Vol. 600 No. 4
72 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the amount his Department has saved by increasing the qualifying period from six to 12 months for the back to education allowance; if he plans to reduce the qualifying period to nine months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12129/05]
The back to education allowance is a second chance education opportunities programme designed to encourage and facilitate people on certain social welfare payments to improve their skills and qualifications. The objective is to increase their prospects of returning to the active workforce and reduce the risk of them becoming dependent on social welfare on a long-term basis.
The allowance supports eligible people pursuing second level and third level qualifications. The qualifying period for the back to education allowance scheme for people pursuing second level qualifications has always been six months. The qualifying period for entitlement to the third level option was increased from six months to 15 months for new applicants intending to commence third level courses of study on or after 1 September 2004. This measure is estimated to have realised gross savings of €2.2 million in the last quarter of 2004. If implemented as originally intended, it would have realised savings of €5.5 million in 2005.
As Deputies are aware, however, I reduced the qualifying period for access to the third level option of the scheme to 12 months in the last budget. I also increased the annual cost of education allowance paid to people on back to education allowance from €254 to €400. These changes will take effect from 1 September 2005 at a cost of €1.42 million in 2005 and €2.4 million in 2006.
Since its introduction, the intention of the scheme has been to benefit people who have difficulty finding employment. The scheme provides an opportunity to improve their qualifications and thus their prospects of obtaining work. It was never intended to be an alternative form of support for people entering the third level education system.
One of the factors that influenced the increase in the qualification conditions is the fact that some people go on the live register for short periods specifically to qualify for the back to education allowance. For example, an examination carried out by my Department found that in the 2003-04 academic year, 51% of new participants in the third level option of the scheme were in receipt of an unemployment payment for 12 months or less when they accessed the scheme. In addition, research carried out by independent consultants has shown that in the case of a control group surveyed for research purposes, 54% were 12 months or less in receipt of a qualifying payment when they accessed the scheme.
The scheme is intended to assist people with a history of long-term dependence on social welfare. Many of these people have not completed second level education and are held back in their efforts to obtain employment as a result. With this in mind, the qualifying period for people who wish to pursue second level education remains at six months. The numbers taking second level education with the support of the back to education allowance are increasing.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I am satisfied that the current arrangements ensure that the scheme supports those people who are most distant from the labour market and whose need is greatest. In line with my undertaking to the Dáil and the Committee on Social and Family Affairs, however, I am keeping the qualifying period for this scheme under review.
The back to education allowance scheme is being reviewed at present as part of Government's programme evaluation process. The report of the working group, including recommendations for the future of the scheme, will be available later this year, at which time I will give the matter further careful consideration.
Surely the Minister is not suggesting that people are taking up unemployment benefit or assistance just to qualify for the back to education allowance. That is ridiculous. The Minister and Deputies have participated in this debate from time to time. Can the Minister tell me if he intends to bring back the qualifying period to nine months before next September? I am sure he recalls telling me that he can do that at the stroke of a pen. How much will it cost to bring back the qualifying period to nine months? Will he do that and, if so, when?
It would cost €6.7 million over three years to do that. I will make that decision well in advance of next September.
Will the Minister agree that time is running out? He tells us his philosophy is to help people go back to education, especially those on long-term unemployment. Will the Minister agree that the measures being taken now are stopping people returning to education? This has been going on for several months. When will the Minister make a commitment? Time is running out. The Minister told me in February he would make this change in the next two months. The two months have passed. People need to plan ahead. Will the Minister tell me if he will do it, and when?
As the Deputy is aware, the qualifying period was six months and I increased it to 12 months in the budget. I have said consistently since then that it does not come into effect until September and that well in advance of September I will finalise my thinking on that, particularly in terms of sourcing the additional funding. The timescale is fine. It is nothing different from what I have been saying for some months. This is only April and well in advance of September we will be able to close our thinking on whether we can move the qualifying period back to nine months.
What is stopping the Minister from making the decision now?
