Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will reconsider the rule governing the carers allowance which stipulates that the carers must live with the cared for person. [1714/94]
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:34 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social Welfare the estimated number of carers looking after elderly and disabled relatives at home; the number in receipt of carer's allowance; the plans, if any, he has to extend eligibility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1336/94]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 34 together.
There are an estimated 25,000 people around the country who look after elderly and incapacitated people full time in their own homes. The number of people who have received the carer's allowance up to 30 September last is 8,113. Of these 2,911 people have stopped drawing the payment, mainly due to the death of the pensioner. In addition, a further 1,274 carers are receiving another social welfare payment on which they are better off. The carer's allowance is payable subject to a means test and applies to full-time carers.
When I introduced the carer's allowance in 1990, the scheme was confined to people taking care of old age and invalidity pensioners. I improved the scheme in July 1991 to include carers of recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance from the health boards. In addition, carers of recipients of social security pensions from another EU country or a country which has a bilateral social security agreement with Ireland, were included.
I am very conscious of the vital work which is done by carers in this country. I am keeping the allowance under review to see what improvements can be made as resources allow. It is a specific condition for receipt of the allowance that the carer provide the elderly or incapacitated person with full-time care and attention which means that the carer must be living with the person being cared for. Any amendment to the scheme which would allow for occasional or partial care would have significant cost implications and would have to be considered in a budgetary context.
Ivor Callely
Ceist:20 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the general public concern at the way in which his Department assesses claims for unemployment assistance, in particular the value placed on board and lodgings; the review, if any, that has taken place to address this issue in a more equitable way; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1669/94]
Social welfare legislation provides for the assessment of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by an applicant for unemployment assistance. In practice this generally means the value of free board and lodging and most often arises in the case of applicants living in the family home with their parents.
The assessment of free board and lodging has been a feature of the unemployment assistance scheme since its inception. Its purpose is to achieve a degree of equity between applicants in different family circumstances between those applicants whose parents are "well-to-do" and those whose parents are in poorer circumstances. Otherwise, people living in affluent circumstances would become entitled to the same level of assistance as those whose circumstances are poor.
The value of free board and lodging enjoyed by an applicant is determined by reference to the parental income, that is after deductions for tax, PRSI, union subscriptions, rent or mortgage payments and a parental allowance. This is then allocated equally among the non earning members of the household and becomes the assessment applied to any son or daughter who claims assistance. The maximum assessment that can be applied to any applicant is limited to 17 per cent of net parental income.
In the absence of any limit many applicants from families on average incomes with a low number of non earners would not be entitled to any payment.
I am committed to further improving the present system, where feasible, and having regard to budgetary constraints. In order to extend a greater degree of financial independence to young unemployed people living at home, I introduced a minimum weekly payment of £5 in 1991 for people who are assessed with benefit of board and lodgings. This payment was increased to £10 from July this year.
Frank Crowley
Ceist:21 Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Social Welfare the proposals, if any, he has to extend the free travel scheme to widows and widowers. [185/94]
Ivor Callely
Ceist:35 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Social Welfare the consideration, if any, that has been given to extending the free travel scheme to people who are aged 60 or over and to certain incapacitated people, instead of the 66 year age group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1670/94]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 21 and 35 together. Free travel is available at present to every resident of the State aged 66 years and over and also to certain incapacitated people who are in receipt of social welfare type payments in respect of their incapacity. The purpose of the scheme is to encourage the recipients, particularly the elderly, to remain active and mobile in the community.
Various improvements have been introduced over the years to enable recipients to make full use of the scheme. From its inception, arrangements have been made to allow the spouse of the free travel passholder to travel free or charge when accompanying the passholder. In 1990, I introduced the free travel companion pass for cases where the passholder is unable to travel unaccompanied because of some disability such as mental handicap. Companion passes are also now available to blind pensioners and to certain invalids. This year, I extended free travel to widows and widowers aged 60 years and over receiving welfare type payments whose spouse had been a passholder and who had, therefore, been accustomed to the benefits of the scheme.
At present about 440,000 persons qualify for free travel at a cost of about £30 million a year. The question of further extending the scheme to widows and widowers not currently covered would have financial implications which would have to be considered in the light of available resources and competing demands for other extensions of this important scheme.
Jim Higgins
Ceist:26 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Social Welfare the proposals, if any, he has to extend the scope of the free telephone rental scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1253/94]
Jim Higgins
Ceist:32 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, he has to extend the free telephone rental allowance scheme for recipients of qualifying benefits if the dependant children of the recipient are over 15 years of age but are attending full time education while living with the recipient; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1254/94]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 26 and 32 together.
The free telephone rental allowance is available to people who are in receipt of certain welfare type payments and who are either living alone or only with children or persons who, because they are so permanently incapacitated, could not get help in an emergency. People in those circumstances are vulnerable in various respects and, accordingly, the main purpose of the scheme is to ensure that they, particularly elderly people, have some way or getting help when it is needed. A feature of the living alone condition is that it covers children under 15 years only, that is, children under that age may reside with the beneficiary without infringing the living alone condition. Children of 15 years and over are deemed to be capable of getting help in an emergency and this has been the position since the scheme was introduced in 1978. Any proposals for extensions in that regard, for example, to all children in full-time education regardless of age, would have cost implications which would have to be considered in a budgetary context.
The scheme of free telephone rental allowance, in common with the other free schemes administered by my Department, is kept under regular review with a view to improvement in the light of available resources. The scheme has already been improved in this year's budget in two important respects. A pensioner being cared for by a person getting a carer's allowance from my Department will retain the free telephone rental allowance as will a pensioner over 75 years of age who no longer lives alone. The question of further extensions will be considered in a similar context.
I should mention that some 114,000 people currently get the free telephone rental allowance at a cost of £20 million a year.
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:28 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the disincentive which exists for widows in receipt of a widow's contributory pension when they wish to remarry in that, on marriage, their pension is withdrawn in spite of the fact that late husbands have paid through their taxes for their spouse to be independent in the event of their death; if he will consider some form of guaranteed basic income which would avoid this discrimination as it presently exists in the social welfare system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53/94]
To qualify for a widow's contributory pension a woman must be a widow, satisfy the PRSI conditions and not be living with a man as his wife. Where a widow remarries or cohabits, title to the pension automatically ceases. She may, of course, qualify for another social welfare payment subject to the normal qualifying criteria.
From this month, a widower may also qualify for a survivor's (contributory) pension subject to the same qualifying criteria at present pertaining to widow's contributory pension.
In the final report of the National Pensions Board Developing the National Pension System the majority of the board recommended the retention of the remarriage or cohabitation rule.
The qualifying criteria regarding cohabitation and remarriage have been a feature of the scheme since it was introduced. Any further extension of the scheme would have financial implications and would have to be considered in a budgetary context.