Paul McGrath
Question:5 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the new measures, if any, he proposes to ensure there is a full take-up of the back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme. [14325/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Social Welfare Benefits
The back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme 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.
To qualify for the allowance, the claim must be in respect of a qualified child, the applicant must be in receipt of a qualifying payment and must satisfy a specified means test. A qualified child is one who falls into one of the age groups specified for the scheme and in respect of whom a child dependant allowance is payable.
The means test takes account of any income over and above the appropriate rate of widows and widowers contributory pension plus £5 where the guardian is single, and contributory old age pension plus £5 where the guardian is one of a couple. Where the income of a household exceeds these limits, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance is not payable. Under the scheme, a once-off payment of £43 is made in respect of qualified children from two to 11 years and an allowance of £58 is payable in respect of qualified children from 12 to 22 years.
The scheme opens for applications in all health boards from 1 June each year. My Department has requested the boards to ensure that the majority of payments are made by 31 July 1999 to enable parents make the necessary purchases in the traditional back to school shopping month of August. Based on the experience of health board staff, this represents the optimum time for payment of this allowance.
The health boards have advised that the scheme operated satisfactorily in 1998 with the vast majority of qualified families throughout the country receiving their payments in good time to make provision for their children's needs.
In 1998, expenditure on back to school clothing and footwear allowance amounted to £10.2 million in respect of 209,300 children.
The scheme is widely publicised every summer in each individual health board area. Information regarding the back to school clothing and footwear allowance is also available in the back to school clothing and footwear information leaflet, SW75, the supplementary welfare allowance information booklet, SW54, and the guide to social welfare services book, SW4, or by contacting any local health centre. I am satisfied this is sufficient to achieve a high level of take up of these entitlements.
We have discussed this matter previously. Will the Minister agree that a high proportion of people who qualify for this payment in respect of their dependent children in the two to four age bracket do not take it up? I tried to get the figures from the Minister's Department. They have given us some indication on the take-up of the allowance at that level but it is clear that many people are unaware that they are entitled to the back to school clothing and footwear allowance for children in the two to four age category. Will the Minister take an initiative in that regard and publicise the scheme?
The second category in respect of which there is not a full take-up is the 17 to 22 years age group, many of whom may be in college. If students are attending college their parents qualify for the allowance because of the payment they receive for them. They, too, should be targeted to ensure full take-up of the scheme because again, within that category, there is a low take-up in relation to the number of people who qualify for it. Will the Minister come forward with an initiative to target the two to four and the 17 to 22 age groups because they are not taking up the scheme in sufficient numbers? I ask the Minister to take a special interest in those categories.
As a result of queries raised by the Deputy during Question Time on previous occasions, we have indicated to all the health boards that the collection of statistical information in this regard should be done in a more user friendly way because the two to 11 year old and the various other categories are quite large. It is accepted, by and large, that a high proportion of eligible people are retaining this allowance. Obviously we will endeavour at all times to publicise the scheme as widely as possible. I accept the Deputy's point about the 17 to 22 year age group but the figures show that approximately 7,300 people are in receipt of the payment, which is significant. Obviously the figures for the lower age groups are much higher. It will probably take some time to get all the figures because this scheme is administered by the health boards. The figure for the two to 11 year age group is 119,100; for the 12 to 17 year age group it is 82,900; and for the 18 to 22 year age category it is 7,300, making a total of 209,300.
Will the Minister consider asking the health boards to send mailshots to applicants for the scheme specifically informing them that children in the two to four year and the 17 to 22 year age brackets can also qualify for it?
Write to who?
When applicants for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance apply to the health board a specific notice should be sent to them asking them if they are aware that children in the two to four year age bracket, even if they are not attending school, qualify for the scheme.
Is the Deputy suggesting I write to people who have applied for it? Perhaps I misunderstood the Deputy.
We have to proceed to the next question.
I am asking the Minister to ask the health boards—
I have to call Question No. 6.
Perhaps I will discuss it with the Deputy later.
