Written Answers Nos. 1207-1226
1207. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection when a decision will be reached in the case of a person (details supplied) in respect of a carer's allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34435/17]
View answerMy department received an application for carer’s allowance (CA) from the person concerned on 15 December 2016 in respect of the provision of care to both her parents.
It is a condition for receipt of a CA that the person(s) being cared for must have a disability whose effect is that they require full-time care and attention. This is defined as requiring from another person, continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions or continuous supervision in order to avoid danger to him or herself, and being likely to require that level of care for at least twelve months.
The evidence, including a medical report, submitted in support of the application for CA for the mother of the person concerned was examined and the deciding officer decided that this evidence was insufficient to show that the requirement for full-time care and attention was satisfied.
There was no medical evidence submitted in support of the application for CA for the father of the person concerned. On 14 February 2017 a medical report was issued to be completed by a medical practitioner in respect of him. To date it has not been returned.
It is also a condition for receipt of CA that the carer provides full-time care and attention. A person can be considered to be providing full-time care and attention where they are engaged in employment, self-employment or on training courses outside the home for a maximum of 15 hours per week, provided that they can show to the satisfaction of a deciding officer that adequate care has been provided for the care recipient in their absence.
The person concerned was requested on 27 February 2017 to provide evidence to show that she was working outside the home for less than 15 hours per week. The required documents and evidence were not provided, which meant the deciding officer could not determine if the condition regarding the provision of full time care and attention was satisfied.
For these reasons, the applications for CA were disallowed.
The person concerned was notified on 29 March 2017 of the disallowances, the reasons for them and of her right of review and appeal.
My department were notified on 13 June 2017 that the person concerned had appealed this decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office (SWAO). A submission in support of the decision is being prepared and will shortly be forwarded along with the file to the SWAO for determination.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1208. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if a decision to refuse an exceptional needs payment can be reviewed as part of an appeal in the case of persons (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34436/17]
View answerFurther to PQ Ref: 23425 the position remains unchanged. The decision to refuse an application for an exceptional needs payment in the case of the first person concerned was reviewed and the decision of the designated officer upheld. There are no outstanding applications pending in the case of the persons concerned.
It is open to the persons concerned to submit a fresh application for an exceptional needs payment if they do not have sufficient means to meet their needs. They should contact their local designated officer in this regard and submit all relevant documentation in support of their application.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1209. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will examine the case of a person (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34437/17]
View answerThe person concerned has been awarded a jobseekers payment from the department with the first payment issuing this week, including all arrears due.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the deputy.
1210. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if an oral hearing can be arranged in the case of a person (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34440/17]
View answerThe Social Welfare Appeals Office has advised me that it is intended to convene an oral hearing in order to determine the appeal of the person concerned.
Every effort will be made to hear the case as quickly as possible and the person concerned will be informed when arrangements for the oral hearing have been made.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions in relation to social welfare entitlements.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1211. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the procedure to be followed to facilitate a new version of an application for a PPS number for a person (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34441/17]
View answerThe requirements for the allocation of a Personal Public Service (PPS) Number are:
- acceptable evidence of identity, which for EEA citizens is a current valid passport or national ID card where issued;
- evidence as to why a PPS Number is required (i.e., to carry out a transaction with a State body specified in legislation as permitted to use the PPS Number); and
- acceptable evidence of address (e.g., a utility bill in the person’s name).
Further detailed information on the allocation of PPS Numbers is available on the Department’s website at http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Public-Service-Identity_holder.aspx
As the closest PPS Number allocation centre for this person is at Parnell Street, Dublin, she should attend there. Appointments for this location are booked via www.MyWelfare.ie.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1212. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason a photo ID services card has been refused in the case of a person (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34447/17]
View answerA Public Services Card is issued to an individual following a robust registration process to establish and verify the person’s identity. Part of the required evidence of identity for a non-EEA national to get a Public Services Card is a current valid passport.
The person concerned has been asked to attend with her passport, but has not yet provided it.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1213. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the correct level of rent support available to a person (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34448/17]
View answerAccording to the records of the Department, the person concerned is in receipt of the correct level of Rent Supplement for a person of her circumstances and family composition.
