Vol. 404 No. 5
1 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the anomalies in the social welfare system whereby young people living at home and applying for social assistance schemes have their parents' means assessed against them regardless of the income arrangements pertaining within the household; if he will ensure that all social assistance applicants are assessed only on their own means; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
8 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on whether the procedure called benefit of board and lodgings in the means test for unemployment assistance is outdated given that its application is based on total household income which can be used against the claim of a young unemployed person living at home, but who derives no financial benefit from the income of other members of the family living in the same household.
16 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Social Welfare the average unemployment assistance payment made to (a) an unmarried male and (b) an unmarried female living with their family.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 8 and 16 together.
The value of the benefit derived from free board and lodgings enjoyed by an unemployment assistance claimant is assessed by reference to the net income of the person or persons providing the board and lodgings divided by the number of dependants in the household. In arriving at the assessment, disregards and allowances are made in respect of certain outgoings.
In all cases the benefit is calculated by reference to the income of the persons providing the benefit, in most cases this would be the parents of the claimant. Where there are other members of the household who have an independent income, such as working brothers or sisters, their income is usually excluded from the calculation.
The requirement to take account of board and lodgings has been a feature of the unemployment assistance scheme since its inception. Its purpose is to achieve a degree of equity between applicants in different family circumstances; between applicants whose parents are well-to-do and those whose parents are in poorer circumstances. Otherwise, people living in affluent circumstances would become entitled to the same level of assistance as those whose circumstances are poor.
I am satisfied that the underlying principle of relating the value of board and lodgings in any case to the income level of the household in which he or she resides is essentially a good one and that it should remain a feature of the social welfare system. If such people are unemployed their costs would normally be lower in the family home than somewhere else where they would have to pay for food and accommodation. I am concerned that improvements in the system should be made where possible. For this reason, I have decided to introduce from July next a minimum payment of unemployment assistance of £5 a week. This will apply to those persons who are entitled to some payment but of an amount less than £5 because of a high means assessment from board and lodgings. I hope to make further improvements in the future. Improvements will of course have to be gradual because of the financial implications. In 1981 a study estimated that it would cost over £21 million to abolish the board and lodgings provision and the cost now would be considerably higher.
Statistics are not maintained in a form which would provide the detailed information sought in Question No. 16.
Would the Minister agree that the system of calculation of the value of board and lodgings is archaic, totally outdated and unrelated to reality? I have a copy here of the regulations given to me by the Minister's Department. Would the Minister further agree that the taking into account of the family income in assessing another person's means has had the effect in many cases of breaking up families where such families will no longer tolerate what they see as a parasite in their midst and the attitude is "pay up or get out"? Very many young people are forced into emigration or otherwise out of the family home. Would he agree that it is time to review this provision? The payment of £5 will not be effective. It is a baby step where a gaint step is required.
Unfortunately in this area every step has very serious financial implications. I agree with the Deputy in so far as I should like to have those means tests eased, but it is of course a budgetary matter because the costs are so substantial. If we take the cost produced by the 1981 study and update it to the current levels based on the consumer price index, it would be £35 million. A substantial change in numbers would have to be added. The Commission on Social Welfare examined this matter in some detail and recommended that the benefit and privilege assessment should be maintained. One of their proposals was that a basic allowance of £10 should be achieved in order to get over some of the anomalies. That recommendation was based on 1985-86 levels. In principle and in equity they found that it was right but notwithstanding that I would be anxious to improve the basic position.
The Minister said that the income of brothers and sisters is sometimes disregarded and sometimes taken into account. Would he agree that the reality is that brothers and sisters pay their keep only and that the amount they pay has no relationship whatever to the wellbeing of the person who cannot pay and that to take this into account in assessing needs is unfair and inequitable?
It is taken into account only in some circumstances. However, as the Deputy has raised this question, I will look at the matter. I am doing a number of things which relate to this area and they will be dealt with in further questions. I am anxious to make any improvements I can. It is largely a question of the amount of money available and where it can most equitably be spent. That is what has prevented previous Ministers from taking any action in that area. I have taken some action.
2 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of applications he has received to date for the carers' allowance scheme; the number of cases already adjudicated on; and the number of cases refused.
7 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of applications received for the carers' allowance up to 18 January 1991; the number of applications approved at that date and the number refused.
29 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in respect of the recently introduced carers' allowance, he will outline the number of applications received to date and the number approved.
57 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Social Welfare (i) the number of people who applied for the carers' allowance, (ii) the number who were refused, and (iii) the number who received the full allowance.
60 Mr. Ryan asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline in relation to the carers' allowance (a) the total number of applications received to date; (b) the number of applicants who were successful without losing any other benefits under the existing conditions and (c) the number of applicants receiving the maximum allowance of £45.
I propose to take Questions No. 2, 7, 29, 57 and 60 together. The new carers' scheme, which I introduced last November, provides that a carers' allowance is payable, subject to a means test, to persons providing full-time care and attention to incapacitated persons who are in receipt of certain social welfare payments. This new scheme represented a major improvement on the older prescribed relative's allowance scheme. The allowance was increased from £28 to £45. It is payable direct to the carer. Furthermore for the first time a married person dependent on his or her spouse can qualify as a carer. The spouse of a pensioner may also qualify and a carer who is not a relative of the pensioner is also eligible.
I am very happy to be in a position to extend the scheme later this year to persons caring for recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance and I believe that this is a major development in the provision of support for the people involved. In addition I will be increasing the rate of the allowance from £45 to £50.
The allowance is payable subject to a means test which is on similar lines to the means tests of other social assistance schemes operated by my Department. It is directed to those who are in greatest need.
