asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason the minimum allowance for unemployment assistance was granted to a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon who has no income.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
6.
The person concerned applied for unemployment assistance on 7 June 1983 and was assessed with weekly means of £23.60 derived from the maintenance portion of a student grant and from the value of board and lodgings in her parents' home. She asked for a review of her means, and following further inquiries her weekly means were reduced to £4.35 from 7 June 1983 and to £2.30 from 28 September 1983, derived from the value of board and lodgings in her parents' home. Unemployment assistance was authorised accordingly at £21.10, that is, £25.45 less the £4.35, from 7 June 1983, increased to £23.65 from 29 June 1983, and £25.70 from 28 September 1983. All arrears due will be paid to her this week. Further weekly payments of £25.70 will continue to be made when they become due.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of small farmers who have been struck off the small farmer's dole from 1 January to 31 December 1983 in Tralee and Listowel employment exchanges.
It is assumed that the question refers to smallholders whose means for unemployment assistance were previously assessed on a notional basis but were reassessed on a factual basis arising from the provision in the Social Welfare Act, 1983. The reassessment of means of smallholders under this provision commenced in May 1983 and the number whose unemployment assistance payments ceased following factual assessment between May 1983 and December 1983 was 101 in the case of Listowel employment exchange and 105 in the case of Tralee employment exchange.
In view of the big number of small farmers taken off unemployment assistance, would the Minister increase the income limit for qualification for farmers' assistance?
That is a separate question with which I shall be dealing later.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he considers that the regulation relating to an applicant for unemployment benefit who has a land valuation and an income from his holding in excess of £750 per year and less than 78 contributions paid in the prior three years needs to be examined and changed.
To be entitled to unemployment benefit a person must be unemployed and, generally speaking, where any work is done there is no entitlement to benefit. An exception to this is that a person can be engaged in a subsidiary occupation and remain entitled to benefit. A subsidiary occupation is one which can ordinarily be followed in addition to the usual employment and outside the ordinary working hours of that employment. A person engaged in a subsidiary occupation can be entitled to unemployment benefit provided either the remuneration from that occupation does not exceed £2 a day, or he has not less than 78 contributions paid in respect of the previous three years.
The principle of the limit on earnings from a subsidiary occupation is a sound one and the limit now in force is not unreasonable in present circumstances.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will examine the position of persons who are summoned to serve as jurors and are in receipt of unemployment benefit and as a consequence are not available for work and will not be paid unemployment benefit.
A claimant in receipt of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance who is summoned to serve as a juror may continue to receive benefit or assistance for the period of jury service. I am not aware that there have been any difficulties in this regard, but if the Deputy is aware of any case where difficulties have arisen I will be pleased to examine it if the details are supplied.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will include British invalidity pensioners, and in particular a person (details supplied) in County Donegal, as persons who will qualify for free electricity allowances within the scheme operated by his Department.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has plans to include persons in receipt of British invalidity pensions, and residing in the State, for qualification for free electricity allowances.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 11 together.
There are fundamental differences between the British invalidity pension scheme and the Irish scheme. A person must be regarded as permanently incapable of work to qualify for Irish invalidity pension. This does not apply in the case of a British pension.
The overall cost of extending the allowances to British pensioners, including the extension of the associated free television licence scheme and the free telephone rental scheme, which would also be necessary, would be substantial. There are no proposals for such an extension in present circumstances.
Would the Minister of State not accept that the difference between our invalidity scheme and that of the UK is technical? One must be permanently incapable of work to receive our invalidity pension whereas that is not the case in the UK. Surely the Minister would accept that anybody who is in receipt of a UK invalidity pension is incapable of work at that time and that the vast majority of them are permanently incapable of work?
One of the problems is that there are fundamental differences between the scheme operated by our Department of Social Welfare and that of the UK Social Security Department. To qualify for the Irish invalidity scheme the claimant must be regarded as permanently incapable of work. In the UK, invalidity benefit is payable automatically to a person who has been receiving sickness benefit for 28 weeks, irrespective of whether the incapacity is likely to be short-term or permanent. That is a major difficulty.