The Deputy will be aware that Dublin as has been designated as a Rental Pressure Zone (RPZ). Under the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016, rents are only permitted to be increased according to a prescribed formula by a maximum of 4% annually. Should the client have any queries, they are advised to contact the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) for further details.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1214. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the estimated amount that could be raised from increasing employers PRSI towards the EU effective average rate of 20%, that is, by increasing the effective rate by 1%, 2% or 5%. [34587/17]
View answerCurrently, Class A employers pay PRSI at the rate of 8.5% where weekly earnings are between €38 and €376. Once weekly earnings exceed €376, the rate of employer PRSI is 10.75%.
The increase in the PRSI yield to the Social Insurance Fund from increasing the class A employer PRSI rates by 1%, 2% and 5%, is provided in the table below.
|
% Increase in Rate of Employer PRSI |
Increased Yield from Increase in 8.5% Lower Rate |
Increased Yield from Increase in 10.75% Higher Rate |
Total Increased Yield |
|
1% |
€36m |
€683m |
€719m |
|
2% |
€72m |
€1,366m |
€1,438m |
|
5% |
€181m |
€3,416m |
€3,597m |
These estimates are based on the latest available data and reflect macro-economic indicators for 2018 only. It should be noted that the estimates do not take possible changes in employer behaviour arising from increasing the rates of contributions into account.
1215. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the estimated cost of increasing all weekly jobseeker's payments and the back to education allowance to €188, €200. €204 and €210. [34588/17]
View answer1218. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of restoring the fuel allowance by extending the season by six weeks. [34591/17]
View answer1220. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of increasing all weekly social welfare rates to €200, €204 and €210. [34593/17]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 1215, 1218 and 1220 together.
It should be noted that the rate of back to education allowance for jobseekers on age-related reduced rates of payment will increase to the €193 rate from September 2017, as announced in Budget 2017. The full year cost in 2018 of increasing the weekly rates of jobseeker’s allowance and supplementary welfare allowance, is detailed in the table. I understand that the Deputy is referring to increasing the weekly rate paid to those who are on age-related reduced rates of payment to the current weekly rate of rate of €193 (instead of €188 per week stated in the question).
|
Increase weekly rates to: |
Cost - € million |
|
€193.00 |
111.3 |
|
€200.00 |
200.1 |
|
€204.00 |
250.0 |
|
€210.00 |
325.7 |
The full year cost of extending the duration of the fuel allowance season by six weeks is estimated to be €53 million in 2018.
The full year cost in 2018 of increasing the weekly rates of payment (where they are below the proposed rates) to social welfare recipients who are aged under 66 is detailed in the table below:
|
Increase weekly rates to: |
Cost - € million |
|
€200.00 |
321.4 |
|
€204.00 |
456.2 |
|
€210.00 |
661.0 |
The costings listed above include proportionate increases for qualified adults and for those on reduced rates of payment, where relevant. It should also be noted that these costings are subject to change over the coming months in the context of emerging trends and associated revision of the estimated numbers of recipients for 2018.
1216. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost to introduce a minimum weekly gross wage of €600 for all full-time employees under the aegis of her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34589/17]
View answer1217. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of introducing a minimum wage of €15 an hour for all employees under the aegis of her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34590/17]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 1216 and 1217 together.
My Department has undertaken no costing of the initiative outlined by the Deputy as the introduction of any such scheme would necessarily have to take place on a cross Governmental basis and costs determined centrally as part of the estimates budgetary process. Pre-determined salary scales negotiated at central level are applied to all staff in the department.
On a purely indicative basis it is not anticipated that the introduction of such a scheme in my own Department would incur significant cost as the majority of staff are on salary points above that mentioned by the Deputy.
1219. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of reintroducing the telephone allowance. [34592/17]
View answerThe telephone allowance was abolished in Budget 2014. The savings arising from the initial reduction and subsequent discontinuance of the telephone allowance meant that my Department was able to retain the other valuable elements of the household benefits package such as the electricity and gas allowance and the television licence. My Department will spend approximately €232 million this year on these elements of the household benefits package for over 427,000 customers.
