Skip to main content
Normal View

Social Welfare Benefits.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 6 July 2004

Tuesday, 6 July 2004

Questions (441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447)

Róisín Shortall

Question:

475 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on the recent annual report of the appeals office in regard to overpayments to recipients of one parent family payment in cases in which the income of the recipient fluctuated above and below the earnings threshold; the action she has taken since the appeals office drew attention to this problem in its 2003 report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20157/04]

View answer

Written answers

I welcome the social welfare appeals office annual report for 2003 and have noted the main issues raised in the report. In the case of one parent family payment, overpayments arise where beneficiaries have failed to notify my Department of an increase in their weekly earnings. Earnings from employment are assessed on the basis of the total annual earnings for the previous tax year divided by the number of weeks of employment in that year. This method is aimed at ensuring that all those with earnings are treated in a fair and consistent manner.

In all cases, the onus is on the person to notify my Department of the fact that their earnings have increased. Applicants are advised of this when the payment is initially awarded. Notice of this is also included on the personalised payable order book, the preferred payment method for 69% of recipients of one parent family payment.

Following on from the comments of the appeals office, my Department has now arranged for this notice to be amended to specify the actual weekly earnings threshold. This new information will be included in renewal books due to issue this month. This change will help to minimise any misunderstanding there might be on the part of the applicant as regard the need to notify my Department of a change in earnings.

Róisín Shortall

Question:

476 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the statutory instrument under which entitlement to back dated payments was confined to six months; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20158/04]

View answer

The legislative provisions relating to 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 that section. These provisions set out the times within which a person must claim, the disqualifications which apply where a claim is made late, and the circumstances in which the time limits may be extended.

Since 1997 a number of improvements have been made to the provisions relating to late social welfare claims. For instance, prior to 1997 arrears of contributory pension claims were limited to either three months or six months before the date of claim. Regulations made in 2000 — SI 159 of 2000 — put on a statutory basis certain extra-statutory provisions that had applied in the case of late claims under certain schemes. All late claims are now determined in accordance with the legislation.

The regulations also provide for payment to be made on foot of late claims in the case of a range of other schemes for a period of six months prior to the date of claim provided there was good cause for the late claim. The legislation now also provides for easing the restrictions on further backdating late claims under all schemes apart from unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance, and for payment to be made, up to the level of full retrospection where the circumstances would warrant it, where the delay was due to incorrect information having been given by my Department, or illness or a force majeure prevented a person from claiming earlier or the person is dependent on the arrears of payment to relieve financial hardship.

The provisions relating to late claims have been subjected to very close scrutiny in recent years. There is a general obligation on people to claim their social welfare entitlements in time. However, cases will inevitably arise where they fail to do so and the legislative provisions are designed to cater for such situations. I am satisfied that the current provisions strike a reasonable balance between the need to exercise supervision and control of claims and the requirements of sound financial management and control of public expenditure and the need for appropriate recognition to be given to cases of genuine hardship or difficulty.

Róisín Shortall

Question:

477 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will examine the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 11 as an example of inadequate welfare provision for persons who become ill; if she will also examine it as a good example of a case in which there are no incentive to move from welfare dependency to work; and if she will review her Department’s relationship with the Department of Health and Children and the health boards with a view to ending the present practice of separate State organisations making separate decisions on welfare benefits and medical card entitlement without regard to the overall impact on the person concerned. [20194/04]

View answer

It is important to ensure that, in addition to social security programmes being developed in ways that are responsive to the income needs of social welfare recipients, they should also provide opportunities to encourage and assist people to become less dependent on the welfare system. In this context, a number of measures have been introduced to make the social welfare system more employment friendly by removing disincentives to taking up employment.

For example, invalidity pensioners can take up employment or training which is considered to be rehabilitative or therapeutic and retain their pension in full. Under the back to work allowance scheme, invalidity pensioners can take up full-time work and continue to receive their payment on a sliding scale for three years if in employment or four years if self-employed. The family income supplement scheme, which provides financial support to workers with families who are on low incomes, is also available to invalidity pensioners who take up employment.

