Vol. 451 No. 1
6 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, he has to deal with the disincentive to marriage in the social welfare system arising from the lone parent allowance when a recipient marries another social welfare recipient, particularly for couples who are entirely dependent on social welfare. [3584/95]
The lone parent's allowance provides a payment to a single parent bringing up a child or children and takes account of the special needs of one parent families and the normal outgoings that arise in maintaining a household.
Special provisions have been made for lone parents in the social welfare code. For example, particular measures and disregards have been introduced to encourage lone parents to return to the workforce, so that they can be encouraged to become, over time, less reliant on social welfare to meet their income needs.
Social welfare payments generally are structured to take account of household circumstances and in particular in the case of couples, the economies involved in sharing household expenses. As a result payments to couples by way of weekly payment augmented by increases for adult and child dependants are less than the rates which would be payable if the individuals, also with child dependants lived in separate households. This is a long standing feature which applies across many of the social welfare schemes and it is not exclusively related to marital status.
I thank the Minister for underlying the existing difficulties. I accept this is a longstanding and major problem. I accept also the Minister's outline of the great improvements in the lone parent's allowance and the success of the introduction of disregards in allowing people to return to work. Will the Minister accept that the ideal position, which would not resolve the problem but would help substantially, would be if the concept of dependency was removed from our social welfare system? Has any work been done on that in the Department? It has been sought by women's and justice groups for some time. Have any figures been calculated for the cost of such a measure which I am aware would involve a substantial sum? Would such a measure be a personal priority for the Minister and what are his views on the reality of this happening in the near future?
I take it the Deputy seeks to remove the adult dependency.
Yes.
My understanding of the introduction of such a measure is that adults would be paid the same rate of social welfare regardless of whether they are cohabiting or married. The formal title given to that approach is "individualisation of payments". My Department is not specifically addressing that area at present, but the working group on the integration of the tax and social welfare systems is addressing it. That matter is causing great headaches for the working group concerned and I expect it to report some time later this year, I hope by the middle of the year. As soon as we receive it we will address the issue based on or taking account of its recommendations.
Will the Minister accept that perhaps one of the necessary ironies of the social welfare system in creating valuable schemes to provide assistance is that it appears to create traps? Does he accept that is the position?
A disabled young man on disabled person's maintenance allowance in our constituency who is considering marriage was horrified to find that the consequence of moving in with his future wife would be the loss of both their disabled person's maintenance allowance payments of £15 to £20 per week, as a result of moving from two independent payments to husband and dependent. Will the Minister accept this is an issue we have to keep on the agenda, albeit a difficult one to solve?
I do. An area which needs to be addressed in addition to the question of individualisation of payments is the degree to which we acknowledge that a disability carries an additional cost of living. If there are two people in wheelchairs, as is the case in the constituency which I share with Deputy Flaherty, they are assessed as if they were mobile. There is a need to address that issue also. As Leader of Democratic Left — if I can put on that hat for a minute — I believe there should be individualisation of payments for adults on social welfare but I also recognise there are practical difficulties as to how that would be implemented, particularly in the context of the resources available. As long as upwards of 300,000 people are forced to remain outside the active labour force, the resources available to us to improve matters substantially will be limited.
The sad reality of life today, particularly in urban areas in Dublin, is that in some community care areas 44 per cent of live births are outside marriage. Will the Minister agree that this is a sad reflection on society? If a young single parent, in receipt of lone parent's allowance, and a male, drawing unemployment assistance, were to cohabit they would lose £26.40. Because of the way in which payments are structured, there is a disincentive to cohabit or to establish permanent loving relationships. Will the Minister agree it is time to examine the equalising upwards of benefits to rid the system of disadvantage?
Yes, that issue certainly needs to be addressed. The advances we have made to ensure that lone parents have a significant amount of income to sustain themselves and the child or children they may have to rear on their own highlight the inadequacies of the generality of other social welfare payments. The degree to which you maintain a bonus, if that is the right word, for those who are living alone — they are not all single parents, they may be separated or, although it is rare in Ireland, divorced — and ensure they have sufficient to live on while rearing children is a question we have to address. The Constitution guarantees all sorts of rights to women and children but delivering those rights costs money. It is not feasible to approach this issue simply on the basis that you will give everyone the same amount. If that were done everybody would be levelled down because the resources available to us, even in these good times, would not be sufficient to maintain everybody at the standard level. The answer is to try to get as many people as possible into the active labour force.
