asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans she has to improve the lot of lower paid social welfare recipients such as single adults living alone on unemployment assistance who receive £34.05 per week out of which they are expected to meet all their domestic and living needs.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
6.
The Government have in a period of severe economic and budgetary difficulties significantly increased in real terms the payments being made to all people who depend on social welfare.
That is untrue.
Special consideration has been given in this regard to the long term unemployed who are receiving unemployment assistance, resulting in provision being made for higher levels of payments to them in each of the past four years.
In the period end-May 1983 to mid-May 1987 the increase in the consumer price index is expected to be of the order of 22 per cent. In this same period the long-term unemployed have received increases of about 40 per cent resulting in an increase in real terms of about 18 per cent.
Further measures to improve the position of those receiving the lower social welfare payments are being examined in the context of the review of the social welfare system which is currently being carried out by my Department in the light of the Report of the Commission on Social Welfare.
Could the Minister tell the House if she expects that anybody can live on £34 per week?
The answer to that is, as I have said on several occasions both inside and outside this House, that I appreciate as much as anybody else the difficulty that people find on living on that small amount of money. It is, however, considerably better in real terms since we came into Government than it was beforehand.
Rubbish.
Would the Minister agree that single persons living alone having to pay for food, heating, lighting and rent on £34 per week are really in the category of someone living on the streets of Calcutta, that they are in dire financial circumstances? Would the Minister consider that they are a special case for particular treatment under the social welfare schemes?
As I said in answer to the question earlier on, obviously one has to consider, in the light of the Commission on Social Welfare and in a budgetary situation, the position of those on the lower social welfare payments. I would repeat that it is because of concern for that group that we have increased their rates by considerably more than the rates for anybody else over the past four years.
Does the Minister consider it reasonable that means of £25 a week would be assessed against some young people because they are living at home? This leaves them with £3 a week.
That is a different question.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will confirm that a double week's payment will be made to all recipients of social welfare benefit this Christmas; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
19.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if it is intended to pay an extra week's social welfare to recipients at Christmas; if so, the categories to whom it will be paid; if a full week's payment will be made; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
48.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a double payment will be made at Christmas to long term social welfare recipients, including the unemployed.
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 7, 19 and 48 together.
The question of a Christmas bonus is a matter for decision by Government and I will be making an announcement shortly. I will inform the Deputies as soon as possible.
Could the Minister indicate when she will be in a position to make that announcement? Can I anticipate that it will be circulated throughout my constituency by the Senator of my party to coincide with her announcement?
I am afraid that I cannot help the Deputy in terms of when I shall be in a position to make the announcement.
Does the Minister intend to do better than she did last year, when a double payment was not, in effect, granted but only 75 per cent increase given? Many old aged pensioners suffered very badly because they had budgeted for the double payment for the Christmas period.
I feel that I cannot really add anything to the answer that I have already given on that.
Could I ask the Minister——
Can I ask the Minister——
I call Deputy Haughey.
I have Question No. 9 down.
I am sorry, Deputy, I overlooked that.
The Minister indicated in her reply that it would be a matter for Government. May I ask her in that connection if, in view of the very real and genuine importance and significance of this payment to a wide section of people in the community, she will, as Minister for Social Welfare, recommend to the Government that it be paid this year?
I have no further addition to make to the answer that I already gave.
I am asking the Minister if she will——
The Deputy knows that he will not get an answer to that question. He knows that perfectly well.
I am trying to ask a question and the Minister has a statutory responsibility in the matter.
The Deputy knows that is not the position.
She has a duty to answer to this House for her responsibility. Does the Minister favour the payment this year and will she recommend it to the Government?
I have nothing to add.
The Minister refuses to answer. She should be ashamed of herself.
Deputy Mac Giolla has a question down.
On a point of order——
Deputy, I am calling Deputy Mac Giolla.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, is there any way in which we can get an answer from the Minister? She seems to hide behind something at each question.
Deputy Mac Giolla has a question.
Yes, I have a similar question down. Does the Minister not think it reasonable that the House would have expected, five weeks before Christmas, that she would have made up her mind what she intends doing about this matter? In view of the millions which she is saving on the cutbacks to social welfare recipients, can she assure the House now that she will, at least, improve on last year's performance on that regard?
No, the decision in regard to the double week payment at Chritsmas is not normally made at any different time from now. Of course, the equal treatment directive is costing social welfare, costing the taxpayers, an extra £18 million.
There is a saving.
There are no savings whatsoever and there is an extra expenditure of £18 million.
