asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the 5p per week increase for dependent children of certain social welfare recipients covers the cost of living increase since 21 July 1981.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
4.
The only social welfare recipients to receive an increase of 5p per week for dependent children were persons receiving a supplementary blind pension allowance and I assume this is what the Deputy is referring to in his question. This allowance, however, is payable as a supplement to persons who also receive the normal blind pension with which increases in respect of dependent children are also paid. The amount of the combined increases payable with both the supplementary allowance and the basic blind pension in respect of dependent children amounts to 35p a week for each of the first two children and 30p a week for each additional child. In no case, therefore, did a beneficiary receive an increase of only 5p a week for a dependent child.
The Minister was at the poverty conference in Kilkenny last Sunday and she is well aware of the complaints made there about budget No.1 of 21 July and budget No.2 of 1 September when VAT was increased by 50 per cent. She is well aware that the 5p, or the total social welfare increases in the Budget of 21 July——
A question, Deputy.
——which were 5 per cent and 3 per cent, in no way compensated the social welfare recipients for the total cost of living increase. Will the Minister, as Fianna Fáil did, give an increase in the region of 20 per cent or 25 per cent and not a miserable 3 per cent or 5 per cent?
The point made by the Deputy about the 5p a week does not stand because in no case did any beneficiary receive an increase of 5p a week. The lowest was 35p a week. In some cases that increase involved 5 per cent and in some cases 3 per cent. In the preparation of the July budget, the Department of Finance estimated that the cost of living would increase by 3 per cent as a direct result of the proposals. For those who received the increase of 3 per cent this would at least maintain their living standard and in the case of those who received 5 per cent it meant an effective increase. There were price increases other than those directly resulting from the budget. A figure of 5 per cent in the period which we are talking about would be the equivalent over the year of a much higher increase, on top of the increases which had already been received. We are committed in the next budget to giving a very sizeable increase which will cover the rate of inflation and give a significant increase in real incomes to all social welfare recipients.
Does the Minister agree that the 5 per cent and 3 per cent increases given in the budget of July 21 were not sufficient to cover the cost of living increases since then?
They were estimated to cover the cost of living increases as a direct result of our budget. I accept that the general rise in inflation which has been a feature of our finances for the past number of years has had a very serious effect. The trend towards that inflationary situation existed long before we took office. I accept that all involved are affected by that.
Would the Minister agree that in the International Year of Disabled Persons, to offer a blind pensioner a 5p increase for dependent children is an insult? Would she further agree that such a ridiculous increase arose only because the Coalition Government in their package gave no thought to the real effect of a 5 per cent increase on these beneficiaries? I cannot see how an increase of 5 per cent would purchase anything more that a few sweets. You would be lucky to purchase a lollipop with 5p. Can the Minister say that her Taoiseach really believes an increase of 5p a week for the dependants of a blind pensioner is anything but derisory and an insult in this International Year of Disabled Persons?
No beneficiary received an increase of 5p only. The 5p increase was on top of a further increase in dependants' allowances on the basic pension. It was an increase as a supplement. If the Deputy is so outraged at 5p being 5 per cent of a basic allowance, how could he have been a member of the Government who established the basic allowance at that level? We are scoring cheap points.
Would the Minister agree that in our two last budgets those allowances were increased by 25 per cent notwithstanding very difficult economic circumstances? It has yet to be seen what this Government will do in the circumstances which will prevail under their increased inflation. Will the Minister agree that a 5p increase in this allowance does not indicate very much for disabled people?
There was no 5p increase only for any beneficiary. I would be glad if the Deputy could refrain from repeating that point which is an erroneous point. There was a very welcome 25 per cent increase in the benefits last year and I hope that kind of progress will be continued. There is need for great development in this area.
5.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the extent to which the supplementary benefit budgets of health boards have had or may have to be increased over original estimates to meet the extra demands made on them by reason of delays in the payment of benefits by her Department and the arrangements that are made to recoup to health boards moneys advanced by them to insured persons in lieu of her Department's entitlements; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
The information sought by the Deputy in the first part of his question is not available. There are provisions in social welfare legislation for the recoupment to health boards, from any arrears of social welfare payments due to claimants, of interim payments of supplementary welfare allowance made to such claimants pending decisions on their social welfare claims. The arrangements for recoupment are that health boards apply for refund of amounts paid by them and these amounts are refunded to the health boards out of any arrears of benefit that may be due to a claimant from the Department of Social Welfare.