Perhaps I should rephrase the question slightly. Does the Minister recognise there is a real disincentive for a cohabiting couple because of the potential loss of £26.40 in the case of a lone parent who wishes to cohabit with a person on unemployment assistance? There are other hidden disadvantages in so far as it is easier for a cohabiting couple to obtain local authority accommodation. Given that the Department of Social Welfare recognises cohabiting couples as the spouses of one another rather than suffer an instantaneous cut-off will they be allowed maintain their combined income for some time before reducing over a period to establish bonding and loving relationships between couples? The children may be the natural offspring of the couple involved.
In principle I accept the need to address the problem where there is a loss of income. One parent may have been in receipt of a lone parent's allowance but following their entry into a relationship there is a joint loss of income. This is only perceived to be a problem where either person was in receipt of a lone parent's allowance. The difficulty is the extent to which it can be tapered and how the system can be complicated. I am reluctant to introduce more complications. I will cerainly look at it and examine whether it is possible to reduce the disparities but I am reluctant to give a commitment that the kind of disparity which can be as much as £30 per week, if the couple had been living apart, can be made up in any substantial way from the resources available to us. I am totally opposed to levelling down the lone parent's allowances to eliminate this perception of inequity.
7 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Social Welfare the arrangements, if any, his Department are making in preparation for the transfer of the operation and administration of the disabled person's maintenance allowance from the Department of Health in July 1995. [6121/95]
26 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Social Welfare the proposals, if any, he has for transferring the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme from the regional health boards to his Department; the way in which he envisages the scheme being administered; whether the medical report will be dealt with by medical officers in his Department or by regional health board doctors; and the officials who will be involved in means testing. [6201/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 26 together.
My Department is in discussion with the Department of Health and the health boards in relation to the transfer of responsibility for the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme to my Department. A detailed assessment is being made of the present arrangements within health boards and the implicaions of transferring the scheme to my Department. Apart from the assessment of means and the medical assessments which are involved, there is, in addition, a number of broader issues to be addressed, for example, the rehabilitation and training arrangements for recipients of the allowance.
It is clearly appropriate that the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme is integrated with the income maintenance services of my Department and this is the reason for the take-over. At the same time there will have to be appropriate links with related services operated by health boards and this issue is being addressed in the context of the present discussions. My intention is to ensure that the new arrangements provide an improved and more streamlined service to people with disabilities and the future administrative arrangements will be designed to achieve this in the most effective and efficient manner.
I welcome the integration of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme with the income maintenance services of the Department. The system of means assessment for unemployment assistance recipients is radically different from that for disabled person's maintenance allowance recipients in that the spouse of a disabled person's maintenance allowance recipient cannot earn any income — any income is deducted from the allowance on a pound for pound basis — while the spouse of an unemployment assistance recipient can earn up to £60 per week. Will the Minister consider the introduction of a uniform system of assessment of means for both disabled person's maintenance allowance and unemployment assistance recipients so that spouses can earn an income outside the home, thereby improving the quality of life for both the spouse and the recipient?
This is one of the complications in transferring the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme to the Department of Social Welfare and integrating it into the mainstream income maintenance programmes of the Department. For example, means testing is carried out by community welfare officers who investigate the financial circumstances of the client to establish eligibility for disabled person's maintenance allowance. The main differences between the methods used to assess means for a social welfare scheme and those used by health boards in assessing the means of applicants for disabled person's maintenance allowance relates to (1) assessment of spouses' income for which there is no monetary disregard for disabled person's maintenance allowance while a disregard of £60 per week is allowed for spouses' earnings on social welfare schemes and (2) benefit and privilege which is not assessed for disabled person's maintenance allowance and is assessed for many social welfare schemes. If one comes in under the current Department of Social Welfare regulations one gains with one hand and loses with the other.
