asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he accepts that there are 11 different means tests for different schemes within his Department in addition to eight other means tests in other Departments; if he will give an estimate of the number of officials and the cost involved in administering the various means tests; and whether any progress has been made towards rationalisation leading to a single means test.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Means Testing.
41.
The reason that different means-tested schemes exist is to enable conditions for entitlement to be adapted to the specific circumstances of persons claiming under different schemes. Thus, for example, in the case of social welfare schemes the rules of means assessment in the case of widows, lone parents and the old who, because of family responsibilities or age and infirmity are particularly vulnerable, are generally more favourable than the rules which apply in the case of the able-bodied unemployed. Similarly, the rules which apply in the case of, say, medical cards or educational grants are necessarily different from those which apply in the case of weekly payments.
Means tests under schemes administered by my Department are carried out by 242 social welfare officers stationed throughout the country. It is not possible to say what is the total cost of means-testing for the Department's schemes. In 1987 the total number of such cases referred to social welfare officers was 213,433 of which 70 per cent were in respect of unemployment assistance, 15 per cent in respect of the old age pension, 10 per cent in respect of the social assistance allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' wives, 3.6 per cent in respect of the widow's pension and the remainder just over 1 per cent in respect of single women's allowance, rent allowance and the family income supplement. There is no duplication of means-testing between these schemes as they all involve separate categories of claimants.
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme is administered by the health boards on behalf of my Department. There are 414 community welfare officers directly involved in the administration of the scheme.
Persons with insufficient income have a legal entitlement, subject to the conditions of the scheme, to immediate payments while entitlement to a regular and more permanent payment under a social assistance scheme is being investigated. This can occur, for example, in the case of deserted wives, who do not qualify for payment for at least three months after the date of desertion. It can arise also in the case of unemployment assistance.
Various measures are being taken by my Department to reduce the extent to which people have recourse to supplementary welfare allowance on an interim basis and thus eliminate the need for a separate means test. Interim desktop means assessments and the one-stop shop where means for different purposes can be assessed at the same time are two important initiatives in this area. The standardisation of the various schemes, including the fuel and footwear schemes, has improved the position.
The introduction of a single means test for all schemes would have major financial implications. It would not eliminate the need for separate means assessment to be carried out when people claim under different schemes at different times. The extent to which, while retaining the different schemes which now exist, further progress can be made in using information supplied for the purposes of one scheme to determine entitlement under other schemes is under examination by an inter-departmental committee.
May I appeal to Deputy O'Keeffe to assist me in dealing with the two remaining questions?
Certainly. Would the Minister not accept that it is an utter waste of money to have such a plethora of officialdom involved in the many different means tests within his own Department and outside? The Minister has not referred to the means tests for education grants, differential rents, medical cards, DPMA and all the other health board schemes, and civil legal aid. Is it not an awful waste of money to spend such a huge amount of time on the different means tests, which number almost 20 in all? Is not the answer to have one single means test and one could follow up by having the allowances based on Government policy decisions of the day? We could know the basic means of a person by one means test.
I am appealing for brevity at this stage.
A considerable amount of rationalisation and simplification is underway at present. The inter-departmental committee is examining the wider implications of this to try to improve matters.
It is being examined like everything else.