Bernard Allen
Question:1 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of persons affected by the changes in the contributory conditions in relation to disability benefit in the Social Welfare Act, 1992.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
I have this week signed regulations revoking the condition for disability benefit requiring at least 13 paid PRSI contributions in a recent contribution year for people on long term unemployment assistance and pre-retirement allowance. This measure will restore eligibility to those of the 140,000 long term unemployment assistance recipients and 15,000 people receiving pre-retirement allowance who had lost eligibility as a result of the 1992 change. It is estimated that, up to the end of January, some 900 people failed to qualify for disability benefit as a result of the change in contribution conditions in last year's Social Welfare Act.
May I ask the Minister if he would deem it good practice to make the regulations available to Deputies so that we can judge their impact? I regret they were not made available and we cannot assess their effect. We have to take the Minister's word for it. Will the Minister specify in percentage terms the number of people brought back into the system as a result of the announced changes? Did the Minister give the number of women affected by the disability benefit changes made last year? Basically that was an anti-woman regulation. Will the Minister repeat those figures?
Once the Minister signs regulations they are placed on the Order Paper and laid on the table of the House. I have just signed these regulations and they will be before the House shortly. There was a great argument about this matter earlier, but I signed the regulations today and the Deputy will have a copy of them tomorrow. I can do no better than that. Money was made available in the budget for this purpose and the whole system is back onstream.
This measure affects all long term unemployed people. Whether they are men or women makes no difference; the measure applies equally in both cases. These people previously would have to have had 13 paid contributions in the previous tax year. Immediately 140,000 long term unemployed people will be brought back into the system and will be entitled to disability benefit. People on pre-retirement allowance, those who are out of the workforce by option, will also be brought back into the system. Some of the people who failed to qualify would have been on unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and supplementary welfare allowance.
Bernard Allen
Question:2 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of women affected by the abolition of the general maternity benefits scheme; and, the steps, if any, he proposes to take to ensure that women have adequate financial support during the maternity period.
Prior to the Social Welfare Act, 1992, the Department of Social Welfare operated two maternity schemes. The scheme for women in employment covered women who qualified for leave from work under the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Acts, 1981 and 1991. The general maternity scheme catered for women workers who did not so qualify, along with women claiming unemployment benefit or disability benefit who satisfied the relevant contribution conditions.
The Social Welfare Act, 1992, amalgamated the maternity schemes, making maternity benefit available for the first time to women in employments not covered by the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Acts, 1981 and 1991, and ensuring that all women in employment have access to maternity benefit payments. Most women who previously qualified for maternity benefit payments are eligible under the new scheme. Women on unemployment benefit and disability benefit who are not eligible for maternity benefit under the revised arrangements can continue to claim these payments for the period immediately before and after confinement. New flexible signing arrangements in relation to unemployment payments were also introduced, which eliminated the necessity for pregnant women and women who had recently given birth to attend for weekly signing at local employment offices. The only group not catered for in the new arrangements are women claimants who are no longer active in the labour force.
It has been estimated by my Department that those affected number fewer than 100 per annum.
These measures were taken in order to relate the payment of maternity benefit more closely to active labour force participation. New categories of workers brought within the scope of the maternity scheme as a result of these measures include contract workers with contracts of fewer than 26 weeks and employees who work for fewer than eight hours per week. The scheme has also been extended to cover part-time employees earning more than £25 per week.
The rate of payment under the scheme has also been improved. As recently announced in the budget, the minimum and maximum rates of payment of maternity benefit has been increased by £5 per week to £65 and £159 respectively. All of these changes in the maternity benefit scheme are aimed at developing a comprehensive scheme which will provide women in employment with adequate financial support during their period of maternity leave.
In relation to the 100 women per annum who will not enjoy benefit because of their unemployment position, will the Minister cater for the needs of these women under the supplementary welfare regulations? Will he assure the House that the needs of these women will be met and that they will not be affected by the exceptional restrictions placed by the circulars of 1992 on the health boards?
I will have that matter examined. There are many women who could also be eligible and would not have been in the scheme. In that sense the implications are much wider. In relation to people who might suffer hardship, I will certainly have that matter considered.
It is unfortunate that Question Time coincides with the debate on the Social Welfare Bill today, because it will mean a certain amount of duplication. When will the guidelines announced on Tuesday by the Minister be available to Members so that we can judge how far these repressive circulars have been watered down, especially in the area of exceptional need?
We have a question in respect of circulars later. I do not know whether that impinges on this question.
It is a different question, and it does not impinge on the question before us. Some of the guidelines will come into operation immediately and others within the next week or so. We have to get the Bill through both Houses before I can make some regulations. I have the power now to make some regulations and they have been made. They are coming through the system and will probably be laid before the House by the beginning of next week. The whole issue of supplementary welfare will be concluded, and the guidelines made available, as soon as the code of practice is worked out.