Would the Minister tell us the number of British invalidity pensioners living in this State and also the cost of extending the free electricity scheme to them?
That is a separate question.
If the UK invalidity pensioners were to receive the free electricity allowance they would automatically be qualified for free television licences under the provisions of that scheme. It is reckoned that there are about 30,000 UK invalidity pensioners living in this country. Based on the average annual value of existing allowances, the cost of the estension would be: for free telephone rental allowance, £357,000, for free electricity allowance £357,000 and for free television licences, £102,000, giving a total of approximately £800,000.
12.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason unemployment asistance at a particular rate is being paid to a person (details supplied) in County Mayo.
The person concerned is entitled to unemployment assistance at the rate of £19.40 weekly from 9 January 1984, being the maximum rate payable to him as a long duration recipient of £29.40 less means £10.00. He was paid in error as a short-time recipient at the weekly rate of £18.00 from the commencement of his claim, but this matter has been adjusted and arrears due have been paid. The means of the person concerned were assessed from the value of board and lodgings in his mother's holding. It is understood his mother died recently and the case has been referred to a social welfare officer for a reinvestigation of means. When the inquiries in the case are completed means will be reassessed and the rate of unemployment assistance payable will be reviewed.
Question No. 13 is for written reply.
14.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange to have the restriction on travel between the hours of 4.00 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. on Friday evenings removed on CIE buses to allow handicapped students to return to their homes in the country for the weekend.
The restrictions referred to by the Deputy apply to persons who already qualify for free travel. Students as such do not, however, qualify for free travel. It is not clear, therefore, to what type of situation the Deputy is referring. If he will let me have more precise details, I will be glad to have the matter considered further.
The question does refer to students who are handicapped and are in possession of free travel passes from the CIE.
Issued by whom?
Issued by the Department of Social Welfare through the health boards to those in receipt of the DPMA.
I shall have the matter looked at. DPMA recipients are entitled to unrestricted passes, which is why I am a little puzzled by the question. Perhaps the Deputy would let me have further details and I shall have the matter further clarified.
15.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will increase the eligibility limit for small holders unemployment asistance.
The maximum means limit for entitlement to unemployment asistance is the maximum rate of assistance applicable to a particular applicant taking account of his family circumstances. The rate of asistance payable is the difference between the limit in a particular case and the means assessed against an applicant.
The entitlement limits will be increased automatically from July next, when the increase in rates announced in the budget come into effect. Smallholders whose means are assessed on a factual basis will benefit from the increased limits in the same way as other applicants for unemployment assistance. Those smallholders who have been receiving unemployment asistance on a long-term basis will also benefit from the higher rates of increase being paid to the long-term unemployed.
The notional method of assessment of means for unemployment assistance purposes has been discontinued and no increase will be made in the rates of assistance being paid to those remaining smallholders whose entitlement is based on the notional system. The means of those smallholders are at present being investigated and as they become entitled to unemployment assistance on a factual assessment of their means, they will benefit from the general increases provided in the budget.
If a married couple have a profit of more than £52 per week from their holding, they do not qualify for unemployment assistance. There is a case for increasing this income limit substantially, to allow such smallholders to qualify. Also, is the cost of diesel and petrol payable by the farmer in the use of his tractor or car for transporting milk to the creamery taken into account in assessment of his means and, when a farmer hires a tractor to do his agricultural work, such as cutting silage, is that also taken into consideration?
These would seem to be separate questions.
They all have to do with eligibility.
Yes, but the question merely asks the eligibility limit.
This question has to do with the limits. If these were allowed, the limits would automatically go up.
I think that Deputy McEllistrim's question has to do with the ascertainment of the income.
The assessment?
The ascertainment of income of the individual.
Which, of course, has to do with——
You look at the limit and you see another difficulty.