In addition, measures have been introduced in recent years to mitigate the loss of secondary benefits such as the medical card, fuel allowance, rent and mortgage supplement, etc., by allowing for their retention for a number of years after taking up work or for their withdrawal on a sliding scale. Supports are also available to encourage the spouse-partner of a social welfare recipient to take up employment. One such measure is the tapered withdrawal of adult and child dependent increases as the spouse-partner's earnings from employment increase, that is, the maximum qualified adult dependant increase is payable where the adult dependant's gross weekly earnings do not exceed €88.88. Payment is withdrawn on a gradual, or tapered, basis where the spouse-partner is earning between €88.88 and €210 per week.

Since the Government came into office, a number of changes to these tapered arrangements have been introduced with a view to ensuring that the impact of increases in earnings are not negated for families where the spouse is the sole earner and is in low paid employment. First, the range of income over which the qualified adult allowance is withdrawn has been progressively extended. Second, provision has been made for the deferral of the loss of half the child dependant allowance until the earnings of the spouse-partner exceeds the upper bound of the income range. In addition, the weekly rates of qualified adult allowance have been increased annually in successive budgets.

In the case raised by the Deputy, the family income is made up of a weekly invalidity pension of €149.95 a week, family income supplement of €38 a week and weekly income from the spouse's employment of €195, giving a total family income of €382.95. As this figure is substantially in excess of the weekly rate of invalidity pension that would be paid if the spouse was not in employment, there is a clear incentive to move from welfare dependency to work in this case. In addition, the total weekly income is below the current family income threshold for qualification for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance.

In the context of this case, the Deputy has also raised the interaction of benefits provided by my Department with the range of benefits and supports provided by the health boards. It should be noted that, in addition to income maintenance needs, many people with disabilities also have additional needs arising from their disabilities. In examining this issue, the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities recommended that these additional costs of disability should be catered for separately to income maintenance needs. The commission accordingly recommended the introduction of a variable cost of disability payment, to be administered by the Department of Health and Children. This payment, which would be underpinned by the introduction of a nation-wide needs assessment procedure, would not be subject to tax, nor would it be means-tested.

In the light of the commission's recommendations, a working group was established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to examine the feasibility of introducing a cost of disability payment. This working group, which is chaired by the Department of Health and Children and includes representatives of relevant Departments and agencies, including my Department, is examining the range of complex issues involved in this area. The outcome of this group's deliberations will be important in informing future policy in this area.

Róisín Shortall

Question:

478 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the discussions her Department has had with the Department of Health and Children in regard to overall welfare cover for persons suffering from long-term illness; her views on whether there is incoherent and uncoordinated policy for this client group whereby means-testing by completely separate Government organisations can mean the loss of welfare benefits as well as the medical card without any regard to the overall impact on the person concerned; if she has satisfied herself that the welfare provision for persons with a long-term illness is adequate when such persons do not meet the credit requirements for invalidity pension and when income from a spouse rules out assistance under disability allowance; and if she will examine the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 11 as an example of inadequate welfare provision in this area. [20195/04]

View answer

The social welfare code provides for a range of social insurance benefits which are financed through PRSI contributions and a range of social assistance payments, which are payable subject to a means test and financed by the Exchequer through general tax revenue. The purpose of the means test is to ensure that, for people who do not have social insurance cover or who have insufficient PRSI contributions to qualify for benefit, resources are targeted at those most in need. Social protection of the population in general is, therefore, provided through a combination of insurance-based payments and payments targeted at need.

The person concerned qualified for disability benefit in April 1996. However, as she had fewer than 260 PRSI contributions paid, payment of this benefit was limited in duration to 12 months. To qualify for disability benefit beyond 12 months, or for invalidity pension, a person must pay at least 260 PRSI contributions — five full years. The different PRSI rules for different social insurance payments reflect the nature of the particular benefit claimed. The aim of these rules is to preserve a fair balance between the average contributor and the average beneficiary. Therefore, when a person claims a long-term benefit and will be drawing heavily on the resources of the social insurance fund, it is considered appropriate that the tests should be more stringent.

