asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on the proposals submitted to his Department by the Graiguecullen-Killeshin Community Association for an employment project in their area.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
8.
I accept that the proposal by the Graiguecullen-Killeshin Community Association for an employment project in the area was put forward in a constructive spirit and any initiative by locally based organisations for stimulating employment is undoubtedly welcome.
The proposal would involve the use of funds allocated to my Department for payment of benefit to persons who are unemployed. Under existing financial procedures moneys voted by the Dáil for a specific purpose cannot be diverted to other purposes no matter how meritorious the intention might be. I would, therefore, be inhibited from using for employment creation purposes moneys voted by the Dáil for the payment of unemployment benefit. I accept overall the merit of the proposal but the question of financing is a different matter more especially as separate provision is made by the Dáil in a variety of ways for the creation of employment.
There may, therefore, be more appropriate ways of dealing with this matter and I have accordingly asked the Minister for Labour to consider whether he might be able to assist from funds available to him.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when eligibility for unemployment assistance will be extended to married women in accordance with the EEC requirements.
The EEC provision to which the Deputy refers is the directive adopted by the Council of Ministers in December 1978 which provides for the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment as between men and women in matters of social security over a period of six years. A number of measures have already been taken to provide equality of treatment in our social welfare system in accordance with the terms of the directive and steps to remove the remaining discriminatory features, including that referred to by the Deputy, will be taken within the time scale laid down, Expenditure proposals for my Department for the current year have already been determined and further improvements cannot be expected until next year.
Would the Minister not take into consideration, because of the recession and with so much unemployment, that those married women who normally work need some extra money now and that it would be a nice gesture to bring this in as soon as possible and not have to wait until the EEC regulations come into force?
While I would wish to do so the cost would be £1 million. At the moment, because of the current unemployment situation and the demands on the other social welfare benefit schemes, at this stage my own Estimate is running short, so, not only do I not have the £1 million in that context but I am even now several million pounds short.
Is the Minister giving an undertaking that he will bring it in in 1984 if he is still in office?
There is not a hope.
I do not have much doubt about being in office. Nevertheless, the six years, as the Deputy is aware, will expire in December 1984 so that the State must implement the directive by December of next year. In the context of the Estimates for 1984, that £1 million will have to be provided. That will be my submission to the Government.
Does the Minister intend to implement all the requirements of the EEC directive in relation to women's social security before the end of 1984? Has he the estimated cost of this?
The particular aspect referred to by Deputy Lemass related to unemployment assistance being extended to married women. There are other provisions also relating to the directive which, in terms of total cost, would be about an additional £17 million. The State will be required to make this money available by the end of 1984. It is quite a substantial cost.
Is it the Government's intention to do that?
In compliance with the EEC directive the country will not have any option but to do so. It will require very careful consideration as to where we will raise the money.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider extending the free electricity service for pensioners to widows; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will review the position in relation to widows of pensioners under 66 years of age so that they may be allowed the benefit of free electricity.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.
The free electricity scheme is intended to provide a measure of assistance to aged and permanently incapacitated pensioners. To be eligible under the scheme such pensioners must be either living along or with certain excepted persons, such as a dependent spouse or children, or a person who is required to provide full-time care and attention. The scheme applies to persons aged 66 years or over who are in receipt of pensions from my Department, retirement pensions from the British Department of Health and Social Security or the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services and ordinary Garda widow pensions. Persons under 66 years of age who are in receipt of blind or invalidity pensions from my Department, or disabled person's maintenance allowance from the health boards may also qualify.
The total number benefiting under the scheme at present is in the region of 158,000 at an estimated cost of £18.5 million in 1983. It provides relief from the normal standing charge in respect of the ESB's general domestic two-part tariff and also covers the cost of up to 200 units of electricity per two monthly accounting period in summer and 300 units per two monthly accounting period in winter.
The allowances are not fully availed of by a large proportion of those benefiting under the scheme. Some 79,000 recipients never receive an ESB bill because they do not use the full allowance. In fact, average consumption per billing period is only in the region of 75 per cent of the units allowed and I understand that some 40 per cent of recipients use less than 40 per cent of the units allowed.
When is the Minister coming to widows? I did not ask him for the information he is now giving.
The Minister should be allowed to finish without interruption.
I am taking the two questions, Nos. 10 and 11 together.
I did not ask who is entitled to the benefit. I asked if the Minister would consider extending the service to widows.
The Minister should be allowed to reply without interruption and presumably he will arrive at the widows shortly.
This means that over 63,000 recipients are using less than half of their entitlement. A higher take-up on their part could provide considerable comfort to them particularly in the winter period when they suffer most from cold and illness and I would, therefore, encourage them to make full use of the units allowed.
