Vol. 614 No. 3
1 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the schemes available to widows or widowers in receipt of pensions from his Department to enable recipients to re-enter the workforce; his views on an increase in the earnings and income disregard, in particular for young widows, many of whom have dependant children and may have been outside the workforce for a considerable amount of time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4936/06]
At the end of December 2005 there were just under 124,000 people in receipt of a widow's or widower's pension. More than 109,000 of these were getting a contributory pension based on social insurance contributions. There is no means test in such cases and therefore the question of earnings or income disregards does not arise.
Of approximately 14,700 persons who get a non-contributory means-tested pension, 12,700 are 65 years of age or more and 2,000 are under 65. As the Deputy has asked me in particular about younger widows, I would point out that fewer than 200 of these are under the age of 50. In addition, there are just under 1,000 widowed people who receive one-parent family payment, 500 of whom are under 50 years of age.
My Department assists and encourages long-term unemployed, and other welfare recipients including persons in receipt of widow's or widower's non-contributory pension, to return to work, training or further education through a range of measures administered by my Department's social and family support service.
One significant measure is the back to work allowance scheme which incentivises and encourages people to return to work by allowing them to retain part of their social welfare payment for a period when they take up employment or self-employment. Widows or widowers who have been in receipt of a non-contributory pension for 15 months may qualify for the back to work scheme when they take up employment. If they are over 50 years of age or if they take up self employment they can qualify after 12 months. Research has shown that up to 80% of participants remain in employment or self-employment following participation.
The Department also administers the back to education allowance programme. This programme provides support to long-term social welfare recipients who need to obtain educational qualifications before re-entering the labour force. A survey in this area has shown that 63% took up employment following participation in the scheme.
In 2005, €2.8 million was accessed through the special projects fund administered by my Department and €2.1 million from the family services project fund to support similar initiatives.
As part of a determined drive to increase opportunities for widows and widowers on means-tested payments, and for lone parents, to engage in employment, the upper earnings income for the one-parent family payment was substantially increased in the recent budget by €82 per week to a new limit of €375. Widows and widowers will be able to maximise their income from different sources as the means test makes provision for the exemption of significant levels of earnings.
On employment, lone parents, including widows and widowers, may earn up to €146.50 per week without it affecting their payment. Above that level, half of any earnings are assessed as means, up to a maximum of €375 per week.
From 30 June 2006, persons whose earnings have risen above €375 per week may be entitled to half of their payment for up to 26 weeks.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The increased income limit will allow several thousand people become eligible for a payment for the first time.
While I am satisfied that these improvements constitute a significant support to widows, particularly those who are re-entering the workforce, I will continue to keep the matter under review.
I thank the Minister for that response. Does he have plans to introduce an earnings disregard for young widows similar to the one introduced for those age over 66? Could he introduce a tapered withdrawal, a half-rate payment of benefit for widows, similar to that applicable to the one-parent family payment? Is there a barrier to widows or widowers on contributory pensions doing FÁS courses? A woman who came to see me recently stated she was not allowed take up a FÁS course while she was in receipt of widow's contributory pension. I thought that was strange. Would the Minister clarify the matter? When will we see the publication of the promised lone parent review because that will also take into account the position of widows?
I am considering the extension of the €100 which we introduced in the budget for non-contributory old age pensioners. That is currently not available to widows on non-contributory pensions. It obviously does not apply to widows on contributory pensions because there is no means test in that regard.
On the numbers I gave the Deputy in my reply, he can see that there is quite a small number involved. There are approximately 14,700 widows who get a non-contributory pension, 12,700 of whom are over 65 years of age and approximately 2,000 of whom are therefore under 65.
The Deputy asked about younger widows. As I pointed out that approximately 200 of them are under 50, we are not dealing with large numbers of recipients. Particularly because of that, I have asked the Department to examine whether that €100, which is currently available for non-contributory old age pensioners, could be extended to widows on non-contributory pensions because widows on non-contributory pensions are on the old disregard of €7.60 and it would make sense. It was not provided for in the budget arithmetic and therefore I must see how expensive it would be and whether I could meet it from within my existing resources. My suspicion is that I probably could meet it from those resources, given the small numbers involved.
