Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Jan 1986

Vol. 363 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

1.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason unemployment assistance has been refused, on appeal, to a person (details supplied) in County Laois whose financial circumstances were such that he was awarded supplementary welfare allowance by the health board of £50 per week.

The unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed on the grounds that his means, derived from the profit from his holding exceeded the statutory limit applicable in his case. He appealed against the disallowance, and following on oral hearing of his case, the appeals officer also decided that his means, derived from the profit from his holding exceeded the statutory limit, and he was notified accordingly.

In accordance with the legislation governing this scheme, the calculation of means is carried out on an income and expenditure basis and represents normal yearly net income from the farm, in other words, the gross income less any expenses actually and necessarily incurred in earning that income. A detailed statement of the items constituting the income and expenditure in this case, was supplied to the person concerned.

It is understood from the South-Eastern Health Board that a supplementary welfare allowance is at present being paid to the person concerned at the rate of £70 per week. In determining whether a payment of supplementary welfare allowance should be made in any case, the health board would have regard to the immediate financial circumstances of the person and where they decide that the person is in immediate financial need, a supplementary welfare allowance can be paid.

If the person concerned considers that his circumstances have changed since the previous investigations of his means for unemployment assistance purposes it is open to him to make a fresh application for unemployment assistance at his local employment office.

Without querying how means are computed in regard to social welfare payments, does the Minister agree that it is incongrous that investigating officers of one Department abide by a collection of rules and regulations when computing or assessing means — they decide that somebody is ineligible for benefit or for means tested allowances — whereas the South-Eastern Health Board, whose investigating officer is a community welfare officer, are able to determine that the assessment of means by the other method was wrong? To provide the basic needs for the applicant in this case, the health board have given him an allowance of £70 a week. How can one Department, with their rules and regulations, decide that this man is not eligible and another investigating officer by another method determines that payment should be made?

We are dealing with two different schemes, unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare. There are different criteria laid down. Generally, unemployment assistance is assessed on a yearly basis in regard to income, whereas the supplementary welfare scheme is based on an immediate there and then need. Each scheme has its own purpose. There is a distinction between the two. They are governed by different sets of regulations. The applicant in this case has had his claim investigated exhaustively under the employment assistance scheme and the result was as stated. There was an oral hearing at which the applicant had an opportunity to appear before the appeals officer and give his evidence. The Deputy can take it that every possible piece of information regarding his means was available. Nevertheless, his claim was turned down. The supplementary welfare officer, on the other hand, must have found an immediate need.

I allowed the Deputy's first question because there was a mixture of specific and general information in the Minister's reply, but this is a specific question dealing with an individual case.

I am not trying to be niggling, it is not my style, but the Minister has stated that the supplementary welfare allowance was being paid to take cognisance of an immediate need. I accept that, but these are continuing payments of £70 per week. I do not impute irresponsibility on the part of the social welfare investigating officers, but I would point out that this is not a once off payment, it is being paid on a weekly basis. Therefore, it was not just an immediate need but an immediate continuing need. Is there any way in which we can streamline this procedure of assessing means so that they will be in accord with each other and take true cognisance of the financial needs of claimants so that hardship will not be imposed on people?

The streamlining of these assessment methods is continually under consideration. The Commission on Social Welfare are considering it. In relation to this individual, the social welfare officer deemed him to have an annual income of £10,700, but he is heavily in debt and has his own arrangements for repayment. Capital payments are not treated as expenses for the purpose of estimating profits from a holding. That is one of the distinctions between means testing for these schemes. Under the Social Welfare Acts this man has a relatively good income but has to make substantial repayments of debt, and these are not taken into account. Under the supplementary welfare scheme the community officer can take these things into consideration.

May I put one supplementary question to the Minister of State?

I would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if I were to allow a discussion of principle on a specific case where the facts as investigated are not known. It does not make sense.

The Minister spoke at length about the matter and acknowledged that there is a contradiction between the assessment and the supplementary payment. I am anxious to ask him a question about that.

He has not. The Minister of State has said that the man had £10,000 per year and he disposed of it in one operation, left himself without any money and then had to get something in the form of a supplementary welfare benefit.

Will the Minister agree that the means test system should be examined immediately?

This is not the occasion for putting such a question.

2.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare when is it proposed to pay an old age pension to a person (details supplied) in County Cork.

The person concerned is entitled to an old age contributory pension at the maximum rate with effect from 18 October 1985. He is in receipt of an invalidity pension at present and has been asked to return his book for that pension to the Department after cashing the order for 23 January 1986. An old age contributory pension book will be issued to the designated post office for collection by him on Friday, 31 January 1986, and he will be notified accordingly.

Arrears of old age contributory pension from 18 October 1985 to 30 January 1986 less the amount of invalidity pension paid during this period will be issued to him by payable order, shortly.

I agree with the Chair that the reason we table questions is to elicit information but in seeking that information we often get long, round-about statements from Ministers. I am not saying that that is the case today but when we seek information we get answers that are not directly related to the question. With regard to what happened yesterday I agree with the action of my colleague when the Taoiseach walked out of the House and would not answer questions on unemployment.