It is a very moot point. Is the Minister of State aware——
16.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total number of applications received by his Department in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 for the (a) deserted wife's allowance and (b) deserted wife's benefit.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of persons in receipt of (a) deserted wife's allowance and (b) deserted wife's benefit at 31 December 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 17 together. The reply is in the form of a tabular statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report.
The following is the statement:
Separate statistics of the numbers of applicants for deserted wife's allowance and deserted wife's benefit are not maintained as a common application form is used and most wives make application under both schemes at the same time.
|
No. of applications received in year to |
No. in receipt of Deserted Wife's Allowance on |
No. in receipt of Deserted Wife's Benefit on |
|
|
31 December 1979 |
1151 |
2856 |
2525 |
|
31 December 1980 |
1255 |
2920 |
2873 |
|
31 December 1981 |
1347 |
3063 |
3124 |
|
31 December 1982 |
1421 |
3282 |
3416 |
|
31 December 1983 |
1666 |
3478 |
3825 |
Could I hear the reply to those questions again?
It is a tabular statement.
Would the Minister accept that one of the conditions for receipt of deserted wife's allowance or benefit is that the deserted wife must pursue her husband for maintenance and that in many instances the wife is not in a position to do this mainly through lack of finance when even free legal aid is not readily available? Would the Minister look at this position to see if something can be done about it?
Every position is continually looked at. I will certainly have a look at this one?
Would the Minister consider that the State might prosecute these husbands rather than the deserted wives?
That is a completely separate question.
18.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the average amount of money given to unemployed persons last year.
Based on provisional returns, the average amount of money given to unemployed persons last year was £2,466, that is £47.42 per week per recipient.
19.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason his Department have discontinued recognising certificates of disability from bonesetters as proof of disability for the purpose of qualifying for disability benefit.
In the normal course certificates of incapacity for work are accepted only from registered medical practitioners with whom the Department have an agreement. The Department have been reviewing their procedures for the control of claims to sickness benefit and in this connection the acceptance of certificates from persons other than registered medical practitioners was discontinued.
In the past exceptions were made in the case of certain established bonesetters and certificates will continue to be accepted from such persons for the time being pending an overall review of certification procedures.
Is it possible to obtain from the Department a list of the bonesetters who are acceptable to the Department? A number of people have experienced extreme hardship in view of the fact that certificates from certain bonesetters were acceptable but due to reviews in the Department those bonesetters are not now acceptable as official on the Department's list. Would it not be reasonable to ask the Department to make a public announcement about the issuing and acceptance of certificates from bonesetters in order to alleviate a lot of the hardship being caused by certificates being returned to applicants?
When the case in question came to my attention I took steps to have the position rectified. The position is rectified as of now. The certificates from the long established bonesetters will be accepted pending an overall review of certification procedures. I assure the Deputy that if there is any change in the procedure it will be adequately publicised so that people will be fully aware of the situation. At the moment the position is unchanged so far as the long established bonesetters are concerned.
In the Minister's constituency a certain bonesetter, who is long established, has now found that his certificates have been returned by the Department.
The bonesetter in question has been told by me that the opposite is the position now and he will be told if there is any change in that situation.
The patients of the bonesetter have not been notified. There has not been any public announcement.
I presume when the bonesetter in question was notified by me that he told his patients.
Do the Department send the ordinary circulars, which they send to medical certifiers, to bonesetters?
The Department have never entered into agreements with non-medical persons over whom they have no sanction in the matter of certification. About 15 years ago the then medical adviser in the Department agreed to accept certificates from a bonesetter and over the years the practice evolved of accepting certificates from a number of others. For some years past a considerable number of claims, estimated to be 400 or 500 a year, were based on the certification of one of these bonesetters but there never has been an agreement entered into with any non-medical people.
Surely it is in the interests of everybody that these people are notified of changes in the Department. Is it correct that the Minister recognises these certificates but not the certifier?
