asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that in a case where an applicant for a non-contributory old age pension has a husband who is working, even on a casual basis, she is assessed in her claim on the gross earnings of her husband except for what is allowed under PRSI; if he is aware that income tax and other deductions are not taken into account; and if he will make a statement on the matter with a view to having this anomaly removed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
11.
In assessing means for old age pension purposes in the case of a married couple, the total means of the couple are established and the applicant is assessed with half the joint means. Under the legislation, account must be taken of any income in cash which is likely to be received during the succeeding year. In the case of earnings from employment, gross income is assessed but all expenses actually and necessarily incurred in earning the income are allowed as a deduction. PRSI contributions are regarded as an expense arising from employment and are allowed as a deduction. Income tax, however, is not regarded as such.
The method of assessment is in accordance with the statutory provisions, and it is not considered that any change is warranted in the legislation which would have the effect of providing tax relief through the social assistance system. In any event, in the case of old age pensioners, entitlement to pension is not in general affected by the fact that gross income rather than after tax income is assessed as means. The exemption limits for income tax purposes are such that persons whose incomes exceed these limits and who are, consequently, liable for tax would generally not qualify for pensions, even if the after tax income rather than the gross income were taken into account in assessing means.
Having regard to the veiled apology in the Minister's reply, would he now agree with me that it is about time that the law was changed and that income tax deductions be taken into account as far as income is concerned in the case of applicants who are old age pensioners and non-contributory old age pensioners? Would he not think it fair, proper and just, to say the least, that allowances be made for moneys paid in income tax?
If there were additional resources available to me to give some supplementary payments to old age pensioners, I would not be inclined to apply them in the way the Deputy suggests. The greater the income tax deduction, the greater the income of the applicant for the pension; the greater the income of the applicant for the pension, the less need there is for a non-contributory pension. I would not see it as a fair way of distributing any extra resources which might become available to do what the Deputy suggests. I would not do it in that way.
12.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason he did not agree to the ICTU proposal that the unclaimed family income supplement fund be used to pay a double week's payment to the long term unemployed at Christmas, 1984 and if he will give a commitment to make provision in the 1985 Estimates for such payments.
13.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a double week's payment was not made to the long term unemployed last Christmas in view of the fact that money budgeted for unemployment payments in 1984, but not spent, would have covered the cost of this; if he will ensure that sufficient funds are budgeted to pay a double week to this category at Christmas 1985; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together.
Provision was not included for a double payment last Christmas in the original 1984 Budget. This was also the position in previous years. In the light of overall budgetary trends both on the spending and funding sides, the Government, however, subsequently found it possible as the year progressed to allocate a maximum of some £20 million for a double payment. Within this amount, it was not possible to provide a double payment for the long term unemployed.
The question of a double payment at Christmas 1985 is a matter which will be considered by the Government in the light of budgetary developments during the year.
Could the Minister indicate under what headings the saving was made from which the extra £20 million was paid to the categories of people who received it at Christmas?
I think that is a separate question.
Could I then ask the Minister if it is not true that the money was paid from the saving made on unemployment payments, which amounted to £68 million and which could have been used to cover the double payment to long term unemployed if the Government had so chosen to do? Could he indicate why it was not chosen to do that?
While it would have been possible to provide for a double payment to the long term unemployed out of the savings on unemployment payments, the Government in their decision to grant double payments to pensioners and other recipients had to take into account the overall target set for expenditure and revenue on the current budget side. The overall level of savings in the current budget in 1984 was some £50 million, which led to a reduction of £49 million in total Exchequer borrowing requirements for the year to £1,825 million. Up to the final quarter, there were serious dificulties in raising the necessary domestic funding to meet the Exchequer borrowing requirements and this put considerable pressure on the Government to keep spending at as low a level as possible.
Would the Minister not accept that the needs of the long term unemployed are at least as great as and in many cases greater than, those who are currently given a double week? Now that the double week has become almost an established pattern in social welfare — and I should not like to see the Government reducing that commitment currently — would the Minister give us any commitment that this double payment will be a priority in the spending of his Department, and that the extension of the double payment to the unemployed will be included in arrangements for payments this year?
I would agree with the Deputy that the cases of some of the long term unemployed are far more deserving than some cases included in the 1984 double payment. A proposal for a Christmas payment in 1985 to all long term social welfare recipients, including the long term unemployed, has been put before the Government in the context of the 1985 Budget. A definite commitment to the proposal was not made in the budget. The possibility of a Christmas payment in 1985 for these categories will depend to a large extent on the overall situation on the Vote during 1985.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.