on €200 a week who must pay €300, €400 or €500 per year to get their refuse taken away. It is not acceptable and something must be done. I raised the matter at the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs where I brought in the officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It cannot go on. The Minister cannot give social welfare increases of €16 or €17 a week and expect these people to pay €20 or €30 per week to have their refuse collected. Something must be done immediately and I ask the Minister to deal with this problem.

There is a social welfare top-up scheme for people who have children attending third level. I raised this matter previously and I ask the Minister and the Department to look at it. There is a cut-off point for a person on social welfare who has one child and if a person goes over that cut-off point, he or she does not quality for the social welfare top-up. A constituent of mine on social welfare has three children at third level and because they exceed that cut-off point, they do not get the top-up. His wife works a few hours and that, together with his social welfare, puts them over the cut-off point for this scheme.

Why not operate this scheme like the third level grant, where, if one has one child, two children or three children, the Department increases the threshold which allows them into the system? As the scheme operates at present, there is a certain point at which one is cut off, irrespective of whether a person has one, two, three or four children at third level. People on social welfare who have children at third level are finding it very difficult. The Minister should look at this scheme immediately, particularly before we reach September when people who have children entering third level will apply for the top-up and will find it is a difficult time for them. This good scheme helps people on social welfare, but it is wrong that there is no disregard available for those who have a second or third child, and that such people are not given any increase for them.

The Minister might respond to me about the telephone allowance on which there was a number of announcements. Is the scheme whereby a person can get free mobile telephone units in place? This is approximately the 36th time this scheme has been announced by the Government. Before the local elections the Minister announced it ten times; before the last general election the Minister did so approximately 15 times and, in between, the Minister has certainly done it ten or 12 times. Will he tell me whether that scheme is in place and give me a "Yes" or "No" answer? The press officer in the Minister's office is a great man for re-spinning. There are those who are good at spinning, but his man is good at re-spinning continuously. He is from County Mayo and he is a good fellow. Anyone from there is good and I will not hold that against him. No doubt he is spinning it out on a regular basis. In any case, I want to know what is the position in that regard.

What plans has the Minister to introduce a taxi voucher for the elderly, particularly to enhance the quality of life in rural Ireland? As these people are eligible for the free schemes, they possess the free travel pass.

See this speech in context