The main point in the whole exercise is that the patient gets paid. It is extremely difficult to draw up guidelines for acceptance of certificates from non-medical practitioners. There is a whole new range of non-medical practitioners, as I am sure the Deputy will appreciate, not alone in bonesetting but in all other types of medical activities. That is one of the reasons which prompted a review of the situation some months ago. A number of requests came in from additional people who claimed to have some healing and remedial powers. It became extremely difficult to draw the line as to who should and who should not be recognised. A decision was taken to accept only the purely medical certifiers and this resulted in understandable hardship in a number of cases, particularly for the long established bonesetters and their patients. This has been rectified for the time being. If there is to be a change I assure the House that it will be notified to all the people concerned in ample time so that they will know exactly what their position is.
Would the Minister accept that the hardship in this particular case arose because the Department made a decision and did not communicate that decision to the bonesetter because they did not recognise him?
I agree that the decision should have been notified at the time but so far as it has been possible to remedy that situation it has now been remedied. I understand that the claimants for disability benefit, whose payment was delayed, have since been paid. If there are still any outstanding cases who have not been paid in respect of this kind of certificate and they are brought to the notice of the Department they will be attended to.
20.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when travelling expenses will be paid to a person (details supplied) in County Cork as he was on occupational injury benefit.
The person concerned claimed recoupment of expenses under the medical care provisions of the occupational injury benefit scheme in respect of treatment received following an occupational accident. Under the medical care scheme reasonable costs may be allowed to the extent that they are not covered by the Health Acts. The question of the claimants entitlements in this regard are being examined and my Department will be in touch with him again as soon as his exact entitlements under the Health Acts have been determined. A decision will then be given on his entitlements, including travelling expenses, under the medical care scheme.
21.
(Clare) asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Clare is not entitled to unemployment assistance.
The application of the person concerned for unemployment assistance on 14 January 1983 was disallowed on the grounds that his means derived from the letting value of his land exceeded the statutory limit in his case of £2,350.40 a year. He appealed against the decision and an appeals officer upheld the deciding officer's decision. He applied for a review of his means on 7 February 1984 and his case has been referred to a social welfare officer for inquiries into his means. His entitlement to unemployment assistance will be reviewed in the light of the means assessed against him.
22.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason the number of schools meals provided daily dropped so dramatically from 80,443 in 1981 to 62,660 in 1982; and the figure for 1983.
The school meals scheme is administered by local authorities, 50 per cent of the cost being recouped by my Department. The figures available to my Department as to the number of meals provided are supplied by the local authorities concerned. The figures quoted by the Deputy appear in the Department's report but it transpired that in the case of one local authority the number of meals to be provided in 1981 was considerably overestimated. The total actual number of meals provided in 1981 was 59,741 daily. The average daily number receiving meals in 1983 was about 63,500.
That is an extraordinary answer. There is a difference of over 20,000 between the figure estimated by the local authority and the actual figure. Can the Minister explain why this figure was still inaccurate in the latest report produced by his Department which was for 1981-82?
The figures quoted by the Deputy are those referred to in the departmental report in relation to the urban scheme for 1981-82. These figures are based on the schemes submitted by the local authorities prior to the commencement of each year's scheme requesting the Minister's approval for them. Local authorities are required to furnish to the Department the estimated daily numbers who will receive meals in a given calendar year. These are the only numbers of recipients which are supplied. Dublin Corporation, who accounted for 80 per cent of the scheme, submitted details of their scheme for 1981 on 10 December 1980 and estimated the number as 65,000. They now state that the figure supplied was in respect of the average number of children in attendance at schools which operated the meals scheme in the corporation area in 1981. Not all the pupils received meals. It is now estimated that only 44,000 children received meals in the Dublin area in 1981. The higher figure of 65,000 recorded in the statistics and payments ledger was supplied for the departmental report 1981-82. As a result of the revision, the average number of pupils who received meals in the country as a whole for 1981 was 59,741, a decrease of 21,000 on the 80,443 shown in the report.