Paul McGrath
Question:6 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has satisfied himself that the unemployment benefit scheme as it applied to unemployed workers who have received redundancy payments gives due recognition to these workers record of insurance contributions paid. [14326/99]
Section 47(4) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993, sets out the circumstances under which a person may be disqualified from entitlement to unemployment benefit. One such circumstance relates to claimants who receive a redundancy lump sum payment, in accordance with the terms of the redundancy payment Acts, which is in excess of £15,000.
This measure was introduced in 1992 and was designed to counter situations where the Social Insurance Fund was, in effect, being used as a top-up to substantial redundancy packages which also, in some cases, offered fixed period seasonal work. This had the effect of ensuring a person's continuous entitlement to unemployment benefit when he was not working.
The position now is that a person, provided he or she is under the age of 55, who has received a redundancy payment from his or her employer in excess of £15,000, shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit for up to nine weeks from the last date of employment. The duration of the disqualification may be up to a maximum period of nine weeks.
The guidelines issued to deciding officers advise that, in considering an unemployment benefit claim made by a person who has just been made redundant, they should take account of a range of factors which could include, for example, the claimant's age, particularly in relation to the age limit of 55, and the job expectancy in the same region for a person of similar age and job skills; family difficulties e.g. illness which would affect financial security or future job prospects; and the extent to which the redundancy payment exceeds the £15,000 limit.
As a general guide, provided there are no other factors involved, claimants are disqualified from entitlement to unemployment benefit for one week for every £5,000 above the £15,000 threshold, subject to an absolute maximum of nine weeks disqualification.
It is important to achieve a balance between the need to ensure that the integrity of the Social Insurance Fund is protected and the need to ensure that the legitimate expectations of insured workers are met. In that context, the arrangements in respect of people who receive redundancy payments, as I have outlined them, are not unreasonable.
I am delighted we reached this question as I am very angry about this issue. Will the Minister concede that the unemployment benefit system is an insurance scheme in which one accumulate credits? For example, a person who pays into a scheme for 25 years expects better benefits than a person who pays into it for only ten years, but that is not the case. I know of one case in which a man who paid into the scheme for 27 years was made redundant. This man cannot draw unemployment benefit for seven weeks because of his redundancy payment. His colleague who had ten years' credits qualified for unemployment benefit immediately. Does the Minister agree this is unfair? Does it not go against the whole concept of insurance schemes?
Does the Minister further agree the discretion of deciding officers in this regard is not being applied uniformly across the country or even in the same town? For example, discretion was applied to the redundancies received by Tarkett workers in Mullingar, yet those made redundant from the Westmeath Examiner lost that discretion. These two sets of redundancies occurred within a short time of each other. Does the Minister agree there is a difference of opinion between the section of the Department that deals with this scheme and the planning section? The discretion does not exist at ground level and local offices have been told to take away the dis cretionary nature of the scheme. Does the Minister agree this is unfair and it should be reviewed?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. He raised it at a recent select committee and on 24 May a letter was sent to him explaining the position concerning discretion. The deciding officers and the appeals officers are independent and have discretion in these matters. I would be worried if the guidelines, which have been in place for some time, are not being adopted as uniformly as they should be and I will examine the cases referred to by the Deputy.
The Deputy mentioned the case of a person with 27 years' contributions as opposed to a person with ten years' contributions. I would be interested to know the level of redundancy received by the two people concerned. If we were to treat these people equally, in effect, one would allow someone with a substantial redundancy payment to top up that payment with taxpayers' money. In 1992 we endeavoured to draw up a balanced approach to the issue of someone receiving a large redundancy payment and immediately qualifying for UB.
The Deputy knows social insurance in not like other insurance policies. The fact that someone pays a certain amount into social insurance through PRSI does not mean he or she is entitled to reclaim that amount. Social insurance does not work like that, it is about intergenerational social solidarity.
We must move on to Question No. 7. We have run over time.
Someone with a mortgage should be taken into account.
I have called Question No. 7. The Chair must stick to the rules.