Yesterday, I received a distressed call from a constituent, Annie from Ballyfermot, an old age pensioner aged 79, who is in receipt of a widow’s contributory pension. Her husband died in 1977. On Friday, she went to the post office to collect her pension to discover it had been cut off. The reason was that she was subject to a random controlled check by the Department of Social Protection. She was very upset she had to prove again her entitlement to this miserly pension of €12,000 a year while watching recent scandals hitting the TV news every night and in the newspapers. In her view, she has worked, paid her stamp, reared nine children and is, accordingly, entitled to her widow’s contributory pension.

To my mind, this is a story of two worlds. There are those on State pensions who have to prove and reprove their eligibility to their entitlements - prove they are not spongers, criminals or defrauding the State. This is contrasted with those at the top of our society, with an unlimited and boundless sense of entitlement, in the health services and the top of charitable organisations, who have salaries of up to €100,000 a year, ten times the State pension.

Like the leaders' allowances.

This sense of entitlement among the latter means their salaries have to be topped up by raiding funds donated by the public to provide services for people with disabilities and sick children, as well as raiding the shop at Crumlin children’s hospital. Of course, these same individuals also expect hugely inflated pensions when they leave their positions. This sense of entitlement we have seen exposed in the CRC scandal and top-up payments for hospital executives.

They did not lick this sense of entitlement off the stones.

According to Social Justice Ireland, the pay of Ministers increased by €1,500 a week between 1986 and 2011. The former Taoiseach, Mr. Brian Cowen, walked away from the mess in which he had left us with an entitlement to €310,000. In addition to his Deputy's and Minister's payments, he received a lump sum pension payment, a termination lump sum and a termination payment. Of course, he was not the only one to do so.

The Deputy should not forget herself; she should pay back the leader's allowance.

The Government was supposed to change these things. The woman mentioned had her pension cut off while watching these things happen on television every day of the week. It is same old, same old. Does the Taoiseach think this is fair? Does he think it is fair that the people mentioned are still pocketing these pensions? Does he believe the actions of the Department of Social Protection were protecting the most vulnerable in society? Will he ensure the widow's contributory pension of the lady in question is reinstated immediately while the case is being reviewed?

What about people who do not pay their VAT?

I will be very happy to take the details of the pensioner Deputy Joan Collins has mentioned. Someone who has earned a contributory pension has paid for it and it is his or her entitlement. In dealing with the massive expenditure in the Department of Social Protection the people in it have a duty to see to it that the payments made are in order. That is the reason this year it is expected that between 800,000 and 900,000 public service cards will issue. There has been a consistent pattern of scams within the Department, that is, of individuals scamming the Department in which fraud has applied. Because of the changes made by the Minister and the introduction of advanced technology, a stop has been put to a great deal of this, rightly so. I do not know the details of the pensioner mentioned by the Deputy, but if she gives them to me afterwards, I will be happy to follow through on the issue for her. I do not know the reason a contributory pension would be cut off unless there was some reason for it to happen. Even in the case of a random check, it still should have shown up that a contributory pensioner should continue to receive her pension. Consequently, I will be happy to take the details from the Deputy and discuss the matter with the Minister for Social Protection. In general, serious changes have been made in the system of payments to cut out fraud and the abuse of public moneys. This is the right and proper thing to do and the Government will continue to support the Minister in that regard.

I resent that remark in referring to fraud and scams in respect of the woman in question. She is now part of what is called the scam book, about which the Taoiseach was talking, which gives the Minister for Social Protection her reason to have random checks. The facts of the matter are very straightforward. This is a 79 year old woman who spoke to them on the telephone. She was asked whether she had remarried and whether her name was still in the name of her husband. It was obvious that she was still alive and that the box should simply have been ticked to the effect that she was who she had said with was with regard to her pension. However, this was not done; the pension was cut off on Friday and now she has no money. This pertains to a pension of €230 and a fuel allowance of €20. This should never have happened and it never should have been necessary to raise the matter in the Dáil. Moreover, the Taoiseach is still standing over the culture of ex-politicians in the Dáil who still are getting these massive "we are worth it" pensions, with the others. Why does he not introduce a special public sector pension tax on their super pensions? Easy. The universal social charge was brought in and if the Government was willing to do this, it would be tackling these pensions, but it will not. Were it to do so, it would not be taking on people's contracts but would be introducing a tax to deal with the issue. I seek the immediate reinstatement of the pension of the woman concerned, followed by an examination of the issue. At least then the matter could be resolved because this is a genuine case that should never have happened.

In response to the Deputy's first question, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has introduced serious changes to the process in dealing with public representatives, both Oireachtas and non-Oireachtas, as part of the general changes to the public pay scheme.

Brian Cowen, Mary Harney and Mary Coughlan are still getting their pensions.

These changes are in place for everyone to see. I am interested in the case mentioned by the Deputy of the good lady who has been in receipt of a contributory pension for a considerable time. If I understand the Deputy correctly, the lady in question was contacted by the Department to verify that she was still in receipt of her pension. The question is: why, following that intervention, was her pension cut off? This must be and will be found out. She has been entitled to her pension all these years and assuming this is correct, the Deputy should give me the details. She will be aware of cases that have been before the courts - I do not suggest anything is wrong - in which pensions were drawn on other persons' names long after they were deceased. That is not right either and such elements must be and are being rectified. I am sorry for any distress caused to the good lady who has been in receipt of her contributory pension and if the Deputy gives me the details, I will contact the Minister for Social Protection immediately.