I am informed that a large proportion of disabled person's maintenance allowance recipients are single and reside with their parents. If benefit and privilege was to be assessed for disabled person's maintenance allowance there would be significant reductions in the amounts payable to many recipients. One of the tasks of the project group established by the Department of Social Welfare to proceed with the transfer is to seek ways of ensuring that no person currently on disabled person's maintenance allowance will be at a loss as a result of coming in under the Department of Social Welfare. I cannot give the Deputy precise details on how this will be achieved but it is a specific commitment.
We have to look seriously at the recognition which must be given to people with the disabilities so that cognisance is taken of the additional costs of people living with a disability whether they are unemployed, in training or in employment. These are complex issues which will have to be addressed. My primary intention is to seek to have the system transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and then to seek to eliminate as many of the anomalies as possible. At present there is no disability allowance for people who are working and who become sick. We have a disability benefit system based on stamps. An unemployed person may qualify for unemployment benefit based on his contributions or, if he does not have sufficient contributions, he can qualify for unemployment assistance based on means. There is no disability allowance provision based on means and transferring the disabled person's maintenance allowance to the Department of Social Welfare gives rise to the need to look at this area also. The transfer of the disabled person's maintenance allowance to the Department of Social Welfare gives rise to a complex set of problems and obviously we are committed to ensuring that we tease out many of these as soon as possible.
I welcome this integration and compliment the Minister on wresting this scheme from the Department of Health — I know how possessive of their territory Departments can be. I also pay tribute to Deputy O'Hanlon who initiated this transfer during his time in office. Will the Minister confirm that he will meet the target date of July and that there will be a single means test for disabled person's maintenance allowance and other allowances rather than the ridiculous system whereby officers of the Department of Social Welfare carry out one means test and community welfare officers of the Department of Health carry out other tests?
I join with the Deputy in congratulating the former Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon on his initiative. I also congratulate the former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, who was instrumental in arranging the agreement to transfer the disabled person's maintenance allowance from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Welfare. It falls to me, fortunately or otherwise, to follow through on that decision. I wholeheartedly support this decision and I intend to pursue it as actively as I can. It is intended to have the transfer completed by the middle of July but we are dealing with eight health boards, all of whom have different ways of dealing with disabled person's maintenance allowance and all of whom act as independent bodies, and it is not a simple task to bring all this together under the Department of Social Welfare. A project group established within my Department and the Department of Health is working on a daily basis to achieve this. I do not want to mislead the Deputy by implying that the process will be completed by July but we are aiming to achieve the target date. The work will certainly be under way by July.
As regard the means test, I have already outlined the complexities involved in this issue. Ideally there should be a single means test for medical cards, disabled person's maintenance allowance, unemployment assistance etc., and resources are being wasted in having a range of means tests which result in different incomes for people in virtually the same circumstances, depending on the allowance for which they qualify. One of my objectives is to rationalise this area but I do not want to do this in a way which results in people with disabilities being worse off than they were before they left the health board.
On the question of people being worse off, yesterday I put down a question to the Minister for Health about a couple who are worse off under the regulations. This woman who was in receipt of a carer's allowance for looking after her husband who is on disabled person's maintenance allowance was lucky to get a job. However, as her earnings had to be taken into account their income had been reduced from £131 to £110. The Minister for Health said that this case highlighted the differences between the assessment of spouses' income under disabled person's maintenance allowance and social assistance schemes. Will the Minister ensure that people who are lucky enough to get work are not disadvantaged in any way by the complexities of these schemes and will not lose income for trying to help their households?
I am happy to give the Deputy such an undertaking. Health board assessment of means for disabled person's maintenance allowance does not provide for any earned income disregard whereas if a person whose spouse is working applies for social welfare benefit a £60 disregard applies. Under the Social Welfare Bill I am seeking to introduce a system whereby there would be a tapered loss for a person who loses their adult dependant allowance which, ideally, would be pound for pound rather than a sudden loss when they reach the £60 threshold. My Department and I are committed to ensuring that all people receiving benefits or allowances from the Department of Social Welfare are treated equally in terms of assessment. I want to ensure that a person whose spouse is working qualifies for earned income disregard in the same way as other social welfare applicants.
