asked the Minister for Social Welfare her views on the anomaly which occurs in our tax and social welfare systems where a person (details supplied) in Dublin 7 who has been separated from his wife for a number of years and is now sharing a house with a partner of several years standing is not entitled to any social welfare assistance because his partner is earning more than £80 per week, but that she is taxed as a single person, getting no tax allowance for him; and the action she proposes to take in such a case.
Ceisteanna—Questions Oral Answers - Social Welfare Payments.
3.
The taxation aspects of this matter are appropriate to the Minister for Finance to whom I understand the question is also addressed for reply in the near future. As regards the social welfare system the background to this particular case is as follows.
The person concerned claimed and has been paid unemployment benefit as a single man since 8 March 1985. Due to a clerical error there was an interruption of payment on 23 April 1986. Payment, however, has now been restored and arrears due from 24 April 1986 will be paid less any supplementary welfare allowance advanced in the interim. Current weekly entitlement is £39.50, which is the appropriate maximum rate payable to a single person. His entitlement will cease by 9 June as on that date he will have drawn his full entitlement of 390 days benefit.
He recently applied for unemployment assistance and his case was referred to a social welfare officer for investigation of his means. During the course of the investigation he apparently declined on request to provide details of the earnings of the person with whom he is cohabiting. This information is required in order to establish the value of the benefit accruing to him from her earnings. In the absence of such information any claim to unemployment assistance would have to be disallowed. An officer will shortly revisit him to afford another opportunity to supply the relevant information.
The assessment to be done in this case is a statutory requirement to be found in section 146 (i) (e) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, which provides that means for unemployment assistance purposes must take account of the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the claimant. This legislation covers all such situations where, for example, a person derives benefit from the earnings or income of a spouse or partner or head of household in which the claimant lives.
The criteria used to determine the value of any benefit or privilege are designed to ensure that each case is decided fairly having regard to the standard of living of the household. In this context it is important to recognise that the scheme is designed to cater for people who are in need and the amount payable in any case is directly related to the applicant's financial circumstances. The purpose of the means test is to achieve a degree of equity between applicants living in better off circumstances and those whose circumstances are poor.
Can I ask the Minister if he accepts that there is an anomaly here? The State cannot have it both ways. Does the Minister accept that the lady and the gentleman involved are regarded as single people for tax purposes and do not get the benefits to which they would be entitled if they were married? Yet for the purposes of the Social Welfare Act it appears that the person in this case is not entitled to assistance and is about to be penalised by virtue of an income in respect of the person with whom he is living although that person is being taxed as a single person. It should be one way or the other. If the tax liability was on the same basis as that for a married couple it would be fair enough. They would have that advantage.
I want to assure the Deputy that as far as the Department of Social Welfare are concerned, there is no discrimination in the way in which the provisions of this section of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act are applied.
By and large, those provisions have been there since the introduction of the social assistance schemes. The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot answer for the Minister for Finance. He will answer the question which the Deputy put down for him. The provisions of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act are being complied with here and there is no discrimination for any reason.
I do not want to pursue this unduly. I do not like putting down oral questions of a personal nature because there are other ways of getting the information. There is a general principle involved here and I do not think my constituents or others are concerned with whether it is dealt with by this Minister or the Minister for Finance. On the one hand, one Government Department categorise the parties involved as being, in effect, responsible to each other and having a joint income. Therefore, they are disadvantaged from the point of view of the assistance to which this man would be entitled.
However, another Government Department take revenue on the basis that they are not inter-related in any way. That contradiction has to be addressed. It is not a question of whether or not the Act is being implemented properly. It is a question of an anomaly which has arisen. It is costing people money. I would be grateful if the Minister would investigate this in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to see whether or not they will be taxed as a couple who are in effect married for the purpose of assistance in this case, or they will have the benefits which normally apply to two separate people in terms of the Social Welfare Act.
The whole area of benefit and privilege is one that has been examined by the Commission on Social Welfare. The Minister received their report yesterday.
Has she any view on this?
We will see what view they have expressed on this whole area of benefit and privilege and not just on the type of case to which the Deputy refers. The same criteria and provisions of the Act are used in the case of a married couple. There is no difference as far as assessment of means is concerned.
Does the Minister accept that this principle needs re-examination?
I would not like to preempt what is in the report of the Commission on Social Welfare but I am sure there will be much discussion on their viewpoint.
What does the Minister think?
As far as I am concerned, I would like to see the whole area of means testing abolished completely.
That is a separate question.
4.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of cases which are at present being granted invalidity pensions; the equivalent figures for each of the years from 1982 to 1985 inclusive; and if long-term cases on disability benefit are automatically examined and assessed for invalidity pensions after a prescribed period of time.
To qualify for invalidity pension, a person must satisfy the contribution conditions, must have been in receipt of disability benefit for a year and must be permanently incapable of work.
The usual practice is that in the normal control of disability benefit claims, the Department's medical referees suggest when claimants should be referred for further examination. If the medical referee indicates that a person is permanently incapable of work after receiving disability benefit for a year, that person is informed of the right to claim invalidity pension.
The number of persons receiving invalidity pension on 31 March this year was 24,026. The average numbers receiving pension in the years from 1982 to 1985 were 20,395, 20,849, 21,981 and 24,112 respectively.
Is it usual for claimants on long term disability payments who are on monthly certification to have to wait years before they are called for reassessment by referees for invalidity pensions? Many of them will not opt for invalidity pensions because they are unaware that they may be entitled to them. Is it not incumbent on the Department after, say, 12 months, to have such people examined and reassessed so that they may be qualified for invalidity pensions because of permanent incapacity?
I have set out the usual practice. There are many people in receipt of disability allowances who would possibly qualify for invalidity pensions but they would perfer to remain on disability allowances. The Deputy will be aware that invalidity pensions are liable for tax deductions and if claimants for invalidity pensions have other incomes, which some of them have, they would be at a loss if they changed from disability allowances. If a spouse has a social welfare allowance, the transfer of the other spouse to invalidity pension would mean a financial loss. There is not automatic selection of people who have been long periods on disability benefits. Medical referees who examine people at the end of a normal period on disability benefit either report that such people should be on invalidity pensions or should be reconsidered for them in six months or 12 months.
Though accepting that it may well be to the financial disadvantage of some claimants for invalidity pensions, there are others for whom it would be extremely advantageous because of the benefits in kind, such as free travel and so on, in the case of people eligible for invalidity pensions. It is rather incongruous that the Department would not have a specific policy in this respect as in others.
The Deputy is getting far away from the question.
Have the Department any specific policy in relation to giving directions to the medical referees to examine people on long term disability benefit to see if they are entitled to invalidity pensions?
Many referees refer people for invalidity pensions if their medical conditions qualify them. The Deputy should be aware that referees are working under severe pressure at present and that it is not always possible for them to go through claims of people on disability benefits to determine if they are entitled to invalidity pensions. Anyway, claimants are much more aware these days of their possible entitlements and the vast majority of those who feel they are entitled to invalidity pensions submit claims for them. Such claims are attended to.