Vol. 501 No. 5
5 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of distinct benefits or allowances available from his Department; his views on whether the system has become very complex; and the proposals, if any, he has to simplify the welfare system. [6484/99]
The Deputy is no doubt aware that the current social welfare system is very complex and wide-ranging providing a comprehensive range of services to those in our society who are in need of them. Currently my Department administers some 44 separate income support schemes. Details of these schemes are set out in my Department's Booklet entitled Guide to Social Welfare Services. In addition, my Department operates a range of grant schemes under the voluntary, community and family services programmes.
The evolution of the social welfare system has been largely on an incremental basis over a number of decades with new schemes, such as the farm assist and fish assist schemes which I was delighted to put in place, being developed to meet urgent and emerging needs of the day. Within the limitations on available resources the emphasis has been on ensuring that those resources are targeted at people who are most in need. As a result the social welfare system has become complex.
Although Deputies frequently seek a simplified system, it is also the case that Deputies on all sides also constantly call for new schemes for particular groups as in the case of farm assist and fishing assist. The system should be simplified so that clear and easily understood information on social welfare entitlements is readily available to all our citizens. It can be confusing, not just for people claiming their entitlements, but also for people working on their behalf, such as public representatives and information providers. I am committed to simplifying the system where possible and this is a strategic aim of my Department set out in our strategy statement. However, the reality is that introducing many desirable simplifications can have significant cost implications.
Secondly, there is a need to ensure that the social welfare system interacts more efficiently and more effectively with other areas of public policy such as the employment services, taxation and the health services. Such reform of the social welfare system is clearly not capable of being achieved overnight. It is necessarily a gradual process.
The desirability of simplifying different aspects of public services, including social welfare systems, has also been highlighted from time to time. The Comptroller and Auditor General, for example, has been critical of the duplication involved in the separate means assessments operated by various Departments who provide means-tested services to the public. My Department has been laying the basis for future efficiency in this regard by promoting the establishment of the common Public Service Number, PSN, and facilitating the future development of a common means database which could be shared by relevant Departments.
Some progress has also been made in recent years in the simplification of certain social welfare schemes. For example, the schemes of payments to prisoners' wives, deserted wives and lone parents have thankfully been consolidated into the one-parent family payment scheme. Some progress has also been made in streamlining aspects of the means test for social assistance schemes.
During 1998 I introduced a number of changes in the employment support services aimed at streamlining the services to unemployed people. The back-to-work allowance scheme for self-employed people was extended to four years in line with the area enterprise allowance scheme operating in designated partnership areas and the second and third level allowance scheme was combined into an enhanced back to education allowance scheme. As part of the 1999 budget I was able to announce that the income limit for fuel allowances will be brought into line with the income limit for free electricity and other free schemes with effect from next October. Furthermore, I have taken the opportunity in this year's Social Welfare Bill to introduce a more comprehensive and streamlined bereavement grant scheme to replace the existing death grant scheme.
With regard to future plans to simplify the system, my Department is currently engaged in a series of reviews of its programme expenditure. All Department's schemes will be evaluated, the effectiveness of the various schemes will be assessed and the scope for simplification will be examined in a systematic manner. The alignment of the means test for fuel allowances with that applying to free electricity and the other free schemes arose from that process. For example, during the course of the Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill last week I indicated to the House that I had arranged for a comprehensive review of the contribution conditions for entitle ment to contributory old age and retirement pensions. Other proposals which are put forward in the course of that work will be considered in a budgetary context.
The Minister has conceded that there are 44 different schemes in operation in his Department. He has also conceded that there is room for people and the administrators of the system to get confused. Does the Minister think it is of paramount importance that the system be streamlined very quickly as people are losing out due to the confusion which arises? For example, about 50 per cent of those entitled to FIS do not apply for it, in many cases because they are unaware of it or because of the complexity of the social welfare system which results in people not involving themselves in it. The issue of credits, which can be very important to people in terms of entitlements is quite confusing for people, as is the governing tax year in relation to when claims can be made in the context of benefits accumulated. Does the Minister agree these issues lead to people losing out? I recently met a girl who lost £6,000 in entitlements as she claims she got the wrong information from the social welfare office. Does the Minister agree that much confusion surrounds the schemes and that tackling this should be a matter of priority?
I fully accept that the provision of information is paramount. Despite the fact that the Department prides itself to some extent on the fact that the dissemination of information by it is quite good in comparison with other Departments, time and again, particularly in relation to the customer panels which have been put in place, the constant desire of people is for information. That is one of the reasons we have beefed up that area in the Department and there is a number of initiatives in that respect. I will bring forward a Bill establishing Comhairle, the new body taking over the NSSB and part of the NRB, very soon. It will provide an independent and broad service across the country with citizen information centres. In the past two budgets, I have substantially increased resources to the NSSB to provide what is, in effect, an independent information and advice service which is very necessary. When people contact Departments, not only my Department, they do not see the people there as being independent. I do not really accept that because I generally accept the bona fides of people in Departments.
There may be instances where people get wrong information and there are various mechanisms in Departments to assist people in this regard. For instance, I was delighted to be able to give a substantial shot in the arm to the issue of late claims in the last budget and people are getting a sizeable balance of what they might have been entitled to. If it is proved that somebody was given false information by a Department official, he will be entitled to refunds. The Department and I, as Minister, are extremely anxious to ensure all available information is given to people. One would probably never be able to design a fail-safe system when dealing with 900,000 payments per week affecting 1.5 million people.
Will the Minister give us a time frame in which he will bring forward reports he has commissioned on streamlining the system? Can he give a commitment on when he might bring them forward? If I bring the Minister information on a late claim for unemployment assistance setting out quite clearly an individual case, does he have a facility whereby back payments may be made in relation to unemployment assistance? The Minister mentioned pensions, and I know about that system. Does the same system apply to unemployment assistance?