What would the Minister say if a health board have to take out an overdraft in order to meet payments of this kind? Is the interest the health board have to pay on such overdraft refunded by the Department and, if not, why?
There has been a problem in the last while due to the increase in take-up of the benefits and this is something that has to be welcomed in part. It is due to a change in the atmosphere associated with home assistance schemes in that people are less unwilling to take advantage of them and the result has been an undue demand on health boards. Meetings are about to take place between the Department of Health and representatives of the health boards to iron out some of the problems that have arisen due to this over-demand. I hope that between them they may be able to iron out some of the difficulties mentioned by the Deputy.
Will the Minister not agree that many of the problems of delays in payment of benefit can be attributed to the fact that application forms for various benefits are not available at local level to applicants? Will the Minister say if it is her intention to appoint local agents so that application forms will be readily available and sent immediately to the Department?
The general intention of this Government, as I believe it was the intention of the previous Government, is to try to decentralise as much as possible. If the Deputy will give me details of difficulties encountered with regard to application forms that will be looked at.
In the towns of north Cork, in Mallow, Fermoy, Mitchelstown, Buttevant and Doneraile, application forms are not available. I am asking the Minister if it is her intention to appoint agents and to have application forms made available?
There are no specific proposals regarding the appointment of agents but we shall certainly consider the general problem.
The Minister has stated that there are additional costs arising for the health boards. Will the Minister give an undertaking to recoup the extra costs to them at the end of the year?
The arrangements for recoupment are statutory and are standardised and will be implemented. The particular difficulties that emerge at the moment due to the demand on the services are being looked into by a meeting between the health boards and officials of the Department.
6.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why all recipients of unemployment assistance do not qualify for the non-contributory old age pension when the qualifying age is attained.
Each of the two payments referred to is subject to a means test and, with one exception, the rules for the calculation of means as laid down in the Social Welfare Acts are less stringent for old age pension than for unemployment assistance. Ordinarily, therefore, a recipient of unemployment assistance could expect to qualify for old age pension without any difficulty.
The exception is in the case of farmers in certain specified areas whose land valuation does not exceed £20 and who have their means assessed for unemployment assistance purposes on a notional basis, irrespective of the actual income which they derive from farming. This system of notional assessment does not apply in the case of old age pension.
It is possible, therefore, that a person in receipt of unemployment assistance based on means assessed under the notional system would find that his means, assessed on a factual basis for old age pension purposes, are higher.
I am sure the Minister will agree with me that when a person reaches the qualifying age for an old age pension he or she should be entitled to as much as was received in unemployment assistance. I accept basically what the Minister said but I am sure she must know of many cases where people with a valuation of less than £20 who were receiving unemployment assistance received a negative reply from the Department with regard to their old age pension application, and this after a long delay. Has the Minister any comment on that?
These people obviously fall into the categories I have outlined. Obviously there is an anomaly in this area. The notional system favoured them, but when assessed on a factual basis and on a fairly lenient means test they are assessed to have in excess of the income for an old age pension.
I accept what the Minister has said that there is an anomaly in this area. Will she look into the matter with a view to having this corrected?
I will certainly have the matter looked at again.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why her Department are seeking to reclaim further unemployment benefit moneys of £515.70 from a person (details supplied) in County Galway in respect of whom the court decided that £994.20, which was the sum originally sought by the Department, should be repaid, in view of the fact that this further claim was not included in her Department's original claim; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
The person concerned was discovered to have been working while at the same time drawing unemployment benefit between May 1977 and August 1978, during which time he received unemployment benefit amounting to £1,434.17 to which he was not entitled. A deciding officer disallowed his claim and made a statutory decision to the effect that this sum was due to be refunded by the person concerned on foot of the benefit obtained fraudulently and he was requested to refund the amount in full.