Widows who meet the requirements I have outlined are, of course, eligible for a free electricity allowance. Extension of the scheme in the manner suggested by the Deputy would radically alter its scope. This would have significant cost implications both for the scheme itself as well as for other schemes administered by my Department. Funds are not available to meet such additional cost, which could be in excess of £20 million when allowance is made for the full implications of the Deputy's proposals.
Would the Minister agree that in many instances widows with young families and children receiving second level education would have a very high rate of consumption? Would he accept that, in these circumstances, they should be entitled to some consideration by his Department?
I would point out to the Deputy that if extension of the free electricity scheme was given to all widows, for example, it would extend to quite a substantial number of persons who are at work, such as working widows, and I am not sure that the Deputy would necessarily favour that form of extension. It would also give rise to severe pressures, which would be very hard to resist, for example, for the extension of the free electricity scheme to those in receipt of the deserted wife's benefit, the deserted wife's allowances, the prisoners wife's allowance, the unmarried mother's allowance, the single woman's allowance, and ultimately, to at least half of all long-term social welfare recipients under age 66. Therefore, the cost implications would be enormous in that regard.
To revert to Question No. 10, would the Minister agree that it is most unjust to impose a penalty on widows who, having lost their husbands and who had already been in receipt of free electricity, are then denied that right? Would the Minister look at that situation, that is widows under 66 years of age, where they had the facility already? There is no cost to the State involved here. As a matter of fact, it would be a saving to the State. Would the Minister examine that situation? It is a question I have addressed to Ministers since I came into this House without receiving any satisfaction.
The situation, quite simply, is that if the scheme were extended, as the Deputy suggested, to widowed pensioners under 66 years of age it would cost an extra £2 million a year, and to all widows under 66 years of age it would cost another £3 million a year. The purpose of the free electricity scheme basically is to assist pensioners, the elderly, who are more likely to suffer from cold and illness. The important point I would make here is that many of the elderly do not take up their full entitlement because of lack of awareness or perhaps fear that they would incur personal cost. I think the Deputy should be working in that direction rather than on the case of a widow who, for example, has a pension, who is 40 or 50 years of age, who has a job. Is it seriously suggested that——
I did not say that.
Well, in effect, that is the implication of the question.
In the case of a widow under 66 years of age who had already the benefit of free electricity during her husband's lifetime, is there not a saving to the State here? There is no extra cost involved. The State is saving because that person is denied free electricity when her husband dies. How can the Minister justify that?
We have done a very careful estimate on the point made by the Deputy and the additional cost would be a straight £2 million.
How can there be an extra cost, because it is a saving to the State? She loses free electricity when her husband dies, so the State does not have to pay.
As the Deputy knows, free electricity has been given to pensioners over 66 years of age. Free electricity is given to her husband to assist him, to prevent him suffering from hypothermia, to give him basic comfort, and safeguard him from cold and illness because he is over 66. Surely it is not suggested that because he is now dead that benefit must automatically transfer to his widow who is under 66 years of age?
I do not know what kind of socialism the Minister is preaching.
A final supplementary from Deputy O'Hanlon.
The Minister stated, I think twice, that approximately half the people who are entitled to benefit from this scheme do not take up the number of units to which they are entitled. Would the Minister say what is the estimated saving to the State as a result of these people not utilising the number of units to which they are entitled?
The current total cost is £18,500,000. I suppose if all the pensioners were to use their full, normal entitlement to free electricity — which I would encourage them to do if they need it, and obviously a number of them do not avail of it — it would probably amount to an extra £2 million or £3 million a year. That is basically for persons in need of electricity.
Are the estimates calculated on the basis of the idea that they will not use the total number of units?
No, I think there is a great fear on the part of the elderly that they might exceed their 200 or their 300 units in the winter period. As a result, because many elderly may not be able to read ESB meters and are fearful of receiving high electricity bills, they use only about 40 per cent of the electricity to which they are entitled. Deputies should encourage the elderly, and I am currently trying to get a leaflet prepared for pensioners to encourage them to take up their entitlement because it keeps them out of hospital, it keeps them out of out-patients departments and maintains them in far greater comfort.
I would ask Deputies to allow me move on from this question.
Would the Minister take a serious look at Question No. 10? I have not spoken about working widows; I have spoken about pensioners, the wives of pensioners. My two questions relate specifically to non-contributory pensioners. I would ask the Minister to take a serious look at the question of trying to assist widows who are under 66 years of age, and who had been in receipt of this benefit prior to their husbands' death because there is no expense to the State involved.
Frankly, I put it to the Deputy, if I had a couple of million pounds I would not be spending it in that direction.
There is no expense to the State.
Persons under 66 years of age, who are blind, who have invalidity pensions or who are on a DPMA from the health board have the free electricity and any additional money should not go——
But they are non-contributory pensioners.
