asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the different means tests criteria used in his Department; if he has any plans to bring in one means test only; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Means Test Criteria.
29.
The criteria used in determining entitlement under means-tested schemes comprise the following components — cash income, the value of any capital or property from which an income might be derived and, in the case of certain benefits, the value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by the applicant.
While the criteria are broadly similar there are nevertheless variations in the manner in which some of the components, principally capital and income from earnings, are assessed. These variations can result in the assessment of means being more favourable to applicants under certain schemes. There are at present 11 means-tested schemes which vary in one way or another and the application of a single means test for all these schemes would have major financial and other implications. I am concerned, however, to reduce as far as possible the need for different means assessments and I am at present examining the scope for rationalising the various arrangements which currently apply.
Would the Minister agree that he told me that a year ago? He has now told us that there are 11 different means tests with different criteria in his own Department. In addition there are eight more in other Departments, including, for instance, education grants, differential rent, medical cards, disabled persons maintenance allowance etc. Is the Minister conscious of the humiliation, irritation and inconvenience which people have to endure if they are unfortunate enough to need unemployment assistance or, in the case of a deserted wife, deserted wife's allowance? Does the Minister know that a lady who becomes deserted must go through a means test for supplementary welfare allowance, a separate means test for deserted wife's allowance, a separate means test for a medical card, a separate means test for her differential rent if she is in a local authority house, a separate means test for civil legal aid if she requires it, a separate means test for free footwear for her children and a separate means test for free fuel, and that is not all. They are done in different offices by different officials to different criteria. Would the Minister not agree that this is crying out for urgent change? Would he not accept that after one year it is disappointing to hear he is still considering the matter?
I suppose it is equally disappointing to find that after four and a half years in Government the Coalition did nothing about the matter whatsoever.
That is no excuse.
An interdepartmental committee are working on the rationalisation of the means tests where duplicate means tests occur and are carried out both by the health boards and the Department of Social Welfare. The purpose there is to ensure that the duplication is removed. There are difficulties in it. There are different criteria in different circumstances. If we were to remove all the means tests, or simplify them to the one level, then the benefit would be much higher in some circumstances than in others. Probably at the end of the day there would still be differences, but there is considerable scope for rationalisation. A number of areas have been rationalised. The free fuel scheme and the footwear scheme have been rationalised in relation to the benefit a person is on already from, for instance, the Department of Social Welfare. I have rationalised that during the year and I will continue with that process. The other approach I have taken in the year is that of the one stop shop and having the means assessed at the one time by the various people involved whether health board or social welfare people. I appreciate the difficulty and will be making every effort at rationalisation of the means tests.
What is wrong with having one means test at the local health centre where the applicant is put through the hoops just once and then gets a certificate from the community welfare officer saying what the means are and using that certificate as an indication of whether he or she is entitled to all the items I have just mentioned? I could add a few more. Why have such persons to be put through the same hoops a dozen times in certain cases at different offices by different officials, costing a fortune to the State?
I agree with the Deputy about the need to rationalise the schemes. The Deputy mentioned supplementary welfare benefit and deserted wife's benefit. The means assessment in those two cases would be very different. In the first instance supplementary welfare is only establishing whether you have enough money this week for this week. I know some additional discretionary categories can be added to that. The deserted wife's benefit means test involves talking about a pension which is going to be long term and obviously different criteria will be involved there. There is no reason why they cannot be done in the one place, of course.
Why are they not done in the one place at the same time?
First, because all the health board offices were built in different places from the FÁS offices and the social welfare offices and I did not so build them. I am trying to bring them all together and I will continue to try to do so. That is the whole concept of the one stop shop, and one of the early one stop shops will be in the Deputy's constituency, as he knows.
I am delighted to hear that.
We will make the provision for those people to work within the social welfare general resource centre, if the Deputy likes to call it so rather than an exchange.
A final supplementary.
Without changing the criteria at all for any of the 11 items in the Department of Social Welfare and the six or seven in the Department of health, the Department of Justice and the Department of the Environment, why is there not just one calculation of the means of the person which can be used in assessment of eligibility for all the different things? Surely that would reduce a great deal of administrative and bureaucratic time, which is costly, and would eliminate a great deal of inconvenience and humiliation for applicants who very often are at a low ebb at the time.
For example, some of the benefits in means assessments given to elderly people are greater than those given to able-bodied young people. Consequently, the criteria are different in the two sets of circumstances.
Yes, but the means are going to be the same.
It is not necessary in some cases to go into all those means and it is necessary in other cases. Broadly speaking, I would not disagree with the Deputy. There is considerable scope for rationalisation, but at the end of the day there is a danger that the averaging will be downward because some of the means allowed in some cases are extra means allowed because of a person's circumstances and the assessment is done for that reason. I know the Deputy will suggest that the one person to do all of these means tests. At least we can let the number of persons doing them, whether they are from the health boards or Department of Social Welfare, do them in the one place. That is the whole one stop shop concept.
May I ask another question?
That must be the end of questions, ordinary and nominated for priority. We are going into Government business time.
Perhaps I can raise this on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.