I will take a close look at that because it is only fair that we should not reduce the non-contributory pension of a widow — or widower, although I refer to a widow in particular — who wishes to work to earn further income. The €100 to which I refer would be useful in that regard and I will return to the Deputy on that matter. In recent days I have asked that the matter be examined.
The Deputy asked about the lone parent review. The Cabinet has now approved the report. There are two reports, in fact, which we are putting together in one document. This report will be made available for public discussion within a couple of weeks. Over the next few months we will try to make solid progress in this area.
The Deputy asked about barriers to availing of FÁS courses. I know of no barrier to widows or widowers accessing FÁS courses. Some courses obviously involve age requirements. Particular careers, training and skills that might not be suitable for older widows would be suitable for younger ones, but I am not aware of any particular discrimination against widows or widowers in the case of FÁS courses.
There is one other point. Is the Minister aware that the CDA part of the contributory pension is taxed and that there seems to be an anomaly in that regard? Could he raise the matter with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to ensure that does not happen? It is given particularly to assist with the rearing of children and it seems strange that it is taxed. I understand that the Garda one is not taxed because it is maintenance, whereas this is seen as an increase. Perhaps the Minister might look at this area.
Is the Deputy talking about the CDA being added on to the contributory pension and being part of the contributory pension?
Yes.
The contributory pension is not taxed as such but if it is added to other income which takes one above the threshold of tax allowances, then it is taxed. Perhaps that is what is happening in this case. CDAs are not taxed as such——
That is correct but when it is added on, it is.
——but if it is added on to other income, I could see how it would fall into the income net. I will take a look at it but I suspect the answer is as I stated, that if the total income from whatever sources — one's welfare and non-welfare income added together — brings one over the limit, then one pays tax on the combined figure.
2 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on whether it is intended to introduce a new social services card for lone parents that will require the holder to collect lone parent payments between Thursday and the following Tuesday and that if this is not done, the payment will be forfeited; if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties that this could create for lone parents who are ill or away for a few days; if this decision will be reviewed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4760/06]
The one-parent family payment is the income support scheme for separated, unmarried and widowed persons and also for prisoners' spouses bringing up a child or children without the support of a partner. At the end of December 2005, the total number of one-parent family recipients being paid by my Department was 83,066, including 906 widowed persons. Under the scheme, lone parents are encouraged to maximise their income from different sources and the means test for this scheme provides for the exemption of significant levels of earnings and maintenance payments.
Following a review of the arrangements for administering the scheme, it was decided that services should in future be provided through my Department's local offices. The primary aim of providing services at local level is to improve customer service by reducing claim processing times through closer linkage with the local officer network. This also brings lone parents into direct contact with my Department's employment support services.
My Department processes new applications for the one-parent family payment at 36 social welfare local offices. The benefits of administering these claims at local level are already evident as the average processing time for claim applications has dropped from 16 weeks to an average of seven weeks since the change. Some 17,000 claims for the one-parent family payment are received each year — equivalent to 330 per week on average.
As part of the preparations for moving the administration of the one-parent family payment scheme to local level, some 44,000 one-parent family payment customers who prior to this were paid by means of an order book will, from the middle of this month, collect their payment in post offices by using their social services card. Under this system, the payment should be collected by close of business on the Tuesday following the Thursday payday. If the payment is not collected by then contact should be made with the Department. If the customer has been unable to collect the payment, for instance due to illness, work commitments, holidays etc., arrangements are made to have the payment reissued.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
This payment method has been in operation for certain one-parent families for some years. Approximately 6,000 one-parent family payment customers receive their payment weekly using this payment method and they are generally satisfied with the arrangement.
My Department has written to each lone parent customer advising him or her of the change of payment method. In addition, a meeting took place with lone parent representative associations at which the matter was discussed. Although existing customers on this payment method are satisfied with the system, I have asked my officials to review the situation regarding the period for collection of these payments with a view to extending it if possible. Any customer having difficulty with collecting the payment every week can contact the one-parent family payment section in the pension services office in Sligo which provides advice on a range of other payment options.