The Deputy should ask a supplementary question or resume his seat.

I was anxious to make that observation in regard to the questions we tabled. I received an acknowledgment from the Department about this matter on 12 December. Will the Minister tell the House why an old age pension that was approved on 28 October last has not been paid? Will he agree that activity in this regard, such as the returning of the book, has taken too long? Is it not time when there is such pressure in his Department to appoint additional staff?

The Deputy is making a speech.

Unfortunately, an error occurred in this case. The Department of Social Welfare cannot claim to be infallible. It is very difficult to operate a scheme without errors occurring but fortunately, such errors are not that plentiful. The invalidity pension in this case was kept in payment up to today. The error and the delay are regretted and the matter has been rectified. As the Deputy is aware, there is a difference between the rate of invalidity pension and that of a contributory old age pension and that is being made good to the person concerned.

The Minister of State did not answer my question.

The Chair cannot help the Deputy in that regard. We have got through a question and a half in 15 minutes. If I get an indication from a substantial number of Deputies that that is the way I should conduct Question Time that is one thing but the Chair considers it absurd to conduct Question Time in the manner the Deputy is seeking to conduct it.

I agree with what the Chair has said. I am not sure how long my question has been before the House but I am anxious to point out that the Minister did not answer my supplementary question. I asked the Minister what he was proposing to do in regard to the number of people employed in his Department which is snowed under with work.

That is a separate question.

The shortage of staff is the cause of the delay.

3.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the cost of providing a free electricity allowance and a free telephone rental allowance to all widows living alone or with dependants; and if it is proposed to provide this allowance during 1986.

The cost of extending the schemes in question in the manner suggested by the Deputy would be £3.6 million in a full year. There are no proposals for such an extension.

Will the Minister consider including widows whose husbands were in receipt of such an allowance as old age pensioners or as people entitled to a relevant allowance? Those women, because they are a few years younger than their husbands, are not entitled to free electricity or a free telephone rental allowance, benefits that were available to their husbands.

I appreciate that some of the cases referred to by the Deputy are hardship cases but the scheme for free electricity allowance and free telephone rental allowance from its inception was based on age qualification or infirmity. It would be a departure from the original intention of the scheme to extend it to cover the people referred to by the Deputy. One may argue that we should depart from those criteria for widows but if we do an equally strong or better case can be made for extending the terms of the scheme to the unemployed or those on disability allowance. The minimum age to qualify under the scheme is 66 or those who have not reached that age must be suffering from a certain degree of incapacity, in receipt of an invalidity pension or a disabled persons maintenance allowance to qualify. There are no proposals in my Department to extend the terms of this scheme to the categories referred to.

I accept that the figure of £3.6 million was an answer to my original question but I put it to the Minister that the suggestion I put forward in the House would not cost any money if granted to those who received these allowances while their husbands were alive. Will the Minister, without making a commitment today, consider families who were in receipt of these allowances while the father of the household was alive?

All schemes are looked at regularly. I must point out to the Deputy that the whole area of social welfare is being investigated by a commission and a report is expected soon. I am sure recommendations will be put forward regarding this matter.

How can I make a submission to the commission on behalf of such people?

The commission has been sitting since August 1983. Submissions were invited earlier but I cannot tell the Deputy if he is too late now to put forward a submission. I will arrange to have the Deputy's comments brought to the attention of the commission.

What is the problem about continuing to grant a free electricity allowance to a widow whose husband was entitled to it? Such a move would not mean any extra cost to the State.

There is no difficulty if the widow is 66 years of age but a difficulty arises if she is under that age. The allowance is confined to people over 66 years of age and any change in the scheme would leave it open to many more people. Unemployed people and those on disability benefit might be able to make a stronger case for these allowances than some widows——

There is no extra cost involved.

The Deputy must be aware that some widows receiving a contributory pension are in full time employent, and in social justice, more anomalies would be created by such an extension. It is not a simple matter.

4.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person who is in receipt of social welfare disability benefit qualifies for free fuel in accordance with the provisions of the national fuel scheme; the stage at which a person qualifies as a long term social welfare recipient; and if an excess of one or two years on disability benefit qualifies as long term.

12.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of people in each county for each of the past five years who are in receipt of disability benefit and who are also in receipt of free fuel under the national fuel scheme.

It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 4 and 12 together. In order to qualify for free fuel under the national fuel scheme a person must be in receipt of one of the payments specified in the regulations governing the scheme and must fulfil the other conditions stipulated. Disability benefit is not one of the specified payments and a recipient would not, therefore, qualify for fuel irrespective of the length of time he has been in receipt of benefit.

A person who has been receiving disability benefit for at least a year and who is regarded by a medical referee as permanently incapable of work may, however, qualify for invalidity pension, in which event he would be eligible for free fuel, provided the other conditions were satisfied.

Statistics of recipients are not furnished in a form which would enable the figures requested by the Deputy to be supplied.