The Department are saving millions.
This is being financed by those who will be cut back next year.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the basis on which a person (details supplied) in County Monaghan was refused an increase in small farmer's unemployment assistance.
Following reinvestigation of the unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned he was assessed with means of £96.15 weekly, derived from the profit from his holding.
In calculating this amount, the deciding officer took into consideration the gross yearly value of the holding at £12,848, less expenses amounting to £7,848 incurred in earning that income, leaving a net profit of £5,000 per annum or £96.15 weekly.
The person concerned appealed against the amount of means assessed against him and an appeals officer on 17 September 1986 also assessed him with means of £96.15 weekly. He is, accordingly, in receipt of unemployment assistance of £5.80 weekly, being the appropriate maximum rate payable in his case of £101.95 less means of £96.15.
The basis of the calculation of means for the holding in this case was the net income from the holding over the 12 months preceding the investigation of means on 24 June 1986. It was considered that this assessment reflected the net income from his farm in a normal year.
If the person concerned is now of the opinion that his circumstances have changed to the extent that he considers the assessment does not reflect his income from farming in a normal year, it is open to him to apply for a review of his case. A form for this purpose may be obtained from his local office.
Is the Minister aware that this is a married man with a wife and six children? He is living on a holding of 33 acres which has been described by the social welfare officer as fair land. Is she aware that from the report of the social welfare officer this man's income from the sale of milk was £7,800 and his expenditure was £7,700 giving him a profit of £100? The basis which was used to calculate that he had £96 a week was the sale of livestock last year which amounted to £5,111. In fact the man's operating profit is £100. He spent the £5,000 last year and he does not have a realistic income at this stage with which to keep his wife and family. That is the reason he appealed. The appeal was decided on the basis of the £5,000 he got last year for the sale of stock. It bears no relation to his income at present. We can assume that because his income last year was £7,800——
We cannot have a rehearing here.
——and his expenditure was £7,700, he is on the poverty line. Yet the Minister is giving him £5 a week.
I am sure the Deputy is aware that the Minister cannot tell the appeals officer what to do. The appeals procedure is independent of the Minister. If the person is not satisfied with the present position and if there is evidence he feels has not been properly taken into account he should apply for a review of his case. That is as far as a Minister can go in the circumstances.
There are many similar cases. Can the Minister instruct appeals officers and other officials in the Department to assess people on their present income? It is grossly unreasonable to expect someone to survive on the amount of money they made last year which they may now have spent.
As the Deputy is aware the only reasonable calculation that can be made is on the net income over the 12 months preceding the investigation of means. That is what has been assessed in this case.
A final supplementary.
We are not making as much progress today as we did yesterday. We had a number of questions to the Taoiseach yesterday which usually take more time. I am moving to the next question.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the measures, if any, she is taking to identify persons who are not claiming social welfare benefits to which they may be entitled; if she intends to undertake any research into the levels of non-take up; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
My Department make considerable efforts to increase public awareness of entitlements by providing information on its schemes and services.
There are now 31 public offices and information centres of the Department throughout the country which provide an information service to members of the public. General information booklets and booklets setting out the rates of payment of various schemes are widely distributed, in addition to a range of leaflets on particular schemes. A number of leaflets have been added recently, specifically designed to improve awareness of entitlements, for example, "Retiring" and "Pensioners and Savings". Information leaflets have also been made available in conjunction with the introduction of new schemes, such as the pilot schemes for the unemployed, including Jobsearch, the part-time job allowance scheme and the educational opportunities scheme.
The Department also advertise extensively when new schemes are to be introduced or when there are changes to existing schemes and when there is a need to make the public aware of administrative changes.
The methods of disseminating information are subject to continual review and are being improved and developed as resources allow. Officers of my Department also participate in seminars and educational and training courses around the country.
In relation to research my Department does not have the necessary resources to undertake formal measurement of the level of non-take up by persons of social welfare benefits to which they are entitled. This would require very complex and expensive household surveys. There is little evidence of lack of take-up of departmental schemes.
Despite the leaflets, booklets and promotion of new schemes I am sure the Minister is aware from the feedback from Deputies that every Deputy receives many requests for information from people who are not aware of their entitlements. The Minister must be aware that there are many people who, although in considerable poverty, are not aware of their entitlements.
The Deputy is making a speech in favour of his question.
Is the Minister aware that despite all the leaflets and so on there is a high level of non-take up of benefits by people who really need them? In regard to the survey would the Minister not agree that with the social welfare offices, labour exchanges and so on already at her disposal, she has sufficient means to carry out a reasonable survey? Has she attempted to do that in her Department?