The Minister said that several reports in his Department have been put together and will be subject to ongoing review. Why start making unilateral decisions without consulting any groups representing lone parents? This may represent another obstacle or hurdle to vulnerable people. What happens if somebody falls ill on a Thursday morning and cannot go in to collect his or her money and is in hospital until the following Wednesday? Does the Minister not agree that the old book system, which allowed people three months to cash the payment, enabled them to deal with such a problem or go on a vacation?
This change is designed for administrative simplicity at minimum inconvenience to the bureaucrats but maximum inconvenience to the unfortunate people depending on this measly sum. This is a retrograde step. I ask the Minister to reconsider it. Would it not be better to give people the option to use a book order or the electronic system? That would take cognisance of the situation I have outlined.
I did not know this was happening until lone parents contacted me. They feel this places another obstacle before them. It seems to be consistent with some of the policies emanating from the Minister's Department which says one thing but does another to create further impediments for people.
This new arrangement is a result of the localisation of the payment of one-parent family allowances which has reduced the processing time from 16 weeks to seven weeks. When preparing my response to the Deputy's question I read the background material, including the circular that issued about this change. It states that payments will be in the post office on Thursday and must be collected by Tuesday. I have instructed the Department to re-examine that urgently and instructed that a period of two weeks at least be allowed. It is not clear whether I can do this but I will know within a week or two if it is technically possible to do so.
I appreciate the Deputy's raising the matter and agree that the stated period is too short. This constraint already affects people on unemployment assistance and benefit and the computers in the post office network are set up on this basis. That is why the change was made. It was not to inconvenience anybody. I give an assurance that no lone parent will be without his or her funds for any period while we go through this process. Electronic funds transfer is available to people in the welfare system and an increasing number of people avail of it. They find it secure and easy to manage.
I ordered that review in recent days and specifically proposed that we push the time limit out to two or three weeks, but probably not much beyond that. Even within the existing period the funds do not disappear. One must make other arrangements to collect one's money because it cannot languish indefinitely in the post office.
I thank the Minister and assure him that the flexibility he suggests of even a couple of weeks would be very welcome.
3 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to establish a national forum to debate the issues raised in the recent national pensions review report; and the parties which will be included in such a forum. [4762/06]
One of the most important policy challenges facing this country and this generation is the foundation for the future retirement in security and with dignity of all of our people. There is no quick fix for the problem that almost half the country's workforce of 2 million people do not have personal pensions. Ireland is not unique in having a future pensions problem. All around the world, governments and societies are grappling with the impending crisis of a population structure in which older people far outnumber younger workers. Ireland's response to the challenges and opportunities posed by this rapid social, economic and demographic change will influence the future shape of our society for decades to come.
The national pensions review, which was published on 17 January, is a comprehensive review of our pensions system, including the appropriateness of the targets we have set for ourselves and how we might make progress towards these in the future. Reforms are required if we are to reach our targets and the debate is about how we will do this. The Pensions Board has recommended enhancements to the existing voluntary system as the way forward. We may, however, need to consider much more radical measures, including a mandatory or quasi-mandatory system. This gives rise to some fundamental issues which, as a society, we need to debate.
For that reason, I intend, with the co-operation of the Pensions Board, to convene a national forum to debate the central issues and to hear the view of all stakeholders on the way forward. Planning for the forum is advancing and, subject to the availability of keynote speakers, I hope it will take place within the next two months. I will invite public representatives, social partners, industry representatives and those representing the interests of pensioners. While the main purpose of the forum is to hear the views of stakeholders on the conclusions of the national pensions review, I also intend to invite speakers to outline major reforms proposed or undertaken in other countries.
The Government and I will continue to show leadership and to keep pensions firmly on the national agenda. In time, the Government will reach conclusions on the various proposals and seek to achieve consensus on how best to lay down the foundation for the future retirement security that we want all to enjoy. I hope the proposed forum will help us in that process.
Where stands the Government's pension policy? The report of the Pensions Board made recommendations that the Minister did not want to hear. Some of the recommendations, bizarrely, seem to increase inequality in pension entitlements. The forum, which might have a value in itself, will meet and report while at the same time the Pensions Board is being reconstituted and going through the same process it went through in the review. When will the discussions and debates finish and the recommendations come to a head and be acted upon? These are decisions that will need to be made in the short term by this or any following Government.