In view of the seriousness of the offence he was prosecuted under the penalty provisions of the Social Welfare Acts and convicted. For technical reasons he was not prosecuted in respect of the entire period over which the offence took place and, accordingly, the amount of benefit mentioned in the charge, namely £944.20, related only to the days in respect of which he was being charged. While he has refunded this amount, the balance of the total amount fraudulently obtained is still due to be refunded under the Acts. He has, therefore, been asked to repay the amount still outstanding and has been given the option of doing so by instalments if necessary.
In the event that the individual in this case will not pay the money, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Department will take?
As it is not possible to reopen legal proceedings, the Department will continue to seek and request the money. Should the person become entitled to further benefits, deductions will be taken.
Will the Minister say if it is the practice of the Department to take legal action against people who have overdrawn social welfare benefits?
As far as I can gather it is the practice that where there is a serious case of fraud the case is pursued in the courts.
Will the Minister state if the Department are successful in pursuing their claims?
That is a separate question.
It is related to the question.
I do not have any statistics with regard to this matter. In this case, clearly the Department were successful to recoup a partial amount and perhaps they may recoup further amounts. The problem occurred with the need to have precise and detailed information but information for all the months involved was not available. The fraud amounted to £1,400. The Department have managed to recoup £940 and they will continue to seek the remainder. As I have said, if this individual claims benefit in the future, at that point some of the money lost through fraud may be recouped.
Will the Minister not agree that the previous Government set up a special investigation unit to pursue such cases and that the unit in the Department of Social Welfare have had a fairly good measure of success and have developed considerably?
The existence of such a unit is useful in terms of pursuing all frauds which are, of course, against the spirit of the system and damage beneficiaries as well as the system.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether she will consider the introduction of a single parent allowance or, as an interim measure, a deserted husband's allowance.
Provision already exists for the payment of social welfare pensions or allowances to widows, deserted wives, prisoners' wives and unmarried mothers. A pension may also be paid to the invalided and dependent widower of an insured woman who dies as a result of an occupational accident or disease or who was, at her death, receiving an increase of old age (contributory) pension or retirement pension in respect of him. Increases are made in these payments for dependent children.
Extension of these specific payments to other classes of single parents or to deserted husbands is not at present contemplated. In case of need such persons may be eligible for a supplementary welfare allowance.
Would the Minister not agree that the present scheme for deserted wives allowance is illogical in that it provides benefit for an unsupported deserted wife but not for an unsupported wife whose marriage has broken down in different circumstances or for an unsupported wife who is amicably separated from her husband who later refuses to support her? A wife who is separated by agreement and who has two children might get approximately £32 per week under the supplementary allowance scheme but if she was fortunate, in a social welfare context, to be deserted she would get £42 per week. In the light of that would the Minister consider reviewing the scheme?
There are a number of anomalies in the scheme and the case mentioned is one that will have to be considered. The whole scheme is being considered at present by the Department and the specific matters mentioned by the Deputy and ones I have come across, for which I have a great deal of sympathy, will be examined.
Does the Minister agree that the present scheme is illogical not only in its application to wives but to husbands? There are a number of husbands who are deserted by their wives and who are looking after dependent children. They have no form of income other than social welfare. At present they also are depending on supplementary welfare allowance. There is no such thing as a deserted husband's allowance. Would the Minister consider introducing a deserted husband's allowance and also consider the possibility that the existing scheme for deserted wives allowance could be challenged in the courts and possibly held to be unconstitutional? If such a decision was reached in the courts the whole scheme could collapse. Would the Minister consider this situation?
I will consider the matters raised. The general intention of the allowances that exist at present are to support persons from whom the breadwinner has been removed in one form or another. In most countries, including ours, this is normally the husband. However, if there were a sufficient number of husbands in these circumstances the matter would warrant more attention.
Does the Minister consider in a situation where a couple decide to separate amicably, with both feeling equally deserted, that it would be logical that the recipient of a deserted wives allowance might well have a spouse who would feel he was equally qualified as a separated husband? Does the Minister consider that the State should take up the tab at that stage?
The Deputy has outlined an interesting situation which we will bear in mind when we are considering proposals.