Does the Minister understand the question?
I understand it, all right. It is a question of priority.
Is the Minister not aware that there are a number of widows of 64 and 65 years of age who were in receipt of free electricity when their husbands were alive and who, when their husbands died within months of being entitled to the pension and free electricity themselves, had their supply cut off? Surely this is a situation the Minister should examine?
I should stress that Deputy D. Gallagher put down this question last July and in July 1981. I want to assure him that the matter is being very carefully considered but there is no way at present, within the constraints on us, that we could do this. If I had money available I would prefer to help unemployed, long-term people who are trying to get a few bob to pay off an ESB bill, such as recipients under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister please answer Question No. 12?
We cannot do everything.
12.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the departmental guidelines used in assessing urban applicants for unemployment assistance in so far as board and lodgings in parents' homes are concerned; the number of applicants who have been judged as not being entitled to any assistance because of the level of means from board and lodgings assessed in their cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
In calculating the value of board and lodgings for unemployment assistance purposes each case is decided on its merits having regard to the standard of living of the household and the circumstances of the applicant.
In the case of wage earning families the method of calculation is to deduct from net parental income, that is gross income, less income tax and PRSI contributions, an amount to cover rent or mortgage repayments and also a set parental allowance. The remainder is then divided among the non-earning members of the household, including the applicant, and the figure arrived at is taken as the value of the applicant's board and lodgings, subject to a maximum limit of 12½ per cent of the net income.
Statistics are not maintained of the number of applicants who fail to qualify for unemployment assistance because of the level of means assessed from board and lodgings.
The requirement to take account of the value of board and lodgings has been a feature of the unemployment assistance scheme from its inception. Its purpose is to achieve a degree of equity as between applicants whose parents are well-to-do and those whose parents are in poor circumstances. Otherwise persons living in relatively better circumstances would become entitled to the same level of assistance as those whose circumstances were much less.
As far as I am concerned it is not an equitable system. Can the Minister tell the House how many applicants, in the categories referred to, draw the full unemployment allowance of £26.25 per week?
I do not have the full details on that but I will endeavour to get them for the Deputy.
It is a separate question.
It seems now that the Minister is telling us that a child or a young adult of 18 years coming from a middle income family is not entitled to unemployment assistance. If that is the case then quite a number of those who go to sign on for unemployment assistance and do not get it do not keep applying so the live register is not a true indication of the numbers looking for work.
Deputy Flynn is now making a speech.
I am bringing to the notice of the House what I regard as an inequitable system and the Minister is not giving any indication that he will change it. He is not saying that the yardstick used to determine eligibility is uniform. If the investigating officer sees a well carpeted home he may decide forthwith that the person is not entitled to unemployment assistance. That is not a fair way of dealing with people who are out of work and entitled to their allowance. Will the Minister do something about it?
If reference to board and lodgings were totally excluded from assessment in relation to unemployment assistance the extra cost to the Exchequer at 1980 levels would be £21.5 million. It could cost £25 million or £26 million at 1983 levels and would mean the automatic inclusion of another 18,000 persons on the register at the 1980 levels. It is a clear feature of the issue of qualification certificates for unemployment assistance that some account must be taken by deciding officers of the benefit which a person enjoys in relation to board and lodgings.
It is a question of the method of assessing board and lodging. Is the Minister not aware that a large number of young people are receiving no unemployment assistance and their parents are not in good circumstances? The carpets that are viewed by the investigating officer were put there in better times and many families being denied this allowance are experiencing serious hardship. The method of assessment outlined by the Minister is not being fairly implemented across the board.
The Deputy asked that question before.
Each case is decided on its merits by a deciding officer having regard to the standard of living of the household and the personal circumstances of the applicant. The system of calculating the value of board and lodging is kept under continuous review and guidelines are issued by the chief appeals officer updating the deductions from the parents' earnings which are set aside towards meeting their expenses before the household income is distributed among dependent members. It is necessary to have those assessment criteria. Surely the Deputy would not suggest that in the case of a relatively better off family of substantial income automatic entitlement should be given to an unemployed son or daughter. Without that criterion automatic entitlement would ensure.
The Minister knows that is not happening. I would go so far as to say he is misleading the House in some of those statements.
The Chair is calling Deputy De Rossa.
Depriving poor people of the dole.
Would the Minister indicate whether he intends to change the criteria or guidelines in any way, particularly in relation to the necessity for young adults to produce proof of their parents' income? In many cases this can be embarrassing for young people. Is there any intention to provide some kind of minimum figure for young unemployed people who at present are not in a position to collect the few pence they are allocated because of the cost of bus fares in going to collect it?
