Jim O'Keeffe
Question:14 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he has any proposals to improve the family income supplement.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
The Programme for Economic and Social Progress contains a commitment to make substantial improvements in the structure of the family income supplement scheme. The Government have already acted on this commitment this year, by making the following improvements to the scheme; the weekly income limits were raised to £140 for a one child family and £276 for a family with eight children; the maximum payment limits were abolished, thereby increasing payments to families on very low incomes; from the end of October, children aged between 18 and 21 who are attending full-time education will be regarded as qualifying children.
As a result of these and earlier improvements to FIS, the number of recipients of the family income supplement scheme has risen to 6,637. This is 29 per cent above the corresponding figure for September 1989. The scheme provides for 26,460 children which is 40 per cent above the corresponding figure for September 1989.
The increased level of take-up reflects the major improvements I have made to the scheme in recent years. These include: a substantial increase in the income limits for eligibility; an increase in the number of qualifying children in a family from five to eight; the introduction of a minimum payment of £5 for all recipients and a reduction of the hours-of-work qualification from 24 to 20 hours.
Further improvements to the family income supplement will be considered in the light of the general development of child income support provision.
John Connor
Question:16 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on whether the regulation which allows a disregard of £6 per week in the assessed weekly means of a person applying for an old age non-contributory pension or a widow's non-contributory pension is now totally out of date as this figure was set in 1975 and has not been altered since then; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that this figure, increased in line with the consumer price index, would be set at £25.95 per week at 4 April 1991 if account was taken of the accumulated price inflation of 332.5 per cent in the intervening years; and if, in view of these facts, he will now arrange to update the means disregard figure to today's value.
At present a person applying for an old age non-contributory pension or a widow's non-contributory pension can have weekly means of up to £6 per week and qualify for the maximum pension. As far as capital is concerned, this means that a person can have up to £5,400 if a widow, £2,987.50 if a single old age pensioner or £5,975 if a married old age pensioner and still receive the full rate pension.
Only a minority of recipients have means in excess of £6. For example, in September 1991 over 68 per cent of old age pensioners, 65 per cent of widows and 90 per cent of those on the lone parent's allowance were in receipt of maximum payments.
The question of a change in the level of the £6 disregard would be a matter for consideration in a budgetary context. My policy in recent years has been to use the available resources to provide increases in the basic rates of pension payment rather than increases in the levels of disregards. In this way the limited resources available are channelled to those most in need.
Liam Kavanagh
Question:18 Mr. Kavanagh asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the situation where women who adopt children are unable to qualify for maternity benefit; his views on whether adoptive parents are entitled to some benefit or support in and around the time of adoption as natural parents; if he will forward proposals to allow adoptive parents to qualify for maternity or related benefit; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I am favourably disposed to the introduction of an adoptive benefit scheme for women in employment along the lines of the existing maternity benefit scheme. However, the proposal raises complex legal issues which I am currently considering.
Eric J. Byrne
Question:20 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the anomaly whereby recipients of the free telephone rental allowance are automatically stopped their payment when dependent children reach age 15 years whereas the free electricity allowance continues to be payable where children reach age 18 years; if he intends to raise the 15 years age limit to 18 years; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The conditions of entitlement of the two schemes are not the same. In the case of the free electricity allowance, the basic condition is that the claimant is living alone and this condition is satisfied even if the claimant has a dependent child living with him provided that child is under 18 years of age or over that age in the case of children in full-time education.
In the case of the free telephone rental allowance, the basic condition is that the claimant must not have a person residing with them who can seek help for them in an emergency. Dependent children who have reached the age of 15 years are able to summon help when it is needed. The question of raising the age limit to 18 years would have to be considered in a budgetary context.