I have said many times that these are major inter-generational questions and I do not believe there is any quick fix for them. We are trying to begin a process that will allow for decisions to be made as quickly as possible. I have not delayed on this and I brought forward the national pensions review by a year. The review produced a raft of proposals within a few months, many of which are being considered by the Government. It made proposals about SSIAs, PRSAs and the retirement age. Some of these proposals have significant tax implications and some have almost philosophical implications. For instance, there is a view that the State has no business enforcing mandatory pensions on anyone while the counter view is that a just society should provide mandatory pensions. The Government decided to publish that report. I will shortly call the national forum to hear international views from speakers from around the world and then try to pull the debate together with concrete proposals in the course of this year.
I do not wish to give the impression that there is a quick fix solution. Half the population does not have pensions. The question is how far any Government should go in insisting that pensions are provided. Tax reliefs of more than €2.7 billion are currently available. The budget proposed a scheme for people to take their money out of SSIA accounts and invest it in pension funds on a once-off basis. The pensions issue is on the national agenda in a way it has not been for many generations. This is a good chance to bring it to fruition which is what I hope to do this year.
Will the Minister accept that following the budget measures the situation is now more confused with the Government taking short-term measures that may cause problems in the long term? There is no certainty about the long-term decisions to be made by him and the Government.
The budget decision was very practical because the SSIAs are coming to maturity so the Government needed to move quickly to make it clear there was an alternative for those taking money out of an SSIA. The alternative is that if €7,500 of SSIA money is invested in a pension fund for retirement purposes, the State will donate €2,500 on top of that, being a cash payment to top up the €7,500. This means it will be possible to put €10,000 out of the projected €20,000 from an SSIA account into a pension fund. This will be a once-off payment because the SSIA money is once-off. The pension board review has recommended a version of this proposal to become a permanent feature and this will be decided upon in the course of the year.
4 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the recent NESF Report No. 33, Creating a More Inclusive Labour Market (January 2006) which highlights the ever increasing inequality of society here; his views on the findings of the report; the action the Government intends to take as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4937/06]
Since its establishment, the National Economic and Social Forum gave considerable time and consideration to labour market issues.
I welcome this latest report by the NESF which provides a significant and timely contribution to consideration of labour market strategies. The report covers a breadth of issues and the implications extend way beyond the social welfare system to include local partnership-based strategies, labour market and social inclusion measures and structures, make work pay policies, the national employment services, workplace strategies and progression of low-skilled workers.
The Government recently noted the contents of the report and agreed that it would be considered by all relevant Departments and agencies, and also by the senior officials group on social inclusion, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, in the context of wider labour market issues.
The report recognises that the market place is the main force in determining the quantity and quality of work available. However, this report highlights the existence of labour market vulnerability for many seeking work and within the workforce and identifies a number of interacting factors which may create this vulnerability for individuals and groups of people, even in today's tight labour market.
The report notes that more than €1 billion of State funding is being spent annually on measures aimed at helping people into work and tackling problems associated with labour market vulnerability. This encompasses the work of a number of Departments, including the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Education and Science, as well as my Department.
To improve upon how this spending meets its objective, the report recommends that a national strategic framework should be developed to provide better opportunities in this area. This would ensure coherence and integration in a co-ordinated response to improve access to employment, training and education and to finding better quality jobs on the labour market. A more integrated strategic framework would be useful.
The report makes a number of specific recommendations with regard to the future direction and administration of social welfare employment supports and the family income supplement scheme. My Department is considering these as part of the overall Government response to the report.
Does the Minister note that the report also said the €1 billion could be spent more effectively? Does he agree with the report when it states there is now a wealthier but more unequal society than ever before? The report records that the richest 20% of the working age population earns 12 times as much as the poorest 20%, that there is less equality of opportunity in Ireland than in many other European countries and this has changed little over the past decade, that 14% of households in poverty are headed by an unemployed person, a rise of 7% since 1994, that Ireland ranks 51 out of 56 countries in terms of equality of economic opportunities for women and has one of the highest penalties in pay reduction associated with motherhood and that 13% of Irish people are early school leavers with an employment rate of 18% and 63% for Traveller children. Only one third of those entitled to the family income supplement apply for it whereas a similar payment in New Zealand has a 92% take up.
