Vol. 404 No. 5
12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Social Welfare the average waiting time between the notification by a woman in receipt of the lone parent's allowance of the birth of an additional child and the making of payment in respect of such additional child; if he intends to take any steps to reduce the gap; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
After I introduced the lone parents allowance scheme in November 1990, I had the investigative procedures reviewed and revised where appropriate. While the new procedures have not yet been fully implemented, the target being set is three weeks for the issue of a supplementary payment in respect of an additional child. This target includes the time taken to have an allowance book ordered, printed and distributed to the relevant post office. The new procedures have been fully tested and are being extended to all claimants.
Under the new procedures, investigations into general compliance by the claimant with the conditions regarding cohabitation and the other relevant conditions now take place independently of the issue of the allowance book.
Will the Minister not agree that it takes substantially longer than three weeks, as mentioned by him, to process the claim for supplementary payment? When a lone parent gives birth to an additional child and makes a claim for the allowance, the Department go to extreme lengths to investigate the matter. There is a tendency to invade the privacy of the lone parent to a degree that is unacceptable. Will the Minister agree that it has taken on occasions six months for a lone parent to clear herself in order to receive the extra benefit?
The Deputy will agree that under the legislation the arrival of an additional child raised the question of whether the person is cohabiting. Normally an investigation takes place to determine whether the status of the claimant has changed. What I said in the reply is that since the introduction of the lone parents allowance scheme in November last, the Department have operated a pilot scheme, making some preliminary urgent inquiries into the case and then issuing the allowance book, letting the investigations take their course. The position has changed completely with the introduction of the scheme in November. New legislation as brought before the House which provides that following the award cases are referred to the social welfare officer for investigation. That has reduced the delay in deciding claims to an average of one to two weeks. The issuing of the book could take another week and that is why I mentioned three weeks. That is the position under the new legislation, following the pilot study which was carried out.
Will the Minister assure the House that he will in future accept a birth certificate as proof of the arrival of another child? There is no need for his Department's officials to be snooping establishing that another child has appeared. It is disturbing and unacceptable because, presumably, the Department of Social Welfare feel that lone parents should not have any more children. This is a dangerous assumption but it is the way it is interpreted by many recipients of the allowance.
As the Deputy will appreciate, we do not pay a lone parent's allowance to married couples; it is only paid to single parents living alone. One of the conditions is that the person is not cohabiting. If a person has an additional child it at least raised the question whether her status has changed and if she is cohabiting. If the Deputy looks at the record of investigations he will find that there are many reasons for claims being discontinued. One is because of cohabitation and that is a normal element in our scheme and of schemes in other countries, there is nothing unusual in it. We did a pilot study and the new administrative system involves establishing that the child is there and then issuing the book.
13 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has any plans to change the present system where a person who signs off at an employment exchange on getting a few days' work is then regarded as being self-employed with a weekly income in the following January.
I understand that the Deputy's question relates to the assessment, under the Social Welfare Acts, of income from self-employment for unemployment assistance purposes.
For unemployment assistance purposes, income from self-employment is assessed in accordance with section 146 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, which provides that certain income that a person may expect to receive during the succeeding year in cash shall constitute his or her means. The main items assessable as means are earnings from self-employment and the value of assets such as capital and properties. This section also provides that in the absence of other methods of assessing it, such income shall be taken to be the income actually received during the 12 months immediately preceding the date of calculation.
There are no fixed dates of assessment of means for people who engage in self-employment. Following the initial assessment, reviews of means are carried out as circumstances dictate. It is open to all claimants to seek a review of their means if at any time they feel that the assessment of income in their case does not accurately reflect their situation.
Because earnings from self-employment are assessable as means, people with casual, part-time or occasional self-employment are permitted to sign the live register each day. This arrangement avoids any inequity or difficulties arising from seasonal fluctuations in earnings from self-employment.
I have introduced a number of measures to facilitate unemployed people who want to get back into the workforce. I am concerned to ensure that the social welfare system is able to respond to changing trends in employment and I will be examining the present arrangements to see what further opportunities can be made available to unemployed people in this regard.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Shakespeare seems to rule in the Department of Social Welfare. He once said that there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. It is wrong to penalise a person who signed off at the employment exchange because he wanted work painting a house and for the official to automatically decide the following January that the person has that income every week. After all, if the person was sure of getting work he would not sign on in the first place. If the Minister lost his job in the morning — which is very unlikely — and he was told next January that because he had £150 per week all last year it was assumed he had the same this year, it would be most unfair. Because a person earns £300 per week during the summer it is automatically assumed that it is the person's income the following year. Will the Minister look at this question because it is grossly unjust to genuinely unemployed people who may get casual labour and, who, because they are honest, sign off?
I want to assure the Deputy that it was not Shakespeare who introduced the legislation governing this, but some of our predecessors. I said in my reply that I am sympathetic to the point of view expressed by the Deputy, but he must recognise that people may have other earnings yielding an income. It may be from capital or land and could be substantial. However, in the context of encouraging people to take up casual labour, it should be resolved and I will certainly look into the matter.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I thank the Minister for taking a positive line in relation to this matter because, among other things, it discourages honesty. If people who report the fact that they are working are punished for doing so, they will obviously have second thoughts in future.
I acknowledge that the Minister is sympathetic in this regard. Why is there a general air of suspicion in relation to people who had been self-employed and who for one reason or another, fell on hard times? Surely this could be resolved by the Revenue Commissioners who could account for the incomes? If a person in such circumstances runs into difficulties they are entitled to benefit from the social welfare system, like everybody else?
If they run into difficulties they are entitled to help but they would have to look for a review in those circumstances. The suspicion regarding wealth is because the schemes are assistance schemes and the question of wealth must arise as, otherwise, the money would be spread too thinly. The Revenue Commissioners are now more efficient because of computerisation and there is a greater opportunity of using the system to overcome some of these problems. Deputy Browne was concerned about people wanting to work on a casual basis and who are penalised. This problem must be addressed.
The Minister might be missing the point. The problem is that people are not assessed on their current income——
I understand that.
They are being assessed on their historical state of play. Last year's income is taken as this year's income.
In some cases people may have had a substantial income last year, especially in the self-employed area. That will have a bearing on what people receive this year and, obviously, if the income is from a scheme which attracts interest it must be taken into account.
There seems to be an assumption that if a person had money in 1990 he has the same amount this year.
A person could have an income from interest on money deposited. However, I accept the Deputy's point that it is an area which needs to be reviewed in legislation.
