Vol. 372 No. 11
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the measures taken to alleviate hardship because of the introduction of the EC equality directive are to be continued indefinitely; if not, when the new scale of payments will come into effect; what these will be; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
27.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends continuing payment of the £20 per week transitional payment arising from the EC equality directive after November 1987; if not, if he will outline his intentions to alleviate any unnecessary hardship; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
36.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if it is intended to extend the cushion payment for those who lost out as a result of the EC equality directive beyond December of this year; the plans, if any, he has for further assistance for people whose income dropped as a result of equalisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 4, 27 and 36 together.
The temporary measures introduced in November 1986 to assist persons who suffered reductions in payment as a consequence of the new dependency arrangements brought into force at that time are due to expire in mid-November 1987 and no provision was made in the 1987 Estimates for their continuation beyond that. I am reviewing the operation of the present arrangements and will be advising the Government on the results of this review. The question of extending these arrangements beyond November 1987 would be a matter for consideration in that context.
Is the Minister in favour of the continuation of these measures?
As I have said, I shall make that judgment when the review is completed. The review is in progress at present. I recognise there are circumstances where the termination of such an arrangement could cause difficulties.
First, when does the Minister expect to have the results of the review? Secondly, what would be the cost for the current year if the measures were extended?
It would depend, of course, on the number of recipients. The estimated cost of the alleviating measures for the year 1987 to mid-November is £14 million. Obviously it would depend on the numbers who would be seeking alleviating measures at that stage because, as the Deputy is aware, this matter changes daily.
There is concern as to whether the measures would be continued and as the payment for the current year would only need to be extended from mid-November to the end of December, does the Minister agree that it would take a relatively small amount to provide for this? Could he give a commitment that this will be done?
I will give a commitment that this matter will be reviewed, sympathetically from my point of view.
I also asked when the findings of the review will be made known.
As soon as the results are available.
How soon?
I could not say at this stage when the results will be known. It is a matter that changes and to deal with it at present might cost much more than at a later stage.
Does the Minister accept that the need for these alleviating provisions arises out of particular hardship because of the regulations introduced which have left approximately upwards of 20,000 families much worse off? The vast majority still need assistance from the State to make up the shortfall.
I accept that there is hardship and the question will be reviewed later in the year.
We know that mid-November is the relevant date. When a decision is made, will the Minister give an assurance that it will be well in advance of that date so that all persons concerned will be clearly and adequately informed well in advance?
Yes.
Has the Minister any information to the effect that, despite this scheme to alleviate hardship, many people have found it necessary to give up part time employment?
That is a different question about which I do not have information but I am aware of the difficulties which arose.
5.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason widowers do not come within the scope of EC Directive 79/7/EEC on equal treatment as between men and women in matters of social security; his views on whether if a widow is entitled to death payment, a widower should also be entitled, as in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Article 3 of EEC Directive 79/7/EEC specifically provides that the directive does not apply to survivors' benefits.
The payment referred to by the Deputy is the payment of benefit in certain circumstances to a dependant of a social welfare beneficiary for a period of six weeks after the death of the beneficiary. The general arrangements for after death payments are that such payments are made to widows whose husbands had been in receipt of a social welfare payment with an increase for the wife as a dependant. These payments come under the heading of survivors' benefits and are not, therefore, covered by the EEC Directive.
In relation to the particular case referred to by the Deputy, the widower in the case was himself the beneficiary, being in receipt of a retirement pension with an increase for his wife. A widow in similar circumstances would not have qualified for the after death payment which only arises where the beneficiary dies, not the dependant.
Is the Minister aware of the problems which arise for widowers whose spouses die? Is he prepared to consider some special arrangement, at least for hardship cases, among widowers? I do not think that anyone would ask the Minister to consider a pension for widowers because of the clear cost implications but there are very special cases. Will the Minister consider some scheme to make provision for cases where, for instance, a working widower loses the tax-free allowance for his spouse and only gets a single person's tax bands? If he is not working he does not get any pension; he is in receipt of unemployment assistance.
I agree that in general there is a question to be considered further although there are cost implications involved. However, this question refers to a particular set of circumstances in which after-death payments are made. The circumstances in which such payments were made were revised to take account of the new arrangements and such payments are made to the widow. However, when the wife dies, payment is made to the husband provided that the benefit which was being paid to the wife included an increase in respect of the husband as an adult dependant. I know it is complicated but the husband benefited if he was a dependant of his wife.
I appreciate the Minister's remark but does he not agree that there is no equality in the law in practice in regard to single parent families where the parent is a man, regardless of the fact that he is a widower or a deserted husband? This small section of the community is one of the most needy and there should be special arrangements to deal with so many tragic cases.
As I said, the question refers to a specific case and set of circumstances. Notwithstanding that, I recognise that there is a need to introduce benefits for spouses whenever this can be achieved. That is the direction in which the changes are going but the principal problem is the cost involved. With each successive budget in future, that question will have to be examined further.
I know the Minister rightly wants to avoid innovation which would cost a lot of money. However, we should make arrangements to deal with very special cases. For instance, a widower or a deserted husband with four children could receive £30 a week less than a woman in similar circumstances. Many of these people are living in abject poverty. Perhaps provision could be made through the supplementary welfare system whereby community welfare officers could pay the difference.
We have gone into a totally different question now. I accept that this area needs further attention. If there is a clear need under the current criteria, it can be dealt with under supplementary welfare allowances. As the Deputy knows, however, that would not meet some of the circumstances which the Deputy has in mind.
These cases are not provided for under the supplementary welfare system and frequently community welfare officers deny assistance to men in these circumstances. I have had several of these cases in my own constitutency——
We are having an expansion of the question.
I have had to resort to providing charity.
Deputy Gay Mitchell has arrived. We have had a series of questions on the subject matter of your question so I want to pass on to another one.
I was detained in connection with the Single European Act and I regret I was not in the Chamber for the Minister's reply. I appreciate there is a problem in regard to finance but I should like to ask the Minister if, bearing in mind that there would not be an enormous expenditure involved out of a total budget of the Department of £2,000 million, he will arrange for widowers to be treated in the same way that widows are treated in regard to death grants. Will the Minister agree it is a matter the Ombudsman should look into?
It is a matter for further and future consideration. There has been some improvement in that where a wife dies payment is made to the husband provided the benefit which was being paid to the wife included an increase in respect of the husband as an adult dependant. The introduction of that principle represents a development. I appreciate it does not mean there will be equal benefit to that which applies where the husband dies because in such cases the benefit carries on.
We have dwelt at length on this question. I will take a brief question from Deputy Gay Mitchell, one from Deputy Harney and then I will pass on to the next question.
The Minister will be aware that in a whole range of areas — in the case of a lady who reaches 66 years of age before her husband, for example — there is wholesale discrimination involved. I welcome the efforts of the Minister, and the Government, in recent times to eliminate inequality but I should like to ask the Minister if he will consider setting up a section in his Department to work towards abolishing inequality as between the sexes.
That matter, which is mainly a budgetary question, is considered regularly.
Will the Minister agree to have his Department look at all social welfare schemes to ensure entitlement is given to the person irrespective of their sex? In the past one rarely came across deserted husbands but it is common to meet them today and it is time that the Minister looked at all the schemes, statutory and discretionary, to ensure there is equality.
I would be in favour of equality but, as Members realise, the main question to be considered is the amount of cash available to extend benefits. In that context I will be considering the suggestions raised in connection with the preparation of the budget.