Will the Minister not agree that this report is an indictment of Government policy to date and that its policy has failed on many fronts? Can he name one action he will take to follow any of the recommendations in this report to address these matters?
I have begun to implement the report's recommendations by substantially increasing the family income supplement payment——
They are not taking it up.
——in the recent budget. I will announce within the next weeks a major media campaign on radio and television and in the newspapers to promote the family income supplement. I have recently agreed a departmental budget to promote the family income supplement which provides quite an assistance top-up to family income. It is aimed at those on low incomes and I acknowledge the take-up is not satisfactory. For that reason I have requested that everybody on low income be communicated with directly by the Department to bring the scheme to their attention.
I do not agree with the concept of there being less equality of opportunity. I agree that society is more unequal.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
There is a plethora of BMWs and mercs floating around this town and in the country generally because people are well-off. There is new wealth which can get in one's face and be fairly gaudy and a bit flash at times. It is one of the by-products of a society that is becoming wealthier.
I find the comment that there is less equality of opportunity a little harder to handle. Apart from any empirical evidence, there is evidence all around of the massive opportunities, including for people who find themselves in vulnerable positions. They can avail of back to work and back to education allowances, FÁS training schemes, family income supplements and more than 36 different schemes over eight Departments with €1 billion targeted to help people get back to work. The statistics show this has been quite successful. We have managed to activate thousands into work and back to education. I therefore take issue with that section of the report.
Will the Minister agree with the point made in the report that poverty traps are the main problem and that they are being created by the too-rapid withdrawal of a person's secondary benefits when taking up employment? This has been exacerbated by the growing complexity of the means tested benefit system and lack of indexation of household means tested income disregards before secondary benefits are lost. Has the Minister any intention of examining these issues and taking action as a result of his examination?
This is being undertaken. We are fully committed to tapering as opposed to immediate withdrawal of any allowance. Tapering was introduced in the recent budget in a dramatic way and I will continue the practice. The Deputy would not be very enthusiastic about indexation if he considered it further. If welfare benefits were to be indexed to inflation or even to wages, the recipients would be worse off. For example, child benefit has doubled in approximately four years and no indexation would have increased it to that extent. I know it is a neat argument for discussion but I think they are doing better without formal indexation.
5 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason his Department continues to treat joint bank accounts as income for the purpose of assessing entitlement to a qualified adult allowance; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that such treatment can sometimes mean that pension lump sums and redundancy lump sums when saved in a joint account are assessed as income for the qualified adult allowance; his plans to change this practice, as requested by the senior citizens’ parliament; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4761/06]
I consider that the current arrangements concerning entitlements to a qualified adult allowance are reasonable in the circumstances, particularly having regard to a number of important improvements I introduced in budget 2006.
As the Deputy is aware, in the case of contributory pensions and most other contributory and non-contributory social welfare payments, a qualified adult allowance, QAA, is payable in respect of a spouse or partner who is wholly or mainly maintained by the claimant.
Account is taken of the spouse or partner's income for the purposes of determining whether the spouse is wholly or mainly dependent. A spouse or partner's income includes income from employment, self-employment, income from other sources such as rents from the letting of property, income from occupational pensions and foreign social security payments, as well as income from capital.
Where capital is in the joint names of the claimant and spouse or partner, both parties are the legal owners of the capital. As a result, in such cases, my Department assesses half the capital against each, as the Deputy knows. Prior to budget 2006, a qualified adult allowance at the maximum rate was payable where the spouse-partner's income was less than €88.89 per week and tapered reduced rates were payable where income was greater than that but less than €220 per week. A qualified adult allowance was not payable where income exceeded €220 per week.
On budget day, as part of my reform programme, I was pleased to announce a number of further improvements to these means testing arrangements, including an increase in the spouse's income threshold for entitlement to the qualified adult allowance from €88.88 to €100 a week. This improvement comes into effect on different dates, depending on the scheme, during the course of 2006. Another improvement to the means testing arrangements features an increase in the upper threshold for entitlement to a tapered rate of QAA to €240 with effect from January last, and to €250 when the lower threshold increases to €100.
