Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Jun 1998

Vol. 492 No. 7

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Paul Bradford

Question:

273 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the proposals, if any, he has to deal with the anomaly whereby those people who were paying self-employed PRSI contributions for a period of less than ten years are ruled ineligible for contributory old age pensions with particular reference to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary. [15159/98]

It is estimated that there are up to 20,000 self-employed people who were over 56 years of age when PRSI was extended to the self-employed in 1988 and who are registered for PRSI purposes. As I indicated during the debate on this year's Social Welfare Bill and in recent replies to parliamentary questions, the net additional cost of paying a full rate old age contributory pension to all this group would be of the order of £50 million per annum, equivalent to a capitalised cost of some £475 million over the full period of the payments.

The £50 million estimate is based on the payment of a full rate of pension, and qualified adult allowance where applicable, to this group and takes account of the value of the free schemes. It is an estimated net cost as it assumes that about half of the group could already be in receipt of another social welfare payment, for example, a non-contributory old age pension.

A pro rata factor has not been included in the £50 million cost estimate. While such an approach would, of course, reduce the overall cost, it is clear that the cost is still significant and could only be considered in a budgetary context where the proposal would have to be assessed against other competing demands in the social welfare area.

As I said on a number of occasions, I will continue to ensure the broadest possible contributory pension cover to as many categories as possible.

The condition that a person must have entered insurance at least ten years before pension age before he or she is eligible to qualify for the old age contributory pension has been a feature of the scheme since it was introduced in 1961. The purpose of this condition is to ensure that entitlement to the pension is limited to those who have made a reasonable level of contributions to the social insurance fund during their careers.

This ten year condition was supported by the National Pensions Board and it is considered to be a reasonable condition. The amendment in the Social Welfare Act, 1997, regarding the payment of refund of contributions to this group effectively re-emphasised the position of the ten year test.

I assure the House that any self-employed person who has contributed and does not qualify for either a contributory or a non-contributory pension receives a refund of the pension element — 53 per cent — of his-her PRSI contributions with interest, which is a fair arrangement.

I have indicated before but it is important to repeat, a person may be entitled to a non-contributory pension, subject to a means test.

In relation to the case to which the Deputy refers, the position is that the person's application for an old age contributory pension was refused as the person was over age 56 on entering PRSI. The person's claim for non-contributory pension which is payable subject to a means test, is currently being investigated. If the person fails to qualify for a non-contributory pension he-she will be entitled to a refund of the pension portion of their contributions.

Liam Aylward

Question:

274 Mr. Aylward asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will review the recent decision by his Department to discontinue payment of a disability allowance to a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny who is in receipt of a pension from the Department of Health and Social Security, the amount of which, as a result of the current exchange rate, has increased, putting him slightly in excess of the means limit. [15160/98]

The person concerned was in receipt of disability allowance at a reduced personal rate of £14.50 per week on the basis of his weekly means, deriving from a United Kingdom occupational pension.

A recent review of his entitlement to disability allowance revealed that his occupational pension had increased to the equivalent of £148 per week. His share of these means is £74.00 a week, which is above the statutory limit of £70.50 a week for receipt of disability allowance. Payment of disability allowance was, accordingly, withdrawn.

A further review of his entitlement to disability allowance is now being carried out. The Deputy will be advised of the outcome as soon as possible.

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin

Question:

275 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will clarify the situation with regard to small farmers whose income from their farms is so low that it necessitates a payment of unemployment assistance from his Department having regard to the statement of 17 June 1998 by the Tánaiste that persons in receipt of unemployment assistance who refuse to take up employment or training courses will have their payments cut off; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15162/98]

In addition to satisfying a means test, the conditions for receipt of unemployment assistance require that an applicant must be capable of, available for and genuinely seeking work. Regulations were recently introduced to clarify the circumstances in which a person is, or is not, regarded as being available for and genuinely seeking work. Comprehensive guidelines on the application of the conditions have issued to all social welfare local offices to assist deciding officers and ensure there is a consistent and uniform application of the legislation.

The publication of the guidelines will also ensure that members of the public are aware of the steps which need to be taken in order to satisfy the qualifying conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit and assistance.

Smallholders on unemployment assistance must fulfil the conditions of being available for and seeking work and are generally able to do so. There are currently some 7,750 smallholders in receipt of unemployment assistance under these arrangements. This number has reduced significantly in recent years.

Government policy in relation to unemployment payments is to ensure that unemployed people are encouraged to avail of any opportunities to get back to the active labour force. In this regard unemployed people are expected to avail themselves of any suitable and reasonable offers of work, training, etc. In the case of smallholders it is important that every opportunity is taken to maximise farm income and ultimately reduce the dependence on the unemployment assistance scheme. As the Deputy is aware, there is a variety of schemes of support for farming operated by different Departments and there is an ongoing need for co-ordination between the schemes concerned. However, the smallholders' unemployment assistance scheme continues to have an important role in meeting the basic income maintenance needs of this group and I will be seeking to ensure that it operates in a complementary way with the other supports which are available.
In this connection I recently announced, with my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, improvements in the method of assessing compensation payments under the rural environment protection scheme (REPS), designed to improve take-up under that scheme, especially by smallholders on social assistance payments. Under the previous arrangements farmers claiming unemployment assistance, pre-retirement allowance and the old age (non-contributory) pension could have the first £2,000 of REPS payments disregarded for means test purposes. Under the revised arrangements, the first £2,000 continues to be disregarded, with the balance being assessed at 50 per cent, rather than on a full pound for pound basis as at present. This means, for example, that a farmer who receives a REPS payment of £4,000 will now be £1,000 better off. This represents a significant improvement in income support for those involved.
I will continue to keep this scheme under review to ensure that it operates in an effective way in meeting the income support needs of this group.

Noel Ahern

Question:

276 Mr. N. Ahern asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs with reference to the regulations allowing partners of social welfare claimants to earn £60 and claim adult dependant's allowance, the reason the revised scheme was not extended to those on contributory old age pension; the number of people affected by this; the annual cost of extending it to old age pension; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15220/98]

With effect from 27 November, regulations provide for the tapered withdrawal of the qualified adult allowance for people claiming unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, disability benefit, disability allowance, pre-retirement allowance, injury benefit and unemployability supplement. Under these arrangements, if the person getting the social welfare payment is on the maximum rate and their spouse or partner is earning between £60 and £90 the increase in respect of the qualified adult is payable as follows:—

Spouse's Income

SW Increase

£

Income up to £60

41.20

Income between £60.01 and £65.00

35.00

Income between £65.01 and £70.00

28.80

Income between £70.01 and £75.00

22.70

Income between £75.01 and £80.00

16.50

Income between £80.01 and £85.00

10.30

Income between £85.01 and £90.00

4.10

Income above £90.00

Nil

The new arrangements governing the award of the qualified adult allowance were confined initially to the short-term payments listed above on budgetary grounds. Consideration will be given to extending the arrangements to cover long-term payments, including old age contributory pension, in the light of the resources availbale and in the light of other priorities.
While precise statistics are not available on the numbers of recipients of old age contributory pension who would benefit from the extension of the new arrangements to them, the indications are that the costs involved would be relatively low. However, any improvement should be considered in conjunction with similar improvements for other pensioners and would have to be considered in a budgetary context.
Top
Share