Money.
Money.
73 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if any refunds made to pensioners residing in nursing homes, arising from the recent Supreme Court decision that found that charges levied on them were illegal, will not be allowed to impact on their current pension entitlement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11948/05]
I understand my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, will very shortly bring proposals to Government on repayments to residents and former residents of publicly-funded long-stay care places.
Over the period in question, my Department paid affected persons their full pension and other social welfare entitlements and had no function in the deduction of the charges made.
The implications for social welfare pensions and other entitlements will depend on the nature of the repayments scheme. However, it is my intention that any repayments will not impact on current pension entitlements and I will bring forward proposals in this regard when full details of the repayment schemes have been finalised.
As the Deputy is aware, I have made provision in the recent Social Welfare and Pensions Act to introduce enhanced capital assessment arrangements generally. From June next, a single pensioner with no other means will be able to save up to €28,000 without affecting his or her entitlements. This figure is doubled for a couple. As a result, all pensioners will, if they wish, be able to put an enhanced sum aside without worrying about any effect on their pension.
I welcome the late clarification from the Minister. This is a long time coming and it has caused great anxiety to the very large number of people who will qualify for the refunds as a result of the illegal levying of charges. The State would have compounded the error if it had included these moneys as part of the means test assessment. Precedence already existed regarding payments to hepatitis C victims and other groups to ensure they were excluded. Is it the position that the Minister is giving an unequivocal commitment to ensure that the repayments will not affect non-contributory old age pensioners and widows' pensions in the future? That is an absolute commitment given on the floor of the House and the Minister cannot resile from it.
Another problem we have been pursuing concerns the counting of social welfare payments as assets in the reassessment of the means of old age non-contributory pensioners. I am talking about the claw-back policy being operated by the Minister's Department as a result of which more than €20 million was obtained in recent years. Is the Minister aware that under the new legislation money saved by some pensioners for a rainy day, their burial or to provide for nursing home care in the future is now being calculated as part of their assets and if it is more than €20,000, it will lead to a reduced income? I put it to the Minister that this policy is a disincentive to people to save and live frugally. Could we re-examine that policy?
I welcome what is being done regarding the nursing home subvention payments because people should not have those payments assessed but unless the Minister examines the current claw-back system operating in respect of non-contributory old age pensioners, it will lead to a discrimination case being taken in the courts.
It is my intention that any repayments will not impact on current pension entitlements. I will bring forward proposals in this regard when I have full details of the repayments scheme. The repayments scheme has not yet been signed off by Government or finally approved and as soon as we have that scheme finalised, I will be able to bring forward proposals to give effect to my intention that repayments will not impact on current pension entitlements.
We have yet to take a decision in the case of beneficiaries of an estate of deceased persons in respect of which a repayment is due. That decision will be taken in the light of the content of the repayment scheme. I confirm to the Deputy today that there will not be any impact on current pension entitlements. Complications arise where the money is paid to an estate and there are beneficiaries from that estate. I am anxious that we align our thinking with whatever final decisions are taken in the area of inheritance tax and taxation generally. I will do everything possible to ring-fence whatever the repayment scheme brings people so that it does not affect their social welfare entitlements but I put down a marker that there has yet to be a decision in the case of money paid to an estate of a person as opposed to a living pensioner. In the case of a pensioner I am happy to give that categoric assurance. In the other case, we have to do some additional work on it.
In the case the Deputy raised where an overpayment is assessed against the estate of a deceased pensioner, I am aware of this issue and I have some sympathy with it. The difficulty is in trying to administer any scheme that would exempt savings which came from one's pension. The basic point the Deputy is making is that if someone saves money from their pension and they either die, their estate is tackled or, in the case of a living person, there is a review of their case, such savings would not be taken into account in any means test. In other words, if they have saved their pension it should not be part of a means test. I do not have a major difficulty with that policy objective. The difficulty is in trying to administer something like that. My advice is that we would then be brought into the business of trying to identify from where a person's savings came and asking a person if those savings come from their pension or elsewhere.
