Vol. 508 No. 4
43 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that many of those involved as home helps are being forced out of their jobs in view of the loss of the adult dependant allowance by their spouses; and if he will establish an income exemption similar to that applicable to lone parents for those in receipt of home help payments. [19177/99]
The Deputy will be aware that regulations are in place which allow for the tapered withdrawal of the qualified adult allowance for people getting unemployment benefit, unem ployment assistance, disability benefit, disability allowance, pre-retirement allowance, injury benefit and unemployability supplement whose spouse is earning between £60 and £90 per week. These arrangements were introduced in November 1997 when I signed regulations. Prior to that, the entire qualified adult allowance was withdrawn at the £60 threshold.
I have recently introduced further regulations which I signed last week. They extend these arrangements to cover spouses' incomes of up to £105, an increase from £90, and these revised arrangements are being brought into effect over the next week. The new arrangements reduce the amount of qualified adult allowance which is lost as income increases. These arrangements apply equally to income from all sources, including income earned from employment as a home help.
The income disregard for the one parent family payment is in recognition of the particular problems which lone parents may have in accessing the jobs market and their special needs, such as in the area of child care I would not accept that income disregards of that level should necessarily apply to other categories. The issue highlighted by the Deputy can be best tackled through further enhancement of the arrangements for a more tapered withdrawal of the qualified adult allowance and I am examining the scope for such improvements in the context of the forthcoming budget.
Does the Minister accept that home helps provide a valuable service in our community and that 12,000 of them are not enough? Does he accept there will be greater need for home helps because the number of people aged over 65 years will increase by 50 per cent in the next 12 years? We will need more and we must put in place a system which will encourage people to become home helps. Does the Minister accept that many home helps – certainly in my experience – have unemployed husbands who are being paid adult dependant allowance. If that is abolished, they will be lost from the home help system.
The area of home helps, as the Deputy knows, is the direct responsibility of the line Department, the Department of Health and Children, and it commissioned a report to examine the home help service which was received by the Minister for Health and Children at the end of 1998. Obviously, all Members would agree with the Deputy's sentiments on the desire and need for a better system of home helps. All of these issues are being examined by the Department of Health and Children. I have direct responsibility for social welfare and since I came into office I have signed the regulations to provide for the move towards tapering and a major increase from £90 to £105, which I announced in the last budget. As I said in my reply, that is the way to go and obviously, subject to budgetary constraints, it would be my desire to continue that in forthcoming budgets.
In assessing the means for carer's allowance, home help payments are disregarded, as are invalidity payments from other EU member states. It is important that the Minister bears this in mind. As regards home helps, does he see merit in taking into account the means of assessing carer's allowance? Will he bear in mind that the real problem will arise with the introduction next April of the minimum wage of £4.40? Where will we find home helps if they are told by their husbands they can no longer work because they will lose the adult dependant allowance? Will he accept we are facing a real problem and we should put in place a fair and just procedure to encourage rather than discourage the further development of the home help system?
The issue of home helps and the impact of the national minimum wage is the direct responsibility of the line Department of the Department of Health and Children. I deal with the tapering arrangements and my responsibility is to ensure there is not a disincentive to work, which is one of the reasons we have extended it. It is an area in which more can be done.
44 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the way in which capital is assessed when a young person living at home with his or her parents has applied for unemployment assistance; when these limits were first introduced; and if he has satisfied himself that these limits are set at a reasonable level. [19178/99]
The Deputy has raised two issues in his question, the assessment of capital for the purposes of the unemployment assistance scheme and the assessment of benefit and privilege where a claimant lives at home. However, I understand the case the Deputy has in mind relates to a claimant with a small amount of capital who has lost entitlement to payment.
Unemployment assistance is a means tested payment and as such it is designed to ensure the limited resources available are directed at those most in need. In assessing a person's means for unemployment assistance purposes, account is taken of any cash income the person may have together with the value of any capital or property. In addition, the value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by an applicant, such as that of free board and lodging in the family home, is assessed. A number of improvements have been made in the assessment of benefit and privilege in recent years. For instance, where the sole means of a claimant for unemployment assistance are derived from the assessment of benefit and privilege and that person qualifies for a payment, even at a reduced rate, he or she is entitled to receive a minimum payment of £25 a week. However, where such a person has additional means from any other source, for example, earnings from part-time work or the value of capital owned, the full means of that person are assessed. The £25 minimum payment only applies where there are no other means. That has been the position since the measure was introduced in 1993 and there has been no change in that respect.
The value of capital for unemployment assistance purposes is determined by assessing the first £400 at 5 per cent, with the balance being assessed at 10 per cent. This is the formula which has applied to the scheme since its introduction. Over the years different methods of assessing the value of capital have been applied to the various social assistance schemes. This led to significant differences in the treatment of capital under the different social assistance schemes. Accordingly, it was decided to introduce a standardised method of assessing capital across all social assistance schemes.
Under the revised capital assessment method, which was introduced by my predecessor in 1996, the first £2,000 is disregarded, the next £20,000 is assessed at 7.5 per cent and the balance is assessed at 15 per cent. This standardised method has now been extended on a progressive basis to all social assistance schemes, other than unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance. However, since the introduction of the standardised method of assessing capital, interest rates available on investments have fallen significantly. In the circumstances and because of representations, I have arranged for my Department to review the current standardised method of assessing capital.
Additional InformationAs I have already indicated, the original intention had been to extend the standardised capital assessment method to all social assistance schemes. However, in view of the changed circumstances in relation to interest rates, it would be preferable to await the outcome of the review before making any changes in the method of assessing capital for unemployment assistance purposes. Any relaxation of the current rules would have financial implications and could only be considered in a budgetary context.
The Minister mentioned capital disregard when replying to questions from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. There is no capital disregard for unemployment assistance. The Minister, like myself, is a family man. Our children get money for their First Communion and Confirmation, which means they have some money in the bank when they go to college. I came across a case recently where a young girl had £600 in her bank account. A notional assessment on that money meant she could not claim unemployment assistance and get the minimum payment of £25 per week or participate in the student summer jobs scheme. I hope the Minister introduces income disregard because it is outrageous that someone with a small amount of money cannot receive a small payment. We are forcing people out of their homes to live in flats and claim unemployment assistance and rent allowance, thereby costing the State more money.
I have looked at the case the Deputy raised. I agree there is an anomaly but it has been there since 1993 and no disregard has been put in place. Originally we wanted to extend the standardised capital assessment to all schemes, which would deal with this case. However, because of a decision made by me and my Department to look at the existing 7.5 and 15 per cent standard method, we have decided to leave everything for the time being. We hope to devise an overall new standardised system which would apply across all schemes and would deal with the difficulties in this case. We must await the result of that review.
If I send the Minister the details of this case—
I have them.
It was deemed that this young girl had an income of 95p, which meant she could not receive unemployment assistance. Is there anything the Minister can do in this case? It is outrageous that this person was refused unemployment assistance, given her circumstances and the small amount of money she had in the bank. The Minister should review this case and pay the money as it would make a big difference in the circumstances.
As the Deputy knows, my hands are tied in relation to decisions in cases. The deciding officers must make decisions based on the regulations and legislation in place. Policy and changes to it are my responsibility. I have given an undertaking that we will carry out a review of the capital assessment, and that is what we are doing. It might not deal with all the difficulties which might arise but it would deal with this type of case in the future.