In April 1980 the portion of income less expenses which could be deemed to acrue to any one applicant was set at 12.5 per cent of net family income. That 12.5 per cent has not changed since April 1980 and I have not made the regulations in any way more rigorous than they were prior to 1980. It may be necessary for a deciding officer to ask for details of income, including a PRSI return, but in any event some certification of income must be provided or decided by the deciding officer. We cannot go on word of mouth and we cannot have a situation of a family with substantial income where the father decides he will not support an unemployed son or daughter and the State must automatically take the burden of maintaining that unemployed person.
Is the Minister aware that the vast majority of applicants for unemployment assistance do not receive the full allowance under the Act?
That is repetition.
I know of young applicants whose fathers were drawing disability benefit and others whose fathers were drawing unemployment assistance themselves and these sons and daughters did not qualify for the full allowance. Is the Minister aware of that? He says that £21 million is being saved to the State by the way this yardstick is exercised. Would he agree that there are about 10,000 young people who are not signing and who would make the unemployment figures an entirely different set of statistics if the truth were known?
If the Deputy knows of any case where discrimination under the regulations is being visited upon an applicant, I will follow it through.
We are worn out writing to the Minister and we are not getting satisfaction.
I have not received any personal complaint from the Deputy in relation to any applicant.
We do not even get an acknowledgment from the Minister's office.
Is the Minister asking me personally to deliver details of these cases to him or to write to his Department or to the Minister of State?
Any way the Deputy wishes.
The Minister knows that most of these people do not qualify for the full allowance.
13.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider introducing an allowance for deserted husbands, similar to the deserted wife's allowance.
14.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he proposes to extend the existing provisions for allowances for deserted wives to deserted husbands who have to care for children; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
15.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will introduce social welfare allowances and benefit for deserted husbands similar to those available for deserted wives.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 14 and 15 together.
The Deputies may be aware that a case has been taken in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of certain sections of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, in that they provide that a benefit or allowance is payable in certain circumstances to deserted wives but do not provide for such payments to deserted husbands.
I do not therefore propose to take any further action in the matter for the time being pending the outcome of the court case. In the meantime it is open to anybody who is in need to apply for supplementary welfare allowance from his local community welfare officer.
Surely the Minister is not saying that because there is a case before the courts at the moment he is awaiting the outcome of the court's decision before he decides what to do? There is an obvious discrimination in this matter. Does he intend to eliminate that discrimination?
I am currently facing a court case in relation to the constitutionality of that provision of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. In the circumstances, as the matter might be regarded as sub judice, I have decided that I should not comment any further on it at the moment.
Surely the matter of sub judice does not prevent him from indicating whether he intends to eliminate a matter of discrimination in the social welfare code? Is the Minister not prepared to indicate that whatever the outcome of the court case he will proceed to eliminate that discrimination?
I would point out to the Deputy that the extension of the deserted wife's benefit scheme to deserted husbands and having a deserted spouse's allowance scheme has major implications not only in relation to that scheme but also for example, in relation to an allowance to widowers. The whole matter of payment of allowances and pensions without reference to sex if applied across the board would open up the matter of cost implications in relation to social insurance and social assistance. Deputies would find the cost and legislative implications matters of enormous proportions. I do not propose at the moment to go beyond making that observation.
Does the Minister know how many deserted husbands there are in the State and the cost involved if benefits were given to them? Is the Minister just speculating that it would cost a lot of money and open up many areas in the social welfare code? I do not believe the Minister has statistics regarding the number of deserted husbands.
I am saying that if it were found that there should be an allowance for a deserted spouse instead of for a deserted wife, the parallel implications for other schemes such as the widow's contributory pension, the allowance for prisoners' wives and the single parent family allowance such as the unmarried mother's allowance, would be enormous. The constitutionality issue would automatically arise in relation to a wide range of other schemes. It could result in an obligation to recast the whole range of social assistance and social welfare benefit allowances with far-reaching implications.
Why is the Minister bringing in other categories? We are talking specifically of deserted husbands. Is the Minister aware that there are deserted husbands who have to give up employment in order to stay at home and care for their children? Will the Minister not agree that a deserted husband in that situation has as much right to an allowance as has a deserted wife?
I am not saying anything in relation to the matter. I am simply saying that currently there is a court case pending relating to the constitutionality of the deserted wife's payment scheme. I am merely saying that the implications are enormous in terms of the schemes we have for widows, single parent families, unmarried mothers and the other instances I mentioned. The question automatically arises why not have a widower's benefit pension scheme. I am not sure of the exact number but there must be at least 12,000 to 15,000 widowers.
Will the Minister not accept that there is discrimination against husbands in the matter of allowances?
That question was asked four times already. Then the Minister makes a speech by way of answer and we are away again. I am calling Question No. 16.