A better way to tackle it is the way I am doing it, which is that I have increased the disregard to €20,000 from €12,000. I did that in recent months, as the Deputy is aware, and there is the additional €8,000 for pensioners. That means that pensioners can save up to €28,000. If we work on that and increase that threshold from time to time, as best we can afford it, that is a better way to exempt savings from affecting one's welfare. I have sympathy with the objective but the logistics of trying to do it are quite difficult. A better way might be to continue to raise the disregard so that they can save more money, from wherever it comes. We are then not brought into the business of asking them where their savings came from; it is more dignified for them also.
While I understand the Minister's point, the Revenue Commissioners are able to identify and trace all sources of funds. For example, a small-scale farmer has identity and TB cards for his or her cattle and the TB office keeps records also. If a person wins money with a prize bond, it is readily identifiable. The problem is not as significant as the Minister contends. He will run into difficulties when a legal case is taken on the basis of invidious discrimination and he will face a serious mess. The Department should immediately notify all old-age non-contributory pensioners and widows of the operation of the clawback. Many people are saving for a rainy day or to pass on an inheritance and when they die, the sums involved will be included in the calculation of assets for the clawback. Last year, the Department clawed back over €5 million. This is a serious problem and I alert the Minister to the steam train approaching him in the form of a legal action if he does not tackle it.
I will review the matter, especially as it relates to deceased persons. The Deputy should be aware, however, that the funds being recouped to the Exchequer were not, for whatever reason, the legal entitlements of whoever received them. Means may inadvertently not have been disclosed for example. We are clawing back money to which people were not entitled. Having said that, I will review the matter.
It is non-capital assets that are at issue. Our focus is on pension payments already received and means tested by the Department.
I will review the matter.
74 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will consider changing the rules governing family income supplement, particularly around the area of lack of knowledge when claiming for backdating, as part of his review of legislation. [12120/05]
The Deputy refers, perhaps, to a review on the possible merging of child dependant allowances and family income supplement to form a second tier of child benefit support. The review is being undertaken by the National Economic and Social Council. Under its terms of reference, the review does not specifically deal with the backdating of claims as there is a general obligation on people to claim their social welfare entitlements on time. However, legislative provisions have been designed to cater for the inevitable cases in which people fail to claim on time. The legislative provisions on late claims for social welfare benefits are set out in section 205 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, as amended, and in regulations made under the section. The provisions set out the periods within which persons must claim, the disqualifications which apply where late claims are made and the circumstances in which time limits may be extended.
Currently, regulations provide for payment to be made on foot of late claims across a range of schemes, including family income supplement, for a period of six months prior to the date of claim if a satisfactory cause for claiming late can be demonstrated. The legislation sets out the circumstances in which a relaxation of the restrictions on back-dating of late claims may be warranted under all schemes except those on unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance. The legislation also outlines the circumstances in which further payment may be made up to the level of full retrospection. Such circumstances arise where a delay was due to the provision of incorrect information by my Department, illness or force majeure or where the person is dependent on the arrears of payment to relieve financial hardship.
Lack of knowledge is not in itself a consideration to be taken into account when back-dating claims. The Department operates a comprehensive information service as an essential element of the effective delivery of its schemes and services. The underlying objective of the service is to ensure people are made aware of their entitlements and kept informed of developments. Information on social welfare schemes and services is also available from local and branch social welfare offices and through the wide network of citizens' information centres. I am satisfied the current provisions on late claims strike a reasonable balance between, on one hand, the need to supervise and control claims, the requirements of sound financial management and control of public expenditure and, on the other, the need to recognise appropriately cases of genuine hardship or difficulty.