On the reports for which the Deputy asked, the system is so large that these reviews are taking place. The carer's allowance review was a substantial one which I published not so long ago. The Department is required to review all the schemes, and is currently going through them. A programme is set down from year to year where all these schemes will be looked at. One of the schemes relates to the whole issue of free schemes. If the Deputy has particular cases, we can look at them. Each case will depend on its merits.
6 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if the back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme for primary and secondary children will be changed to a cost of schooling allowance; and if it will be paid twice a year to assist those families experiencing financial difficulties in sending their children to school. [6418/99]
The back to school clothing and footwear allowance is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards. The scheme is designed to assist certain recipients of social welfare and health board payments with the cost of children's school uniforms and footwear. Certain people on low incomes who are in receipt of family income supplement may also qualify for assistance.
There is no provision under social welfare legislation to cover any other costs of school attendance. Under the scheme, an allowance of £43 is payable in respect of children from two to 11 years and an allowance of £58 is payable in respect of qualified children from 12 to 22 years. The Department of Education and Science has responsibility in relation to the provision of transport, school books and education fees.
Expenditure on the scheme has more than doubled in the past seven years from £5.6 million in 1990 to more than £11.7 million in 1998. A sum of £11 million has been set aside in the Estimates for the scheme this year.
Improvements in the rate payable cannot be looked at in isolation from price inflation or improvements in the primary weekly payment rates. Substantial increases in all the social welfare primary payments ranging between £3 and £6 per week effective from June 1999 were announced in last December's budget. In addition, the clothing and footwear component of the consumer price index published by the Central Statistics Office has fallen in each of the last four years. It fell by 4.3 per cent between November 1997 and November 1998 with a cumulative 15.2 per cent between November 1994 and November 1998.
The back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme will be reviewed during the course of 1999 as part of my Department's series of programme expenditure evaluations. The review will take into account the suggestions made by the Deputy and the conclusions reached by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his value for money examination of the administration of the scheme in 1998. Any changes recommended in the review of the scheme will be considered in a budgetary context.
Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons for poverty and people having difficulty accessing employment and so on is lack of schooling, particularly among people who have dropped out of school? The cost of keeping children in school is very often a fundamental factor. Since the Minister's party has come back into office, it has shown no desire to revamp the school attendance system which is, more or less, in abeyance, certainly in Dublin city and the four local authority areas.
Does the Minister also accept that at this time of year parents with children at first and second levels often find items for the preparation of examinations, school trips, extra books and so on become a fundamental problem in keeping their children at school? Is this not a reason he should consider a type of cost of schooling allowance to be paid throughout the school year?
As regards disadvantaged areas, the Minister will be aware that in many of the partnership areas, the partnership companies have taken initiatives, particularly in keeping children at first level and helping with the cost of books, transport and various other schooling costs. On the northside of Dublin, we have a programme called the challenger programme, but the Minister for Education and Science, has refused to help fund it. Should there be an onus on the Minister to consider this type of funding given that all the recent studies which have been done in the UK, America and elsewhere show that early schooling is a key component in someone's employability and in helping him avoid poverty throughout his life?
The Deputy is probably aware that under the exceptional needs payments expended by community welfare officers, there is scope for assistance to families which may find themselves in difficulty. The Deputy's question was more broadly based than this scheme. A review of this scheme is being undertaken. Obviously, we will look at it in the context of any proposals made. At the end of the day, it boils down to the priorities. This Government saw that it was necessary to increase child benefit by more than that which the outgoing Government had in 1997 from £25 million to £40 million in the current year. From those points of view and given the overall increases in the primary payments ahead of the rate of inflation, this Government has done pretty well. However, that is not to say more could not be done and, we are looking at it.
Has the Minister ever bought a pair of children's shoes? Some £43 per year would not go beyond buying one pair of shoes nowadays.
I met him on Grafton Street one day with some children so he probably knows.
I have to declare an interest and can speak with some authority on this issue as I have a large family. We spoke about child poverty earlier. These payments are probably focused on that end of the market, that is, those who would qualify under the Combat Poverty definition of living in poverty or the 28 per cent, the figure given by the Minister.
Would he not agree that putting more money into this area might be an effective way of helping children who really need it and are living in bad circumstances? Would he forget about comparisons with previous years and accept that there will be a budget surplus of £2,500 million this year? Surely extra money could be found for such a worthy scheme. An extra 28p per week in child benefit is no excuse for not looking at the scheme.
The Deputy does not have a monopoly on wisdom concerning children, even though he may think so.
I am willing to share it.
The figures have dropped in the past two years. The Deputy may question why and I will give him a good answer: with the exception of one or two social welfare schemes, figures have dropped dramatically because of the good economic conditions put in place by the Government since 1987.
Will the Minister answer the question? If there are fewer applicants then they can get more money. Surely we can increase the figures for those who really need it. Will the Minister stop this sensitive, self-defence approach and engage in a constructive debate on how we might change the system to improve the lot of those involved?
I have indicated that I have not closed my mind. The Comptroller and Auditor General had some pertinent comments to make about this scheme. The Deputy might care to see what he said in 1998.
The Minister stated that the £43 payment applied to children between two and 11 years of age. Is there some verification needed to prove that two, three and four year olds are going to school? Is this payment available to all social welfare recipients or must the children be attending some kind of pre-school?
The Minister stated that the £58 payment related to those between 12 and 22 years of age. Is there a big take up in the back-to-school allowance at the upper end of this scale involving people going to college?
The £43 allowance is payable in respect of children between two and 11 years of age; the £48 allowance is payable for those between 12 and 22. I will subsequently supply the Deputy with the information he requested in his last question.
