asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will reduce the present age limit for qualification for a single woman's allowance.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Single Woman's Allowance.
6.
This scheme, which was introduced on 4th July, 1974, is being kept under review with a view to effecting such improvements as experience of its operation suggests are desirable. No such change as the Deputy suggests is at present contemplated.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give any idea of costs here?
I am sorry, Deputy?
Would the reduction of the age involve any substantial cost to the Exchequer?
Obviously, it would.
But the scheme is not costing much, is it?
It is costing sufficient. I cannot tell the Deputy off-hand exactly how much. To do, as suggested in the question, would cost £150,000.
The question does not suggest any age.
To reduce it even by a year would cost £150,000.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it would be equitable to reduce it more or less parallel with the reduction in the old age pension eligibility limit?
I would consider it desirable to reduce it as far as financial considerations would permit and as would be socially desirable. But, as the Deputy will appreciate, it is a new scheme. It is an entirely new innovation in the approach to the social problems created by women in this category and is a very substantial improvement on what obtained prior to the introduction of the scheme, which was last year only. I can assure the Deputy I would be as anxious to extend it as speedily as possible.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in calculating the means of an applicant for a single woman's allowance, the means and property of a brother or a sister or other relative with whom she lives is taken into account.
One of the items which must be taken into account in calculating the means of an applicant for single woman's allowance is the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the applicant. This usually consists of free or partly free board and lodging. Where this is being provided by a brother or sister or other relative, the means of the latter would, therefore, be a relevant factor in determining the value to the applicant of such benefit or privilege for the purposes of her claims to a single woman's allowance.
Is that all that would be taken into account—the value of any board or accommodation provided? The means of the relatives are not involved other than that?
No, what would be determined as her benefit by means of board and accommodation.
Is the fact that she may be entitled to something under the Succession Bill taken into account at that point in time even though it cannot be realised?
If she had actual income or capital in her own right, naturally, that would be taken into account irrespective of where it was derived from but if she was only anticipating inheritance of money at some future date, that would not be taken into account.
I am thinking of the case where parents die and a brother and sister are left in the house. Obviously, both of them are entitled under the Succession Act and the Parliamentary Secretary says under those circumstances that would not be included.
No, I did not say that, Deputy. If she owned some of the property and was deriving income from her ownership of the property that would be taken into account.
I presume I am on the same lines as Deputy Dr. Gibbons— that in the case of an intestate estate where no probate or letters of administration have been taken out over a long number of years, say, perhaps, for as long as two generations but where the would-be recipient of such an allowance would be entitled to a share of a small farm, or whatever was involved but has never taken that up, that would seem to be included at present in arriving at some of the allowances granted.
If she is the legal owner of property——
No, legally entitled to, but not the owner, nor has any intention of becoming the legal owner.
The Deputy has introduced a distinction on which I could not give him an off the cuff answer but I would be prepared to investigate it.