While the reply stated that lack of knowledge is not a sufficient reason for failing to claim on time, the Minister has said himself that of those with entitlements, 25% fail to claim. Part of the reason for that is lack of awareness. While I acknowledge the Department's information campaigns and leaflets, people are still unaware of their entitlements. Will the Minister examine the phenomenon as part of the review? Family income supplement is provided to subsidise low income families. I am not asking for people to be provided with something to which they are not entitled. Unfortunately, people who are not aware of the entitlement are not receiving the supplement. When they realise the mistake and submit a claim, payments are not back-dated.
How many people are affected? According to my information, it is a great many. I have rung different citizens' advice offices and have been made aware of a number of cases at my own advice centre. Will the Minister consider the issue in the context of the current review to give people what they are entitled to receive? He said the system is, on balance, fair, but I call for a minor change to skew it in favour of people with an entitlement to receive payment. The guidelines as set out prevent them from receiving funding.
I can see how difficulties arise for individuals. It has been a long-standing feature of the social welfare code here and in other jurisdictions that, other than in exceptional circumstances, claims are accepted only from a current date. Where extenuating circumstances exist, backdated payments can be made for up to six months, or longer in the case of some schemes, where proof of entitlement from an earlier date can be provided. Proof of entitlement at an earlier date can be difficult to obtain where a person's circumstances have changed rapidly. He or she may not be able to show that he or she was entitled two or three years ago to a benefit which has been approved today. Therefore, the code has operated according to the long-standing feature I outlined.
As I have told the House many times, one must keep all aspects of the social welfare code under constant review. No element of the code is set in concrete and as society changes, the social welfare system must be amended. In that context, I will certainly keep this and other matters under review. Potential claims are difficult to quantify. Our practice is to use a long-standing code and I hope we do so sympathetically in most cases.
75 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which his Department calculates child maintenance payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12130/05]
Applicants for one parent family payment are required to make ongoing efforts to obtain adequate maintenance from former spouses or, in the case of unmarried applicants, the other parent of a child. Generally, maintenance is obtained through negotiation or court order, although it is increasingly the case that separated couples use my Department's family mediation service which is being progressively extended nationally.
Since 2001, one parent family payment claimants may retain half of all maintenance received without reduction in their social welfare entitlements as an incentive to seek support. Where social welfare support is being provided to a one parent family, the other parent is legally obliged to contribute to the cost of this payment. In every case where a one parent family payment is awarded, the maintenance recovery unit of my Department seeks to trace the other parent, referred to as the liable relative, in order to ascertain whether he or she is in a financial position to contribute towards the cost of one parent family payment. This follow-up activity takes place within two to three weeks of an award of payment.
All liable relatives assessed with maintenance liability are notified by my Department and they are issued with a determination order setting out the amount of contribution assessed. In assessing maintenance liability, the financial situation of each liable relative is first examined in detail. The assessment is based on the net income of the liable relative. Allowances are made for any child dependent she or he has residing with him or her, and also for certain outgoings such as mortgage payments, house rent or home improvement loans on the liable relative's residence. The methods of assessment of the liable relative's ability to pay are specified in detail in regulations.
When a liable relative's maintenance liability to the Department is assessed, a determination order setting out the amount of contribution assessed issues to that person. The amount assessed can vary but it would not exceed the maximum amount set out in the Family Law Maintenance of Spouses and Children Act 1976, in respect of each qualified child. The current weekly maintenance amount set by the District Courts is €150 per child per week. The average amount of weekly maintenance assessed by the maintenance recovery unit of my Department is of the order of €84 per week.
Decisions can be reviewed where new information comes to light about the financial or household circumstances of a liable relative. In addition, decisions on the amounts assessed can be appealed by liable relatives to the social welfare appeals office. There are currently 1,946 liable relatives contributing directly to my Department. As a result of maintenance recovery unit activity, savings of €8.5 million were achieved in 2002 and €14.2 million in 2003. Savings of €16.6 million were achieved in 2004.
Additional Information not given on the floor of the House.