When these improved arrangements are in place, and assuming that the spouse-partner has no other means, a full rate QAA will be payable where the spouse has capital of up to €58,000. Capital between €58,000 and up to €95,000 will give entitlement to a reduced rate of QAA. This will mean that a pension or redundancy lump sum, to which the Deputy's question refers, lodged in joint names, would have to be in excess of €116,000 before it would affect entitlement to a full rate qualified adult allowance.
If at any time the amount of capital held by the spouse or partner, either jointly or singly, is reduced, they can request my Department to reassess their entitlement to a QAA payment.
The provisions I have outlined offer substantial flexibility to those couples where a pension or redundancy lump sum is a factor, but the matter will be kept under review.
I thank the Minister for his detailed and comprehensive reply. He is aware that this proposal emanated from the senior citizens' parliament, which is deeply concerned about it. That group has articulated a number of significant issues concerning the elderly who have served this country well. We should therefore pay particular attention to the matters raised by the group.
In a number of cases, spouses were fully deprived of the adult dependant allowance simply because the husband — in most cases, although it could be the wife in other cases — invested a lump sum in the joint names of himself and his wife, which he had received due to redundancy, early retirement, severance or a commuted lump sum. These payments, which are made in lieu of wages, salaries or pensions foregone, have been subject to tax provisions. They are clearly identifiable as a result of the man's employment so this is not something that is mixed into a basket of items which the Minister is unable to identify or trace. The documentation and back-up is there to make them easily identifiable. The investment of this type of lump sum in joint names is made purely for easy withdrawal in the event of the death or incapacity of the other party. The Department's interpretation is that a spouse in this situation is deemed to be the owner of half the value of the lump sum, as the Minister said, which can place her above the level at which she can qualify for the adult dependant allowance.
I acknowledge that the Minister has increased that level significantly. He has stated that before losing the full allowance, a pension or redundancy lump sum, lodged in both names, would have to be in excess of €116,000. The senior citizens' parliament considers this to be both unjust and illegal. Under the Building Society Acts the first person named on a joint account is deemed to be the sole owner of the account. This was the case even where mutualisation occurred. The people we are concerned about are likely to be spouses who remained at home to nurture and care for children and looked after the home while the man was the sole wage earner. That was the case in the old days, although it is not so much the case now. It is likely to apply to women who were forced to leave employment when they got married, under the terms of the marriage bar.
This issue does not apply to people who are on contributory old age pensions or spouses who have independent means through inheritance or other resources. I ask the Minister to review the situation in the context of people who are being deprived of something, although in legal terms it is not strictly theirs, because of a rampant process of imputation in the Department. The Minister's Department tends to impute matters without examining their background, which is an accountant's way of dealing with them. This issue should be reconsidered in the interests of fairness and equity to ensure that, in normal circumstances, those people will get that to which they are entitled.
If the Deputy is asking me to review it——
Yes.
——I will certainly do so. Now that he has raised the matter, I will have it monitored. There is, however, substantial flexibility here. If there is a joint account, say, from a redundancy or pension lump sum, and a couple is involved, one of whom is in receipt of a qualified adult allowance, they will have the choice of lodging the lump sum in their joint names or to one person. If they lodge it to one person, it will not be accessible and does not affect the other person who will get the qualified adult allowance even if the spouse has over €116,000 in his or her account, because that would not be counted. If, on the other hand, they put the lump sum into a joint account, the rule is that we assess half of that as the means of the person who is seeking the qualified adult allowance. They may be disbarred from it for that reason.
In short, there is no reason for any couple not to use the flexibility that is there. They can choose to put the money in the name of one person or in both names. If they choose the latter, it may affect their benefits but if they put it in one name, it almost certainly will not affect their benefits. Therefore, it is fairly logical what advice they should be given. Unfortunately, there are dotted lines to this in the whole legal area of probate, to which the Deputy has referred.
It is a complicated matter.
I suspect that it is complicating life somewhat for them.
Yes, it is.
I will monitor the situation but there is sufficient flexibility there for a lump sum not to be the cause of ruling out a person getting a qualified adult allowance, which was the Deputy's main concern. As I said in my initial reply, if they have it in a joint account and wish to reassess that and split it up, we will certainly co-operate with them.