The total number of claims in payment is approximately 3,500. This comprises some 1,650 new awards in addition to some 1,850 people who were previously in receipt of prescribed relatives allowance and who have retained that entitlement. Claims for the allowance are being received at the rate of some 320 per week. As at 28 January 1991 a total of 3,992 applications for the careers' allowance had been received in my Department. Of these, 1,650 have been awarded while 1,210 were refused. The number of applicants in receipt of the maximum carers' allowance rate of £45 per week is 1,142. This represents almost 70 per cent of the total number of new awards made. The outstanding cases are awaiting decision. Statistics are not maintained in my Department regarding the number of applicants who transferred to the carers' allowance having previously been in receipt of another payment.
Would the Minister agree that because of the publicity hype he engaged in when he introduced the carers' allowance the first time that he created an atmosphere of false expectations which were cruelly dashed when people who believed they were entitled to benefit were refused? Is it not true that in the last month, despite the figure the Minister has given there, two out of every three applications were refused or the recipients got very meagre amounts? Is it not true that ever since the budget yesterday most of those people will not be able to qualify?
The budget will of course increase all the means limits because of the increases in child dependant allowances, the increases in adult dependant allowances and the increases in the basic rates. The limits will also be increased because of the increase in the basic allowance and a table of this will be made available shortly. The Deputy is saying, and I have heard some of his colleagues saying so publicly, that I hyped up the expectations. That is nonsense. I know the Deputy was not involved as spokesperson on social welfare at the time.
We were on the ground, Minister.
I appreciate that he may not realise what happened on the ground. We made it very clear that this was a social welfare carer's allowance and, in all the broadcasting and in all the publicity, that was emphasised. We emphasised it very specially because I knew that there were many people caring for elderly or disabled people who would have higher incomes. I expressed here in the House and outside appreciation of the work those people did.
You have a poor way of showing it.
I am the Minister for Social Welfare and I was providing a scheme for social welfare beneficiaries and people on low incomes generally. We made that absolutely clear at the outset. I accept that expectations rose.
Of course they did.
However, they were not hyped by me in any way.
By you and your TDs.
One of the major disappointments in relation to it was for people on disabled persons' maintenance allowance. When we brought this Bill through last year I said I wanted to bring them in but that I had not got the money to do it at that time. I have got authority to set up a new scheme. We did that and I said that as soon as I could I would bring those on DPMA into the scheme. They are not under the control of my Department but of the Department of Health. In the Act last year we took the power to do this without having to come back to the House and that was discussed here in the House when we discussed the Bill. We are now in a position to extend it to those on DPMA as well as increasing it at this time. Leaving out the people whose names exceeded the limit the majority of the people who are failing to get the carer's allowance at this time would be failing because of the DPMA but those people will now be catered for.
I want to ask one small supplementary.
It has to be, Deputy, if we are to deal with your Question No. 3. Time is fast running out.
Is it true that until today a carer could only have £2 income to qualify for any of the carers' allowances? Is it true that the joint income of both spouses in the House would have to be less than £90 to qualify for the carers' allowance? Is that true or false?
That is a separate statistical question. A carer with a working spouse can qualify for some allowance if they have between them earnings of £93 in the case where they have no children; where they have three children, £133 per week; and where they have five children, £162 a week. In addition those figures will be updated now following the budget increase. That is what I was saying at the outset.
By 4 per cent.
It is more than 4 per cent.
It will not make any difference.
If the remaining priority question is to be disposed of it must be taken now.
We will be coming back to it next week in greater detail.
I will be very happy to come back to it because I am very happy that I was the Minister who, for the first time ever in this country, introduced a carers' allowance. That is the reality.
Tell that to the people who need it.
Let the Chair be obeyed by both sides of the House.
3 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social Welfare if financial provision has been made in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to take into consideration the huge number of farmers who will be forced to rely on social welfare as a result of the GATT negotiations and the proposed changes in the Common Agricultural Policy.
The consequences for Irish agriculture of the outcome of the GATT negotiations is one of issues specifically addressed under the heading of agricultural development in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The programme recognises the importance of negotiating compensatory arrangements in the form of increased EC-funded income supports directed towards the family farm, as well as the need to promote structural reforms. Our objective is to maintain as many farm families in the countryside as possible with acceptable income levels.
Under the Programme the Government are committed to consider in consultation with farming organisations, arrangements to address the problem of low-income farming families, taking account of relevant developments at EC level. The smallholders unemployment assistance is a major form of income support for low-income farmers. Many improvements have been made in the scheme in recent years both in the rates of payment and in the assessment of income. The future development of social welfare provisions for farmers including the smallholders scheme will be considered in the context of the examination of income support for farmers under the programme.
I wish——
The Deputy may ask a very brief question. It must be clear to the House that the time available for dealing with Priority Questions is long since exhausted.
You were nice to the Minister for Agriculture at the beginning as well.
That did not interfere with the amount of time I allocated for priority questions.
I want to make a most important point and ask the Minister a straight question. Is it the case that, as all the economists predict, there will be another 25,000 Irish farmers living below the poverty line this year because of the GATT negotiations? Has the Minister scope, and the financial capacity within the Department of Social Welfare, to pay them the farmers' dole when they apply for it?
We, of course, will pay anyone who is entitled to farmer's dole. The question from the farming organisations is somewhat different and they want to bring about circumstances which will help in structural development and that is a different question.
Have you the money for them?
Our position in that regard is that there is cover built into the programme for discussion on the whole area. Obviously it will also depend on what funds the EC will provide in that area as well. Both will be considered together.
We will proceed to other questions.
The Minister is sidestepping the question.
Has the Minister the money available?