These savings are composed of direct cash payments by the liable relative to the Department and of scheme savings. Savings on scheme expenditure arise where maintenance recovery activity leads to the liable relative beginning to pay maintenance in respect of a spouse and-or children and the consequent reduction of a one parent family payment. In 2004, a total of 722 one parent family payments were cancelled while a further 512 payments were reduced as a result of maintenance recovery activity.
In implementing maintenance recovery provisions to date my Department has concentrated on cases where the liable relatives concerned, being in employment or self-employment, would be in a financial position to make a contribution towards the relevant benefit or allowance being paid to their families. Legislation allows my Department to seek recovery from liable relatives through the courts in appropriate cases. A total of 182 cases has been submitted for court action from 2001 to date. The majority of these cases have resulted either in orders being written against the liable relative in court or alternatively in the liable relative agreeing to pay a contribution to the Department or to the lone parent.
Issues relating to maintenance are kept under continuous review within my Department. I am currently reviewing a number of aspects of the lone parent allowance and the position of lone parents within the welfare system. I am also looking at maintenance and liable relatives matters in the light of experience in this area in other countries.
In the light of an earlier response from the Minister, what is he doing with all these savings? He said he has no money.
Is it true that when fathers pay directly to the mother — in most cases the liable relative is a father — the child is better off because the payment is 50% more than it would be if the payment was paid directly by the Department, in other words, if the payment is made to the Department, the one parent family payment stays as it is, but if the payment is made directly to the parent who lives with the child, that parent can retain 50% of the maintenance payment? Why is that not made known to liable relatives — fathers in most cases — when letters of determination are sent? Is it not the case that children lose out because of this?
Why does the Department not make the same level of payment to the family as it would receive if the payment was made directly to the family by the other parent? Surely an anomaly exists in this regard. When payments are made to the Department rather than directly to the family, why does the Department retain the contribution from the liable relative? Does the Minister not agree that children lose out if payments are made directly to the Department?
I have acknowledged that this area is in need of a serious overhaul. Only 14% of single fathers — by and large the maintenance comes from fathers — have had determination orders issued against them. No contributions are due from a further 49% who, although they were working, their income was deemed to be low. Some 13% of liable relatives are on social welfare and it has been deemed that they can make no contribution. A further 11% of liable relatives cannot be traced.
In terms of the point made by Deputy Stanton, the mother — in most cases it is the mother who lives with the children — is in receipt of a lone parent's allowance. That is her allowance. If the Department receives a contribution from the father, that money is not passed on but remains in the Department. It is considered as a contribution by the father towards the lone parent's allowance which the Department has paid. I am investigating the matter.
Deputy Stanton referred to 50% of a payment, which is a slightly different matter in that in cases where the payment is paid directly by the father to the mother, the mother keeps the whole payment but she is allowed to disregard half of that payment in any assessment of her entitlement to social welfare. This area is in need of a serious overhaul. It is important that fathers would become more involved and would make payments in more cases.
Many fathers do make payments currently but it is apparent from the statistics I gave that not nearly enough of them do so. The Department's rationale for collecting the funds directly is to hold them accountable in some way. I accept that work remains to be done in this area because the idea that money received by the Department is offset against a lone parent's allowance does not really make the connection I want to make between the mother, child and father. We must work out a better way of doing that.
The Minister has acknowledged that there is a problem which needs to be addressed. How soon will he set the wheels in motion to deal with this issue? For instance, when the maintenance section of his Department sends out letters, would he consider including in the letter the fact that if the payment is made directly to the mother by the father that the child and his or her mother would benefit financially as a result, rather than to have the benefit accruing to the Department, which is the case if the father makes the payment to the Department?
This serious anomaly has previously been brought to the Minister's attention. Will he give a commitment in the House that before next Question Time he will have examined the matter in detail and will be able to answer questions on it and have a response prepared? We do not only want talk, we want action. Children are losing out. Does the Minister agree this is the case because his Department is holding on to money that should be passed on to families? In cases where the payment is made directly to the mother — this happens in most instances — she benefits financially. However, if the payment is made to the Department, she does not benefit.
