Vol. 519 No. 1
141 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the reasons disability benefit is not paid for the first three days of illness unless the claimant was in receipt of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance or injury benefit immediately before the claim; the plans, if any, he has to change this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13183/00]
Waiting days have been a feature of the disability benefit scheme since its inception and are a feature of similar social security schemes in many countries.
It can reasonably be expected that most workers would be able to absorb the loss of the first three days earnings without suffering undue hardship. As many employers have occupational sick pay arrangements which provide compensation for employees for short spells of incapacity, the waiting day rule also serves to reduce the overlap between State and occupational sick pay provision. However, where a person has a subsequent spell of incapacity in quick succession or has been claiming an unemployment payment immediately before becoming ill, then the three waiting day rule is waived.
It is also the case that the application of a three waiting day period avoids the disproportionately high administrative costs which would be involved in processing large numbers of disability benefit claims of a very short duration.
It should be emphasised that workers are not generally left without any financial support during the three waiting day period. Where a person has no recourse to occupational sick pay and has no other income, supplementary welfare allowance can be paid.
While I have no plans at present to amend the three day waiting period for disability benefit purposes, my Department will continue to keep the operation of this rule under review.
142 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the exact documentation a person (details supplied) in Dublin 9 is required to provide in order to satisfy the full disclosure of means requirement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13200/00]
The person concerned qualified for an old age non-contributory pension in 1989 at the maximum rate, including a qualified adult allowance. His spouse subsequently qualified for old age non-contributory pension in her own right in 1995. In August 1996 both pensions were terminated as the persons concerned moved to live in England.
In August 1997 they re-applied for pension. These applications were refused as the deciding officer was not satisfied in the case of either applicant that their capital means from the sale of property had been fully disclosed. The decision to refuse pension was upheld on appeal by the people concerned to the independent social welfare appeals office. A subsequent application for pension by the couple in 1999 was refused on the same non-disclosure grounds, again upheld on appeal.
144 Mr. N. Ahern asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs when child dependants allowances for widows were last increased; the amount by which wages have increased since this time; the reason this policy decision was made; if any expert report suggested it; if the period for which it was meant was for two or three years or for ever; and if he will make a statement on the matter in view of growing concerns. [13221/00]
The rates of child dependant allowances – CDAs – payable to claimants of the widow's-widower's contributory pension and the widow's-widower's non-contributory pension are currently set at £17 per week and £15.20 per week respectively. These rates, as with all other CDA payments, have remained unchanged since 1994.
Recognising that the loss of CDAs by social welfare recipients on taking up employment can act as a disincentive to taking up work opportunities, successive Governments have, in the intervening period, instead pursued a policy which seeks to make child income support more neutral vis-a-vis the employment status of the parent(s) by concentrating resources for child income support on child benefit.
The employment disincentive problems associated with CDAs were highlighted particularly in the report of the expert group on the integration of tax and social welfare.
Unlike CDAs, child benefit does not contribute to poverty traps or work disincentives, as it is a universal payment which is not subject to a means test. The value of the child benefit scheme as an effective mechanism for the provision of child income support is reflected in the substantial investment which the Government makes in the scheme. The 1999 budget provided for a full-year investment of over £40 million in the scheme, while the 2000 budget provides for a full-year investment of almost £106 million, which will bring the total investment in the scheme up to some £575 million.
The policy of concentrating substantial additional resources on child benefit rather than increasing CDAs remains, in my view, as valid now as it was when it was initiated.