The Minister's reply is becoming curiouser and curioser. Can he explain how an estimated figure given by Dublin Corporation in 1980 for 1981 was not found to be inaccurate until the end of 1983? Surely by the end of 1981 Dublin Corporation must have advised the Department that their figure was wrong. The estimated figure for 1980 was 21,000 more than the actual figure for 1981. When was the Department informed of the corporation's inaccurate figure?
Dublin Corporation now state that the figure supplied was in respect of the average daily number of children in attendance at the schools. They have only stated that recently.
Does the Department take this scheme seriously at all or have they any interest in the day-to-day administration of it?
This is argument.
Is the scheme monitored to see who is or who is not availing of it?
In 1979 an interdepartmental working group in a review of the school meals scheme considered, inter alia, the adequacy of the content of the meals. In considering this question, the group pointed out that it was only intended as a means of restoring children's energy at a time when it was inclined to flag. It was never intended to take the place of meals provided at home. The group drew attention to the lack of current data regarding the nutritional state of the children. A survey carried out by the Medical Research Council concluded that the proportion of all children examined who were in a poor nutritional state was less than 2½ per cent. It can reasonably be assumed that the situation is now better. There are indications that the towns dropping out of the scheme are doing so because of lack of demand in their area. The school meals scheme was formerly under the general control of the Minister for Local Government and was transferred to the Department of Social Welfare in 1947.
23.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason the report from his Department for 1981 only appeared in 1984 and the reason the report was still unable to provides figures for the number of persons in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance.
The report referred to in the Deputy's question covers not alone the year 1981 but also 1982. Preparation of the report commenced, therefore, early in 1983 and arrangements for printing were made with the Stationery Office in accordance with normal procedure. Material for printing was supplied in May 1983 but final production of the report took longer than normal because of difficulty in establishing some figures and because of an industrial dispute which delayed the despatch of printing paper for the report from the Stationery Office to the printers. The report finally became available at the beginning of February 1984.
Figures for the number of persons in receipt of supplementary welfare allowances are provided in table 35 of the report. The figures are, however, estimated because final figures were not available from some health boards at the time of printing and, in the case of one health board, because some records were destroyed by fire.
The Minister has failed to explain why the 1981 report did not appear. It is now included in the 1982 report. He also failed to explain why figures were prepared up to May 1983 and why there was a long delay in printing. Could the figures not have been updated by the time printing took place at the end of 1983 to ensure that at least figures for 1981 were accurate and complete? Can the Minister now tell us when we will have the accurate and complete figures for 1981 and 1982?
I have explained the reason for the delay in the report. Those for 1981 and 1982 were compiled together——
Why?
I have no information with regard to that matter. Apparently, it had been the practice of the Department to issue two reports covering a number of years, a three to five-year period was covered, but the last two reports each covered a two-year period. That applies to the reports from 1979 and 1980 and 1981 and 1982. The two-year report is, therefore, an improvement on what had been the case for a number of years.
Is the Minister satisfied with the operation of the Department in the collection of statistics and isuing of reports? Will he ensure that, from now on, we will have yearly accurate reports from the Department?
Every effort will be made to improve the situation in so far as it is possible to do so but reports which are dependent on information coming from a number of sources and areas, especially outside Dublin, are always difficult to obtain. However, every effort will be made to see that improvements will be carried out in having reports available as it is in everyone's interests that the most up-to-date statistics and information are available.
24.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (details supplied) in County Dublin is living in substandard conditions at a rent of £38.33 per week of which his Department pay £31.86 and the action, if any, he intends to take to ensure that the tenant and his Department receive proper value for the large rental being charged.
The person concerned is in receipt of a rent allowance from my Department under the scheme of allowances for tenants of dwellings previously controlled under the Rent Restrictions Acts. The rent in this case was fixed by the District Court which in doing so was obliged to have regard to the nature, character and location of the building.