It is not that simple. I wish that it were. The mother is in receipt of the lone parent's allowance. The money paid to the Department by fathers is almost certainly considerably less than the lone parent's allowance. It is not a matter of the money not being passed on to families. If it were passed on, it would likely interfere with the mother's lone parent's allowance because her income would be above the lone parent's eligibility limit.
The Minister is missing the point.
It is not the case that the Department is holding money back from children who are entitled to it. A mother is entitled to a lone parent's allowance but maintenance funds from the Department could affect her means-tested payment.
There is a disregard if the mother receives the payment directly from the father.
Only half of it is not affected.
Then there is a substantial financial benefit to that.
76 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the process whereby older Irish emigrants wishing to apply for a PPS number may obtain one while resident outside of the State; the identification which is acceptable in the absence of a current passport or national identity card, neither of which many older persons have; the length of time it takes to process these applications (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12170/05]
The personal public service number is the citizen's unique reference number for all dealings with Departments and public bodies.
In order to ensure a person receives only one number, and that the number is allocated on information that is accurate and verified, certain procedures are set down to be followed by offices of my Department when dealing with applications. It is necessary to have effective controls around the PPS No. registration process to guard against fraud and to protect the integrity of my Department's data.
Evidence of identity is a vital element of the allocation process. A PPS No. does not issue automatically, except in the case of children born in this jurisdiction. In all other cases application must be made at one of my Department's offices. In the case of persons resident outside the State, application can be made by post to the client identity services section of my Department.
When applying for a PPS No., applicants are asked to complete an application form and supply documentation to establish their identity. Once this is done satisfactorily they are usually informed of their PPS No. by post within five days. The identity documentation that applicants who are not resident in Ireland are requested to supply is a long form birth certificate. Alternatively, they can furnish a copy of their current valid passport.
My Department only asks for documents that a person is likely to have in his or her possession or may reasonably obtain. I would always be sympathetic to a person who, for reasons of age or infirmity, might have difficulty obtaining such documents. Where queries arise, staff in the client identity services section of the Department provide advice and assistance to an applicant or someone acting on his or her behalf. My officials are not aware of any specific difficulty encountered by Irish emigrants living abroad who need PPS numbers to have their names included on the housing needs list. Given the specific issues raised by the Deputy, officials from the Department will contact him with a view to obtaining further information so that they can carry out a complete investigation of these issues.
Representatives of the safe home initiative or any emigrant representative groups who wish to discuss these issues should contact the client identity services of the Department to arrange a meeting at which particular issues or difficulties they may encounter can be addressed.
I thank the Minister for his competent reply. I note the value of a PPS number and the need to ensure that the recipient is the person he or she claims to be. The reason for my question was the recent requirement for anyone wishing to be included in the housing assessment of need for 2005 to have a PPS. A problem for old Irish emigrants living abroad and hoping to be repatriated to the safe home programme was that owing to the strict time limits imposed and the lack of documentation, passport or national identity card, this was not possible for the majority of applicants. It meant their names would not be in the pot under the assessment of need for the capital assistance scheme. The form provides for a passport or national identity card which confirms the identity of the applicant. In the case of a minor it appears to be qualified to a copy of a birth certificate, so I am glad the Minister has spelt out that a long copy of a birth certificate will be acceptable as many older people will not have access to a passport or a national identity card.
The Minister has more or less answered this, but in the case of someone living abroad who does not have easy access to a passport, birth certificate or national identity card, can he offer any assistance to those who face real difficulties in such situations? I refer to older Irish people in particular who live abroad. There is also a need for clearer, more straightforward application forms. The Department might attempt to do this, but it is often confusing for older people.
I confirm again that the officials will be in touch with the Deputy to discuss these matters with him in detail. People are normally informed of their PPS numbers by post within five days. The Department will certainly offer advice and assistance to anyone who has difficulty in obtaining documentation that is required for identification.