I accept that rules must be adhered to but there are many people on long term disability benefit far in excess of 12 months which seems to be the statutory period of time before one can apply for an invalidity pension. Many people are left on disability benefit and because they are uninformed of their right to apply for transfer to an invalidity pension they lose out on fringe benefits such as free fuel and free travel. Is there any intention by the Minister's Department to introduce a system whereby people on long term disability benefit, particularly those on monthly long duration medical certification, can, after a certain statutory period — 18 months or so — be called in and examined for the purpose of deciding whether they qualify for invalidity pension and to determine whether they are unfit for work for the rest of their lives?

That is argument and is not in order at Question Time.

The central point of the question relates to the fact that people are on long term disability benefit. The Department should statutorily have these people examined to see if they qualify medically for an invalidity pension.

Does the Minister consider that the allocation of fuel allowances should be made on the basis of income and means rather than on the category of benefit which a person is in receipt of?

The whole area of the fuel scheme is continually under review. It was hoped to have a unified scheme and we still hope to do this. For persons outside the scope of the national fuel scheme assistance may be available under the general supplementary welfare allowance scheme. That has operated quite well in relation to the type of people to which Deputy McCarthy referred. I am sure that the Deputy is well aware of the criteria for qualification for invalidity pension and that any people outside that scope can, if their circumstances warrant it, get a supplement towards heating costs if they need it because of protracted ill-health or infirmity.

5.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that the present system of assessment of means for young people in receipt of unemployment assistance reduces payment to a degree which leaves these people with no other option but to emigrate.

The assessment of the value of free board and lodgings is the main item of means assessed in the case of single applicants for unemployment assistance living with their parents or relatives. This is in accordance with statutory requirements and each case is decided on it merits having regard to the standard of living of the household and the circumstances of the applicant.

The requirement to take account of the value of board and lodgings has been a feature of the unemployment assistance scheme since its inception. Its purpose is to achieve a degree of equity as between applicants whose parents are well-to-do and those whose parents are in poor circumstances.

Does the Minister accept that at present the officers of his Department seem to be particularly harsh in their assessment of young people applying for unemployment assistance? In rural areas a person may be living with an old age pensioner which means they are assessed at £7.50 per week, which seems to be the general pattern. Sometimes a student who has gone through university finds that he or she has to live with parents and it is degrading for them to have to depend on their parents to keep them, especially when they have sent them to university. Does the Minister agree that this section of the Act should be changed?

This section of the Act is there since its inception and it was embodied in the Consolidation Act as recently as 1981. I know there is a problem in this regard but it is a question of resources. I should like to be in a position to give reasonable assistance to all young people without putting them through a means test but the cost factor is too great. Perhaps the Deputy could tell me where we could get the resources to implement it. In the meantime, the applicant for assistance who has a free roof over his head is in a slightly different category from someone who is paying £10 or £15 per week for a flat. With the resources available, one has to make those kind of distinctions to ensure that those who are worst off — I know they are all badly off — are helped to the maximum. In present circumstances, if one were to ignore that aspect it would mean that people in a relatively worse position could not be helped. I would dearly like to see a situation where there would be no reference to the income of parents or the houses which they occupy but there is a major problem in trying to devise such a scheme. It is interesting to note that when times were better and the number of recipients was not nearly as high no attempt was made to do anything about it.

May I remind Deputies that we will have the budget next week and that might be a more appropriate platform from which to discuss this?

Would the Minister urge his Government colleagues to take a very serious look at this position? He has shown some sympathy but that is not enough. Young people are being condemned to emigration and it is not good enough to say that the situation is serious, but we are not doing anything about it.

Would the Minister confirm that the means test on single people living at home is not confined to young people but that 30 year old and 40 year old people may be living at home with their parents on as little as £3 or £4 a week unemployment assistance? How does the 12½ per cent maximum deduction for board and lodging operate? Is it 12½ per cent on each individual in the household or 12½ per cent maximum? What income is taken as the basis for assessing unemployment assistance? Is it annual income? Is it the previous year's income or next year's expected income, or is it simply based on the income on the day the welfare inspector calls? When was the last time the £90 parental allowance was reviewed and increased in line with the cost of living?

I can answer some of the Deputy's questions but I do not have to hand all the information he needs because the question relates to assessment of means. In the case of wage earning families, the method of calculation is to deduct from the net parental income, that is, gross income less income tax and PRSI contributions, an amount to cover rent, mortgage repayments and a set parental allowance, currently £90 for a two parent family and £80 for a one parent family. The remainder is then divided among the non-earning members of the household, including the applicant, and the sum arrived at is taken as the value of the applicant's board and lodging subject to a maximum limit of 12½ per cent of the net income. It is different for farming families.

If the Minister does not have the information today perhaps he would let me know by letter if it is correct that the 12½ per cent should be applied to each individual of the family. In other words, if there are two or more applicants for unemployment assistance in a family, that 12½ per cent applies to each applicant rather than to the gross income. From cases which have come to my attention it seems that where two young people have applied the 12½ per cent ceiling is applied to each individual rather than both together. As regards the basis of the income, is it annual income, the income for the previous year or the following year, or is it on a day to day basis taking into account the paid overtime a person works in any given week?

I will have my Department answer the Deputy's detailed questions and send the replies to him directly.

Barr
Roinn