On the termination of the disability benefit payment in April 1997, the person in question qualified for disability allowance, which is a means-tested payment. In assessing means, account is taken of the claimant's own means and, as she is married, her husband's means were also assessed. Disability allowance was awarded at a reduced rate, on the basis of her husband's income. This allowance continued in payment until April this year, when it was terminated following a review of the couple's means. This decision has been appealed and an oral hearing will be held shortly. While the arrangements outlined above serve to explain the particular circumstances outlined in the Deputy's question, it should be noted that people who are ill or have a disability are treated in a similar manner to applicants for other social assistance payments, for example, unemployment assistance or old age pension. A departure from these arrangements would represent a fundamental change in the social welfare system, with major implications both in terms of the cost and financing of the system.

A recently completed review of the income maintenance payments for people who are ill and people with disabilities had, as one of its aims, the identification of the respective roles of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children in the provision of income maintenance. This review, which was chaired by my Department and included representatives of the Department of Health and Children, did not recommend any changes in the current social insurance-social assistance model of income maintenance provision for people who are ill or disabled.

It is nevertheless recognised that, in addition to income maintenance needs, people with disabilities also have additional needs arising from their disabilities. The Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities recommended that these additional costs of disability should be catered for separately from income maintenance needs. In this regard, the commission recommended the introduction of a variable cost of disability payment, to be administered by the Department of Health and Children. This payment, which would be underpinned by the introduction of a nation-wide needs assessment procedure, would not be subject to tax, nor would it be means-tested.

In the light of the commission's recommendations, a working group was established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to examine the feasibility of introducing a cost of disability payment. This working group, which is chaired by the Department of Health and Children and includes representatives of relevant Departments and agencies, including my Department, is examining the range of complex issues involved in this area. The outcome of this group's deliberations will be important in informing future policy in this area.

John Cregan

Question:

479 Mr. Cregan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will increase the living alone allowance in the budget for 2005; if there has been a study carried out into the relevant living costs of one pensioner vis-à-vis a pensioner couple; and if she will have this issue examined. [20389/04]

View answer

The living alone allowance is an additional payment of €7.70 per week made to people aged 66 years or over who are in receipt of certain social welfare type payments and who are living alone. It is also available to people under 66 years of age who are living alone and are receiving payments under one of a number of invalidity type schemes. I am aware that analysis undertaken by the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, indicates that those who live alone have a greater risk of poverty.

The policy in regard to support for pensioners has been to commit resources to improving the personal pension rates for all pensioners, rather than supplementary payments such as the living alone allowance. This is the most effective way of ensuring that the position of all our pensioners is improved.

Widows and widowers have received a number of special increases in recent years which were designed to align their payments with the old age contributory pension. This process was completed in the budget for 2004 and the widow-widower's contributory pension for those over 66 years of age now stands at €167.30 per week. The widow-widower's non-contributory pension increased to €154 per week. The equivalent rates in 1997 were €90.28 and €85.71, respectively. Any proposals to increase the living alone allowance would have to be considered in a budgetary context.

John Cregan

Question:

480 Mr. Cregan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the overall policy regarding two social welfare payments; if she will consider or investigate the full payment to all social welfare clients based on their own contribution record irrespective of other payments they may have; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20395/04]

View answer

The social welfare system is primarily a contingency-based system, with entitlement based on defined contingencies, such as sickness, unemployment, old age or widowhood. Social welfare legislation provides that, in general, only one social welfare payment is payable at the one time. It can happen that a person may experience more than one contingency at the same time, for example, an unemployed person may become sick. A general principle usually applies whereby, even if a person experiences more than one of the contingencies at any one time, he or she only receive one of those payments and this would be that paid at the higher level. This principle is common to social security systems across the world.

My overall objective is to ensure that the total social welfare budget is applied to the best effect in tackling disadvantage and continuing the Government's policy of significant improvement in basic payments to social welfare recipients, and with other improvements to the social welfare code.

Michael Ring

Question:

481 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if electricity meter readers can qualify for full social welfare entitlements when not working in view of the fact that they now pay a full class A stamp and in view of their specialised employment circumstances. [20479/04]

View answer

A number of meter readers appealed the decision that they were self-employed to the social welfare appeals office. An appeals officer found that they were employees of the ESB. The case has been appealed to the High Court under section 271 of the Social Welfare( Consolidation) Act 1993. Pending the outcome of this appeal, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on the matter.

Top
Share