The other side of that coin relates to single people living at home who, as health board beneficiaries, are not assessed for board and privilege, but if they apply for unemployment assistance to the Department of Social Welfare they are. While married and co-habiting couples may gain under the social welfare system, those living at home with their parents could lose out. That problem has much wider ramifications. There is much concern about young people being virtually forced out of their homes in order to qualify for unemployment assistance. I tried to deal with that difficulty in this year's budget by increasing the minimum amount of unemployment assistance for those living at home from £10 to £25. I am conscious of this problem and I intend to ensure that people do not lose out.
Will the Minister consider changing the name of the allowance to "disability assistance"? There is unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and disability benefit but there is no disability assistance.
While there will be attendant difficulties with any administrative transfer, if disability assistance were treated in the same way as disability benefit people would be entitled to an invalidity pension and hence qualify for benefits and privileges. The Minister might be able to resolve the problem in that way. However, I appreciate his difficulty with all the benefits and privileges on offer.
I appreciate the Deputy's helpful suggestion and I will consider it. I can foresee a problem in that people on long term disability benefit might object to being transferred to disability assistance. As the Deputy is aware, people can receive unemployment benefit only for as long as their contributions allow whereas they can obtain long term disability benefit for as long as they can prove they are unfit to return to work, regardless of their contribution record. I will, however, consider the Deputy's point.
Does the Minister agree that there are disgracefully long delays in determining, from a medical point of view, the outcome of disabled person's maintenance allowance applications? As part of his arrangements will he ensure that those delays are curtailed to the absolute minimum? Does he agree that applicants who are refused benefit cannot obtain satisfactory information as to why their disabled person's maintenance allowance application was unsuccessful? Will the Minister tackle those two important issues which create many difficulties for and cause much distress to applicants?
I cannot speak for the Department of Health and neither can I confirm or deny the Deputy's statement that there are long delays in determining medical assessment for disabled person's maintenance allowance. I will ensure that medical assessment for disabled person's maintenance allowance is speeded up. I spoke earlier about the need to examine how medical assessment will be carried out under the new arrangements. As the Deputy is aware, while most, if not all, boards operate an informal appeals procedure, there is no formal appeals procedure for disabled person's maintenance allowance, whereas independent appeals procedure is operating exceptionally well in the Department of Social Welfare. I will seek to ensure that appeals in respect of disabled person's maintenance allowance are dealt with at least as quickly as those currently dealt with by the independent appeals body in the Department of Social Welfare.
8 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the disquiet caused to younger people with sight disabilities in view of the fact that their pension book contains the title Pension Seanaoise-Old Age Pension; and the steps, if any, he will take to have this situation corrected. [5568/95]
Old age and blind person's pensions have been closely associated since the inception of the latter pension. Provision of pensions for blind persons was made by amendment of the Old Age Pensions Acts in 1920. Since then, blind person's pension has operated under the same general means test rules, and is payable at the same rates and in the same way, as old age non-contributory pension. These arrangements have worked satisfactorily over the years.
In recent times, my Department has received a specific complaint of the type mentioned by the Deputy. This indicated that the pension book title was causing concern to some younger blind persons. As a result it was accepted that the book title should be changed.
Pensions are paid by books of personalised paying orders which are normally current for six month periods. In the case of the old age and blind pensioners, their current books expire on 21 April next and renewal books for the six months from 28 April will be issued over the coming weeks. I have arranged that from and including this book issue all pension books for people in receipt of a blind person's pension will be differentiated from old age pension books. In the case of blind persons, their books from 28 April 1995 will be clearly marked, "Blind Person's Pension".
I welcome this enlightened approach. It is amazing that since 1920 relatively young people have been receiving their blind pension with the title "Old Age Pension" written on their pension books. I am glad the matter has been resolved. How many people are in receipt of a blind person's pension?
The Department pays a blind person's pension to approximately 2,500 people who are blind or have serious sight disabilities.
