asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will bring forward legislation to enable married women to claim unemployment assistance as apart from the obvious loss of assistance they are also ineligible to participate in the social employment scheme.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Assistance for Married Women.
8.
The Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985, includes provision for the removal of the existing limitations on the eligibility of married women for unemployment assistance. It has not yet been possible to bring the Act into operation because of difficulties in relation to the provision of additional staff which will be required to implement the new provisions. I assure the Deputy, however, that I am extremely anxious to have the new provisions brought into operation and I will be doing so at the earliest possible date.
Would the Minister of State not agree that this is blatant discrimination against married women? While he assures me of his anxiety to bring the Act in can he explain why his party brought in this Act when they have not yet implemented EC equality legislation? Does he feel that married women might be worse off, or are there legal or financial implications that are impeding his bringing it in? When he sees something so obviously blatantly discriminatory, is it not his duty to use every means in his power to remove this discrimination?
The Act was introduced by this Government to do away with this discrimination, something which the Deputy's Government failed to do——
Anyone can lead a horse around the parade ring.
——since 1979 when the EC issued the directive to this country. The Deputy's Government failed to eliminate this discrimination. This discrimination has now been eliminated by the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985 and the only problem in its implementation is to get over the difficulties with the union who represent the majority of civil servants who will have to operate the scheme. Every effort is being made to reach agreement there so that the Act can be brought into force.
Will the Minister of State concede that, aside from the problems which the union and his Department have in relation to the implementation of the European equality directive, the real reason why this directive has not been implemented as yet, despite the fact that it has passed through both Houses, is the political implications that would result when many families find that they are £25 to £50 less well off than they were before the directive became implementable and because his Government did not take account of that when they formally put the legislation through this House and the Seanad, despite the advice of the Members on this side of the House?
That is not correct. The fact is that all work on equal treatment has been blacked by the relevant union until staff problems have been resolved. Discussions are ongoing and every effort is being made to reach agreement so that we can at least take the first step in the implementation of it.
Will the Minister concede that families are getting a much reduced income and his Department are making little or no attempt to resolve the problem with the unions for political reasons?
That is not correct. Every attempt is being made to resolve the problem.
When the regulations are made, will the entitlement be retrospective to the date when the Act was passed or will it be operative from the date of the regulations?
I cannot answer that today. If the Deputy tables a separate question I will get him some information on the matter.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the amount of moneys due from local authorities to each health board for supplementary welfare allowance payments; the methods being used to obtain these payments from local authorities, and if he is satisfied with this method of funding.
The amounts due by local authorities on 31 July 1985 to each health board in respect of contributions to expenditure on supplementary welfare allowances are set out in the following table:
|
Health Board |
Amount Due |
|
£ |
|
|
Eastern |
3,350,709 |
|
Midland |
1,795,562 |
|
Mid-Western |
1,217,000 |
|
North-Eastern |
2,367,066 |
|
North-Western |
2,301,449 |
|
South-Eastern |
3,716,936 |
|
Southern |
1,636,000 |
|
Western |
4,401,842 |
|
Total |
20,786,567 |
The method of financing the supplementary welfare allowances scheme, whereby expenditure was shared by the Exchequer and the local authorities, proved unsatisfactory in practice and the Government have accordingly decided that from 1 January 1986 the scheme will be paid for entirely by the Exchequer, with rates support grants by the Exchequer to local authorities being adjusted accordingly. The arrears due by local authorities at 31 December 1985, after allowing for contributions made by the authorities in 1985 and for certain adjustments agreed by the Government, will have to be paid off by the authorities, and a period of five years is being allowed for the discharge of the balance due. Discussions will be held between the health boards, local authorities and the Departments concerned to work out the arrangements for paying off the arrears.
I am glad the Minister has taken the advice from this side of the House that the system of payments should be changed and transferred to the Exchequer rather than being left with local authorities. Since there is more than £20 million due by local authorities, and since they do not have any part in the implementation of the scheme and determining the eligibility for supplementary welfare payments, will the Minister concede that at this stage the amount due by local authorities should not be taken up by the Exchequer because it will prove to be a very expensive imposition on the resources of local authorities over the next five years?
Discussions are to take place between health boards, local authorities and the Departments concerned to work out the arrangements for paying off the arrears. The main point is that from 1 January 1986 the scheme will be paid for entirely by the Exchequer.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Cavan is denied a non-contributory old age pension as he has disposed of a small farm, valuation £12.50, by deed to his nephew.
It has been decided by an appeals officer that the person concerned is not entitled to old age pension on the grounds that he does not fulfil the statutory conditions as to means. The assessment of his means consisting of the weekly value of income from two holdings exceeds the statutory limit for entitlement to pension.
The holding to which the Deputy refers was transferred to a relative in full time employment and the transfer was not accepted for old age pension purposes.
Will the Minister say what he means by the phrase, "full time employment"?
The claimant transferred the 19-acre farm to this nephew but the transfer was not accepted for old age pension purposes as his nephew is in full time employment as a mechanic.
Since when did that become a regulation? Will the Minister tell the House when it was decided that the occupation of the person to whom a farm was disposed should affect entitlement to a pension?
It has not been accepted. The claimant lives on a 19-acre farm. The land is considered fair and has a valuation of £13. The claimant transferred this land to his nephew and the estimated income from this holding with a stock of 15 cows, five calves and six one and a half year olds, less operating costs of £2.000 was estimated to equal £4,000. The claimant is in beneficial occupation of a second holding of 19 acres which is owned by his brother who lives in England. The estimated income from that holding with stock, less operating cost, is equal to £1,000. The claimant lodged an appeal and the appeals officer upheld the decision of the deciding officer.
Is the Minister aware — if he is not he should be because I informed him — that the claimant was not in beneficial occupation of the farm his brother owned? Is the Minister aware that the brother in England sold the farm? Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will look at this case because an injustice is being done and I am convinced of that?
If the circumstances have changed since the decision of the appeals officer dated 25 April 1985 it is open to the applicant to seek a review of this case.
I am seeking the review and I intend to pursue this matter to hell or Hanover.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will introduce amending legislation to allow for the payment of unemployment assistance to 16 year olds.
Extension of the scheme of unemployment assistance on the lines suggested would have very significant cost implications and in present circumstances it would not be possible to contemplate a substantial extension of any of the existing social welfare schemes except on the basis of diverting funds from other schemes to pay for it.
While the minimum age for receipt of unemployment assistance is 18 years, younger persons have many State schemes available to them including unemployment benefit if they have been in insurable employment, the work experience programme and a number of schemes under the aegis of AnCO and the Youth Employment Agency.
I disagree that they have unemployment benefit available to them because I do not see how they could be in insurable employment bearing in mind the position of our economy. Will the Minister agree that such a change will have the effect of stopping many young people from going to England and other countries to seek employment? I am sure the Minister is aware of the problems our young people encounter when they arrive in London, and other English cities, becuse they do not have any money.
I do not agree with what the Deputy has said but there would be serious cost implications involved in such a change. Incidentally, the matter has been referred by the Government to the Commission for Social Welfare who will be issuing their findings fairly soon. It is one of those matters which they have been asked to consider.