The cost of the telephone allowance scheme had risen significantly each year, as the number of eligible customers grew. At the end of September 2013 there were almost 396,000 receiving the telephone allowance compared to approximately 316,000 people in 2007. This was an increase of 25%, or an average increase of nearly 4% per annum.
The value of the telephone allowance before it was discontinued was €9.50 per month (equivalent to €114 per annum). Therefore, the cost of restoring the allowance at this level in 2018 might be estimated at approximately €50 million per annum, although the precise figure would depend on a number of factors.
The Government is keenly aware of the impact of Budget decisions on the Department’s clients, and strives to ensure that the money available is targeted in the most effective way. In Budget 2016, the first increase in the basic rate of the State pension in seven years was given. This increased the personal rate of the non-contributory pension to €222, and that of the contributory pension to €233.30. There was also a €2.50 increase in the rate of the Fuel Allowance, from €20 to €22.50 per week.
In Budget 2017, there was a further increase in the rate of State pensions by €5, which has increased the maximum personal rate of the State pension (contributory) to €238.30.
Therefore, over the past two Budgets, the maximum weekly rate for State Pensions has increased by €8 per week. The value of these increases is well in excess of the value of the telephone allowance previously provided.
Any decision to restore the telephone allowance would have to be considered in the context of overall budgetary negotiations. In the previous two Budgets, the Government has concentrated resources on increasing the rate of the pension, rather than on the Household Benefits package.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1221. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of reversing all cuts and changes to child benefit since 2008. [34594/17]
View answerChild Benefit is a monthly payment made to families with children in respect of all qualified children up to the age of 16 years. The payment continues to be paid in respect of children up to their 18th birthday who are in full-time education, or who have a disability. Child Benefit is currently paid to around 627,000 families in respect of some 1.2 million children, with an estimated expenditure of over €2 billion in 2017.
Between 2000 and 2009, there were significant increases in Child Benefit payments and during that period overall expenditure on Child Benefit grew from €638 million to approximately €2.5 billion per year. This reflected a policy focus on targeting additional resources towards the provision of universal child income supports.
Between 2009 and 2013 a number of reductions in the rates of Child Benefit were made.
Budget 2009 provided for the reduction of the maximum age for which Child Benefit is paid and from 2010 Child Benefit was no longer paid in respect of those aged 18.
In both 2015 and 2016 the monthly Child Benefit rate increased by €5 and it is now paid at a standard rate of €140 per month for each child.
Given the numerous changes made to Child Benefit since 2008 it is not possible to cost with accuracy reversing all cuts and changes to the scheme since 2008.
However, taking the lowest rate payable in 2008, of €166 per child per month, and applying that to the number of children in respect of whom Child Benefit is currently paid would result in an additional cost of around €374 million. Were the higher rates paid in respect of families with three or more children also to be restored, were the upper age limit to be increased to 19 as it was in 2008 and were the grants paid at birth on all multiple births to be reintroduced this would result in a significantly higher figure, which is not currently possible to accurately cost.
1222. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of introducing a universal State pension of €250. [34595/17]
View answerAccording to the latest census figures, in 2016 there were 593,411 people aged 66 and above in the country, and this would have increased in the period since then.
Paying each person aged 66 and over a Universal State Pension weekly rate of €250 that year would have cost over €7.7 billion, if restricted to people resident in the State and not including those who have retired to an address outside the State. This would not include additional costs which are contained within the pension budget such as Widows/widowers pensions for those under the age of 66, increases for qualified Adults under the age of 66, and the additional allowances that pensions attract. Demographic pressures alone mean that pension costs increase by some €200 million each year, and this annual increase would be greater if the rate was higher and the Universal State Pension was paid at the maximum rate to everyone over 66, regardless of their means and/or PRSI contribution record.
If the State pension became a universal payment for those over 66, at a weekly rate of €250, it is estimated that this might result in an additional cost of some €1.2 billion in 2018, however greater detail would be required to provide a more precise estimate.
