Vol. 572 No. 4
217 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if her attention has been drawn to an anomaly in the case of divorced men who are obliged to pay maintenance as part of a divorce settlement out of a single man's social welfare allowance; if, in such circumstances, her Department can pay supplementary welfare allowance to such people; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23498/03]
In the situation outlined by the Deputy the payment of supplementary welfare allowance is not considered appropriate to the scheme. If the level of maintenance payments arising from a divorce settlement leads to a situation whereby an individual, whether in employment or on social welfare, finds that he or she has inadequate funds with which to meet his or her basic needs the most appropriate course of action would be to renegotiate the settlement to take account of current financial circumstances. In instances where welfare support is provided to single parents in the form of one-parent family payment from my Department the other parent is legally required to contribute to the cost of this payment. In this regard, the maintenance recovery unit of my Department seeks to trace the liable relative involved in order to ascertain whether he or she is in a financial position to contribute to the cost of the one-parent family payment.
The assessment of a liable relative's ability to contribute to the cost of the payment is based on the individual's net income. Account is also taken of any dependant children he or she may reside with and certain outgoings such as mortgage repayments. Liable relatives who earn less than €13,000 per annum or whose main source of income is a social welfare payment are not deemed by my Department to be in a financial position to meet weekly maintenance payments and accordingly they are not assessed with maintenance liability by my Department.
218 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will rescind amendments to the back to education allowance scheme; and if she will make a statement addressing the concerns expressed by a group (details supplied). [23512/03]
The back to education allowance scheme is a second chance education scheme designed to assist unemployed people and other disadvantaged groups being held back in their search for employment by a lack of qualifications. A review of the basic purpose underlying my Department's back to education provisions was carried out last year. In the light of this and the expenditure constraints facing us this year the scheme was revised. In framing proposals to change elements of the BTEA scheme I was conscious of the need to ensure that payments were focused on those who most need training or qualifications in order to gain a foothold in the labour market. In line with this, payments under the scheme for the summer period were discontinued for BTEA participants who were in receipt of an unemployment payment as many students traditionally find seasonal work at home or abroad during the summer months. Of course, participants in the scheme who failed to find employment during the summer were entitled to claim unemployment assistance or benefit, subject to satisfying the usual qualifying conditions. All other participants on the scheme – lone parents and people with disabilities – remain unaffected by this decision and retain payment during the summer period.
The BTEA scheme was also revised in respect of people who wish to pursue certain full-time postgraduate courses. These now no longer qualify for BTEA purposes. All of the people concerned are already in possession of a third level qualification and I am satisfied that they have already achieved a good level of academic attainment which should impact positively on their employment prospects. In a time of financial constraint, I wanted to ensure that supports were directed at those with the most pressing needs. Those wishing to take up a higher diploma in all disciplines or graduate diploma in primary school teaching are not affected by these changes. I am satisfied that the new arrangements ensure that the back to education scheme continues to provide support to those people who are most distant from the labour market. I have no plans to change the current conditions of the scheme though I will continue to monitor it in light of the changes in place to ensure that it is operating effectively and is reaching those who need help most.
219 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on the submission sent to her in July 2003 by PLANET concerning changes to the back to work enterprise allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23525/03]
The back to work allowance scheme was reviewed last year in the light of economic and labour market changes and, in particular, of the drop in unemployment levels since the introduction of the allowance in 1993. This review also took cognisance of the decline in take-up of the scheme and of an evaluation of the scheme by independent consultants who recommended restructuring in light of the transformed labour market situation and the opportunities for people to get back into the labour market without assistance. The evaluation report recommended that the scheme be refocused on the longer-term unemployed, that the non-financial supports be enhanced, and that the overall numbers on the scheme be reduced. Following this review, the qualifying period for persons on unemployment benefit or assistance has been increased to five years with effect from 1 January 2003. Other social welfare qualifying payments are not affected by the change.
PLANET – the network of area-based partnerships – recently submitted proposals with a view to lowering the current qualifying period for the self-employed strand of the back to work allowance scheme. A review of the national employment service is currently taking place. In addition an interagency group has been conducting a review of all labour market programmes under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It would be appropriate to await the outcome of these deliberations before any further adjustments to the scheme are considered. In the meantime, I will continue to monitor the scheme in light of the changes in place since January to ensure that it is operating effectively and that it is reaching those who most need help.
220 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs further to Parliamentary Question No 186 of 8 October 2003, if in view of their changed circumstances, she will review the application for ongoing exceptional needs payments in the case of persons (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23581/03]
Under the terms of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, health boards may make a single payment, known as an exceptional needs payment, to help meet essential, once-off, exceptional expenditure which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of his or her weekly income. Eligible people are usually in receipt of a social welfare or health board payment. Exceptional needs payments are not issued in individual cases on an ongoing basis. They are issued at the discretion of the health board and neither I nor my Department has any function in deciding entitlement in individual cases.
The South-Western Area Health Board was again contacted regarding this case and has advised that there has been no recent contact between the couple and the board regarding a change of circumstances. If they wish to make an application for an exceptional needs payment, they should contact the community welfare officer at their local health centre in order to initiate a review of their circumstances to determine the amount of assistance, if any, payable under the terms of the supplementary allowance scheme.
