Vol. 438 No. 2
9 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Social Welfare if social welfare recipients currently in receipt of mortgage subsidy or rent allowance will have the increases in social welfare effectively withdrawn by a corresponding reduction in their entitlement to these allowances; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The amount of rent supplement under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is determined by a health board so as to leave the recipient with a post-rent income equal to the rate of supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to his or her family size less the current minimum contribution of £5 which the person is required to pay from their own resources. Similar arrangements apply in relation to mortgage interest supplements. Those on payments at the supplementary welfare allowance level contribute no more than £5 towards their own accommodation while those on higher payments pay the £5 minimum plus the difference between the personal rate of supplementary welfare allowance and the personal rate of their particular payment. The minimum contribution of £5 will be increased to £6 from next July.
The budget increased the rate of social welfare payments by 3 per cent from July with an additional increase of 3 per cent to bring the short term payments, i.e. unemployment benefit, short term unemployment assistance, disability benefit and supplementary welfare allowance, up to the priority rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare.
The effect of this measure is to reduce the additional amount over and above the minimum contribution, payable by those in receipt of long term payments. People on long term payments, who are receiving rent or mortgage supplements, will pay less by way of a minimum contribution from their own resources than they had been paying prior to the budget changes. They will experience a small net increase in their rent or mortgage supplement when the increase in minimum contribution is applied.
Those on short term payments will experience a reduction of £1 in their level of rent or mortgage supplement when the increase in the minimum contribution is applied. However, this is more than compensated for by the 6 per cent or £3.30 increase in short term payment rates.
Will the Minister agree that, contrary to the perception of the changes in social welfare in the budget, approximately half of those on supplementary welfare allowance will not gain due to the claw back system in operation? How many people are in receipt of this benefit?
I gave some examples to show that people will gain from the changes; some will gain more than others. For example, a person on unemployment assistance who previously contributed a total of £8.60 from their own resources will now pay £7.10. That is the general picture right across the board.
With regard to the number of people in receipt of this benefit, there is not reliable data available — new systems are being installed in the health boards which will provide the kind of data now available from the Department of Social Welfare. It is estimated that 13,500 rent supplements and 3,000 mortgage supplements are paid in any one week. The total cost of these supplements in 1993 was £36.5 million.
The Minister did not refer to the claw back system in operation. Will he comment briefly on that?
Very briefly. The time for Priority Questions has exhausted.
The minimum payment of £5 will be increased to £6. In other words, the minimum contribution made by a person will be increased by £1. In some cases the payments will be increased by £5.40 and approximately £3. There could be an extra contribution, but in any event all the beneficiaries will be better off. I referred to the position of a person on long term unemployment assistance and, if the Deputy wishes, I can get details in regard to other beneficiaries so that she can see how the system operates. There is no doubt but that everyone will be better off. As I said, the minimum payment will be increased from £5 to £6.
Let us move on to other questions.
I wish to withdraw my Question No. 10, which I will resubmit for oral reply the next day.
That will be noted, Deputy.
12 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on whether the qualification conditions of the free telephone allowance scheme are too restrictive; and if he will relax the regulations governing the age of the person who may reside with the beneficiary of this allowance.
The free telephone rental scheme operated by my Department is available only to people who are in receipt of certain welfare type payments and who are either living alone or only with children or persons who, because they are so permanently incapacitated, could not get help in an emergency. People in those circumstances are vulnerable in various respects and, accordingly, the main purpose of the scheme is to ensure that they, particularly elderly people, have some way of getting help when it is needed.
The number of people currently availing of the free telephone rental allowance is approximately 114,000——
I do not want to know that.
The Deputy would be surprised at what his colleagues wanted to know; they kept asking similar questions.
They were more relevant.
The current annual cost of the scheme is approximately £20 million.
A feature of the living alone condition is that it covers children under 15 years only, that is, children under that age may reside with the beneficiary without infringing the living alone condition. Children of 15 years and over are deemed to be capable of getting help in an emergency and this has been the position since the scheme was introduced in 1978. Proposals aimed at raising that age limit would have cost implications which would have to be considered in a budgetary context.
With a view to ensuring that elderly people do not lose the allowance if someone comes to live with them, I am pleased to be able to make two important improvements this year, as I announced to the House last week. A pensioner being cared for by a recipient of a carer's allowance will in future retain entitlement to the free telephone rental allowance where previously it would have been discontinued because the living alone condition would no longer have been satisfied. Second, a pensioner aged 75 or over and no longer living alone will retain entitlement to the free telephone rental allowance.
Will the Minister agree that the age of a child who can live with a qualified person should be 18 years? Out of ordinary generosity, if nothing else, the age limit should be raised from 15 to 18 years. I am sure that the cost implications of that would not be great.
The age limit under the scheme was set at 15 years on the basis that children over that age——
It is a mean cut-off point.
The Deputy is saying that everyone over that age is very mean——
I am saying that the Minister is very mean to maintain an age limit of 15 years.
This is a very generous scheme. When I visit other countries I am asked how I can provide extra benefits such as the free telephone allowance, free ESB units etc.
What is an adult?
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
I find it very difficult to listen to such rubbish.
Courtesy demands it.
I am one of the most courteous Members but I find it difficult to listen to the Minister.
The Deputy should not think that this is a mean scheme; rather it is a very good and effective scheme, and I congratulate those who introduced it.
With regard to the age limit, it has always been assumed that a person over 15 years would be able to get help, make a call, etc. That is the basis on which the scheme has operated. Raising the age limit to 18 years, which would bring more people into the scheme, would result in additional costs. This is a budgetary matter. I managed in the budget to introduce two very important improvements in the scheme, and I am surprised the Deputy did not say he was delighted that a beneficiary would retain their telephone allowance after a carer came to live with them. That is a marvellous development. Those over 75 years will retain their benefits, which is a further development.
Would the Minister like to tell us the number of carers?
I welcome the very limited and paltry concessions the Minister has included in the budget, but they do not merit the song and dance he has made about them. At the other end of the scale, a husband who is over 66 years, and his wife, who is perhaps between 60 and 65 years, are disqualified from receiving a free telephone allowance even though the health of either of them may not be very good. Will the Minister agree there is a need to extend the scheme where the qualifying person is 66 years of age but the spouse is 60 years of age?
The most common situation that arises is where the beneficiary dies and the spouse is between 60 and 65 years of age. If the Deputy had been listening to my budget speech——
I am not talking about the spouse dying. The Minster was not listening to my question.
Where the beneficiary dies and the spouse is left, in other words, the widow — that is the most frequent situation——
That is not the situation I am talking about.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply to the question.
The Minister has not answered a straight question all day.
May I put the question again to the Minister?
May I interrupt our proceedings for a brief moment? It may come as a relief to us all.