It might be noted that such a move would also remove a disincentive to early retirement, as paying PRSI up to pension age would not increase pension entitlements, and this would be expected to result in a further economic cost to the Exchequer and to the Social Insurance Fund.
It should be noted that these costings are subject to change over the coming months in the context of emerging trends and associated revision of the estimated numbers of recipients for 2018.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1223. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of reversing all cuts and changes to the one-parent family payment since 2008. [34596/17]
View answerThe cost implications of reversing all cuts and changes to the One-Parent Family Payment (OFP) since 2008 are very complex to estimate and would require significant resources and time to prepare.
There are three significant barriers to undertaking this costing exercise. Firstly, by reversing the amendments made to the OFP scheme, this would likely result in a substantial cohort of lone parents that are currently not in receipt of a social welfare payment becoming eligible and therefore moving onto a social welfare payment. As members of this cohort are not currently in receipt of any social welfare payment, the Department currently has no visibility of them and therefore, it would be impossible to estimate the numbers involved.
Secondly, this proposal may incentivise some customers to move from alternative payments such as Jobseekers Allowance (JA), the Jobseeker’s Transitional Payment (JST) and the Back to Work Family Dividend (BTWFD) back onto the OFP. It would not be possible for the Department to estimate the magnitude of this flow between schemes.
Finally, reversing the changes to the OFP would also increase the incidence of dual payments of OFP and the Family Income Supplement (FIS), which would lead to significant but unquantifiable reductions in FIS payments for some lone parents.
These unknown factors are critical to providing a reliable costing. The Department is therefore not in a position to provide the costing requested.
1224. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the cost of increasing the back to school clothing and footwear allowance by €50. [34597/17]
View answerThe back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme provides a once-off payment to eligible families to assist with the costs of clothing and footwear when children start or return to school each autumn. The allowance is being paid from mid-July to allow parents sufficient time to prepare for back to school.
The rates of the payment for the 2017 scheme are being increased from €100 to €125 for children aged 4 to 11 and from €200 to €250 for children aged 12 years and over. This brings the total allocation for the allowance this year to €47.4 million, an increase of €10 million on what was originally proposed for 2017.
A €50 increase in the 2017 rates would bring the rates to €175 for children aged 4 to 11 and to €300 for children aged 12 years and over. The annual cost to increase the payments to €175 and €300 from the recently announced 2017 rates would be €14.1 million over and above the €47.4 million now allocated to the scheme for 2017.
In addition to the increases in the rates for 2017, the household income limits for the scheme have also been increased to ensure that increases in social welfare announced in Budget 2017 will not affect people’s entitlement to the allowance.
Any further changes to the rates of the allowance would have to be considered within a budgetary context and the scope of the overall resources available for welfare improvements.
The Deputy may be aware that my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, has recently published a new circular on the measures to be adopted by schools to reduce the cost of school uniforms and other costs, as part of a range of measures to take greater account of the needs of parents and students in the school system.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
1225. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the estimated annual cost of extending paid maternity leave to 42 weeks or 52 weeks [34598/17]
View answer1226. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Social Protection the estimated annual cost of extending paid maternity leave to 42 weeks and 52 weeks. [34599/17]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 1225 and 1226 together.
The estimated additional cost of extending the duration of maternity benefit is approximately €10.3 million for each extra week, at the current rate of €235 per week. Maternity benefit is currently paid for 26 weeks.
The table estimates the additional cost of increasing the duration of maternity benefit by 16 weeks to 42 weeks, and by 26 weeks to 52 weeks. These estimates are based on the cost for a full year and assume that any increase in duration is implemented from the beginning of the year.
Estimated annual cost of increasing the duration of maternity benefit based on 2017 rates
|
No. of additional weeks |
Estimated cost (€m) |
|
16 |
164.8 |
|
26 |
267.8 |
It should be noted that this costing is subject to change over the coming months in the context of emerging trends and associated revision of the estimated numbers of recipients for 2017. It should also be noted that there are additional costs to the Exchequer as these estimates do not include the costs of salary top-ups for public/civil servants.