Once the rent has been determined in this way the only function which I can carry out in the matter is to pay a rent allowance, calculated in accordance with statutory regulations having regard to the amount of the rent fixed by the court and the tenant's means.
Is the Minister concerned at the amount of money his Department are obliged to pay which, I understand, is as high as £50 in one case? Do the Government intend to review legislation in this area?
Under this scheme the only function of the Department of Social Welfare is to pay the rent allowance, calculated in accordance with statutory regulations, having regard to the means of the tenant and the amount of rent fixed by the court. It is a matter for the court, the tenant and those representing the tenants' interests to make a case regarding the nature and character of the building and the adequacy or otherwise of that building as a dwelling. This does not come within the ambit of the Department of Social Welfare.
The Minister must be concerned at the amount of money paid out by the Department of Social Welfare. As Deputy Andrews pointed out in the question, in this case the person is living in substandard conditions and the Department are paying £31.86 per week. Do the Government intend to review legislation in this regard? The Minister said that these people can lay evidence before the courts but are there facilities available to elderly people, especially those who have never been in court and have no income, to lay their evidence before a judge?
It is difficult to answer the Deputy's question because the Department of Social Welfare are only responsible for the rent allowance. The difficulties mentioned by the Deputy should come within the ambit of legislation concerning some other Department. The Department of Social Welfare have a very limited function in this regard.
What about collective responsibility in Government?
Would the Minister agree that his Department have responsibility because they are the Department issuing the subsidy which is going to the landlords? It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the landlords are complying with the conditions laid down by the court in providing suitable accommodation for the market rents which the courts grant them.
As I explained, the Department of Social Welfare are only responsible for the rent allowance. It is the function of other bodies to see that the matters referred to by the Deputy are taken into account and given consideration because these rents are fixed by the District Court and we have not had evidence from all the people concerned.
25.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the savings to the Government, to date, because of the waiver of the notional system of assessment for deciding payment of unemployment assistance.
No firm estimate can be given of the amount of the reduction in expenditure arising from the abolition of the notional assessment of means in the case of certain smallholders for unemployment assistance purposes. It is tentatively estimated, however, that the reduction in overall expenditure in 1983 was approximately £1 million. It is not possible to make an estimate of the effects of the measure in 1984 to date.
Does the Minister accept that it is extraordinary that the Government propose to save £1 million as a result of cutting off supplementary allowance from the small farmers in the west at a time when they are doing very badly?
The estimate is based on trends so far. It has been arrived at following the reinvestigation of the means of those people who have been on the notional system of assessment.
Would the Minister agree that the abolition of the notional system has caused untold hardship for a large number of farmers, many of whom have been reassessed and their income cut off? They are struggling to survive on some of the smallest holdings in the country.
The people to whom the Deputy refers have the right to appeal against any assessment which they feel is unjustified.
Is the Minister aware that many of these farmers depended on the supplement which they received to stay on the land and to rear their families there? Some of them now find that they have no income whatsoever from the State, and that is causing untold hardship.
If any farmer can produce evidence to the effect that he or she has no income whatsoever, I can see no reason why the benefit should be taken from them.
Would the Minister accept that, at the moment, people are destitute because of the way in which the system is being operated? No account is being taken of the expenditure of small farmers. The whole method is completely unfair and it is causing undue hardship in the west of Ireland.
If the Deputy has any cases where he can show that no account is taken of expenditure, I should like him to bring those cases to my attention.
Does the Minister accept that the whole basis for introducing the notional system was to encourage production in the small farming areas, and to assist small farmers to stay on the land? This is not being achieved as a result of what is happening at the moment. People will get out of stock, production will fall and people will emigrate as they had to do in the mid-fifties.
As the Deputy is aware, the notional system had to be abolished following a High Court decision which was appealed to the Supreme Court. There was no option other than to abolish the notional system and introduce this system applicable to everybody else.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper. Deputy Haughey has been given permission to put a Private Notice Question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.