There is no evidence to suggest that lack of take up is a problem. The Commission on Social Welfare did not identify lack of take up as posing a problem. Some broad indications of take up have been given. For example, 82 per cent of persons over 66 years of age are in receipt of a pension or long term social welfare payment. Most of the rest are public service pensioners and 63 per cent of widows are in receipt of widows' pension. There is almost 100 per cent of take up of child benefit and there is no reason to believe that the take up of unemployment payments is anything less than 100 per cent. The Deputy will be interested to know that the ESRI are undertaking a major survey of poverty at present. This is being jointly funded by the Department of Social Welfare, the EC poverty programme and the ESRI. The survey is intended to provide very important information about the income position of households and the extent to which they depend on social welfare. It will also provide us with valuable information about the take up of supplementary welfare and so on. If there is a problem, which there does not appear to be, it will shortly be identified.
Next question. I have allowed the Deputy to make his point.
It was only one supplementary.
It was not. It was a speech in support of your assertion.
On a point of order I object to that comment in regard to my supplementary question. It was a specific one in regard to information which the Minister has disclosed she knows nothing about.
I did not say that.
I had to point out that despite all the leaflets there was not a high level of take up. I was asking the Minister about that. I put every one of the queries in the form of a question.
I was told there would be teething trouble but there is just trouble.
I object to that. It is reasonable to have a second supplementary question if Deputy De Rossa wishes to ask one.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons persons on unemployment benefit are not granted a dependent allowance for children aged 18 who are still in full time schooling.
53.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether the dependent child allowance, payable in respect of children over 18 years who are attending full time education to widows only and excluding old age contributory pensions, is anomalous; if she has any proposals to eliminate this anomaly from the system; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 10 and 53 together.
At present child dependant increases are payable with most social welfare benefits and pensions in respect of children up to the age of 18 years. However, for the purposes of widow's pension, deserted wife's benefit and allowance, prisoners wife's allowance and unmarried mother's allowance, child dependant increases continue to be payable in respect of children up to the age of 21 years if they are receiving full-time education. The extension of the age limit also applies in the case of widows receiving invalidity, retirement or old age contributory pensions. The measure was introduced in recognition of the special needs of widows and other one-parent families. The position in relation to child dependent increases was considered in the context of the rationalisation of the system of child support payments which was to be achieved through a full child benefit scheme.
The recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare however are at variance with the notion of a unified child benefit scheme. In the specific area of child dependant increases the commission argue that they are an effective mechanism of targeting resources selectively. The commission considered that these increases should be retained but that in the long term there should be a modest relative shift towards child benefit and away from the child dependant increases.
The whole area of State support for persons with families, including the age limit for the payment of child dependant allowances, in now being re-examined in the light of the commission's recommendation and I am not in a position at this stage to say what the outcome of this examination will be.
Is the Minister aware that there are many children of 18 years and upwards who are attending full time education and whose parents are in receipt of unemployment or other benefits? Would she agree that such people are entitled to child dependant allowances?
A great number of social welfare schemes were introduced to cover groups which were considered to have specific needs. Since I became Minister for Social Welfare I have been asked to extend these schemes to other people. Each request has enormous financial implications. That is one of the factors that has to be taken into account as the Deputy will agree. The majority of the questions I answered today involved enormous additional expenditure. However desirable it might be for all young people over 18 years who are in full time education to be treated in the same way as the children of widows, unmarried mothers, prisoners' wives and so on, it is a difficult proposition in the light of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare and of the considerable extra resources which would have to be found.
Surely the person who is unemployed is in greater need than some of those other people? If they have children of 18 years and upwards in full time education, surely they should be entitled to the child dependant's allowance because at that age these children are an even greater expense on the family. In those circumstances, these parents are entitled to such benefits. Would the Minister look at this matter very urgently and extend this allowance to the dependants of unemployed people?
While all these issues may be very desirable, there is the question of cost to be taken into account. Earlier questions referred to people of the lower rate getting increases while other questions referred to people losing money under the equality Directive, but every question involves extra expenditure. Obviously all these matters are considered very carefully but we are in a very tricky financial position.
A final supplementary.
The Deputy got the information and no doubt he knows how to use it.
One supplementary.
This is not the place to make an argument.
Would the Minister agree that there is an anomaly here?
I have already answered that.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 14.
I will communicate with the Deputy.