Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Jun 1998

Vol. 493 No. 2

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

162 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the estimated annual saving in 1992 as a result of the introduction of the changes in the assessment of means of part-time and casual workers. [15516/98]

Regulations were introduced in July 1992 which provided for, among other things, the assessment of a claimant's income from insurable part-time employment for the purpose of determining entitlement to unemployment assistance. It was estimated that this measure would give rise to savings of some £750,000 in 1992.

It should be noted however that, subsequently, further regulations were introduced which provided for income disregards which aimed to ensure that claimants with relatively low levels of income from insurable part-time employment would be entitled to receive a higher rate of unemployment assistance. Furthermore, the manner of assessing entitlement to unemployment assistance in the case of part-time casual workers was fundamentally revised with effect from November 1996 in order to improve the incentive to work and to simplify the system.

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

163 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the estimated annual saving in 1997 as a result of the introduction of the fundamental changes in the entitlement of part-time and casual workers to unemployment assistance in November 1996. [15517/98]

The revised arrangements for the assessment of earnings from employment for unemployment assistance purposes, which came into effect in November 1996, provide that an unemployed person who works up to three days a week, may, subject to the level of his or her earnings, qualify for the full rate of UA for that week, including payment in respect of the days in the week on which the person worked. The improved arrangements provide that earnings are assessed at 60 per cent. In addition, persons without children are allowed a £10 disregard for each day worked, while the balance of earnings are assessed at 60 per cent.

The previous arrangements, which have now been replaced, provided that payment was only made in respect of the days in the week on which the person was unemployed, less one sixth of their weekly means for each day of unemployment. Claimants were allowed to earn up to £15 above the appropriate daily rate of UA before being assessed with means. However, no payment was made in respect of days of employment, irrespective of the level of daily earnings.
The revised arrangements serve two purposes. First, they ensure that claimants have an incentive to work for up to three days a week at any levels of earnings, even where the level of pay is less than the rate of UA. Second, the new arrangements are clearer and easier to understand and thus enable people to see for themselves the extent to which they will be better off when they take up part-time or casual employment as opposed to claiming UA.
When the revised arrangements were introduced, it was envisaged that some 10,500 casual workers would benefit financially — the impact on net income varying according to family size, number of days worked and level of earnings. The total cost to the Exchequer is estimated at £1.6 million in a full year. Provision was also made to guarantee the existing entitlements of recipients, so as to ensure that no one would be worse off arising from the new arrangements.

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

164 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the estimated saving to his Department in 1998 as a result of the fact that the child dependant allowance for social welfare recipients did not rise in line with the personal payment since 1995. [15519/98]

It is estimated that it would cost in the region of £43 million, in a full year, to increase child dependant allowances in line with increases in personal payment rates from 1995 to date.

The strategy of successive Governments for reforming income support for children has been to reduce work disincentives by making child income support more neutral vis-a -vis the employment status of the parent. Substantial resources have therefore been dedicated to increasing child benefit rates over the past four years and I continued this policy in budget 1998. In total, the increases in child benefit over this period cost £164.93 million.

The budget provided for an increase of £1.50 per month in the lower rate of child benefit, payable in respect of the first two children and a £3 increase per month in the higher rate, payable in respect of third and subsequent children. These increases, ranging from 5 per cent to 7.7 per cent, are well ahead of expected price increases. These increases cost approximately £24 million in a full year.

In addition, in the context of reducing disincentives to work, priority has also been given to utilising family income supplement as a means of increasing the net return from work to families with children. From the beginning of June, the income thresholds which determine a family's entitlement to FIS were increased by £7 at each point. Furthermore the budget also provided for, with effect from October next, the assessment of FIS on a full net basis i.e., net of PRSI, tax and superannuation contributions. These changes will cost approximately £10 million in a full year.
The real improvements which were introduced in the budget demonstrate my clear commitment towards providing genuine support for families, whether in or out of work.

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

165 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the estimated saving to his Department in 1998 as a result of the fact that the adult dependant allowance for social welfare recipients did not rise in line with the personal payment since 1995. [15520/98]

It is estimated that, if the allowance payable in respect of qualified adults had been increased in line with increases in the personal rates of payment over the years 1995 to date, the additional cost would be £7.2 million in a full year.

The allowance payable in respect of a qualified adult has been increased each year from 1995 to date. The 1998 budget provided for a general increase of £3 per week in all social welfare payments as well as an overall increase of £5 per week in the maximum personal rates of payments to all persons over the age of 66. The rate of payment of allowances in respect of all qualified adults was increased by 3 per cent. These increases in weekly rates of payment cost over £180 million in a full year.

The Commission on Social Welfare (CSW) argued that two people living together, especially couples, are financially interdependent as all of the main living costs such as housing, fuel and household goods are shared and there are economies of scale involved. In this regard, the commission recommended that the rates of payment for qualified adults should be set at 60 per cent of the basic payment for a single person.

The CSW's approach in relation to the payment rates for qualified adults has, in general, been adopted by successive Governments and it is also the one which I have followed in this year's budget. The increased qualified adult allowance rates, which have been paid from the beginning of June, will range from 56 per cent to 69 per cent of the respective personal rates, with the majority of rates at 58.4 per cent.

The emphasis in relation to rates increases in recent years has been to concentrate resources on moving towards the minimum personal rate recommended by the CSW. The increases provided in this year's budget will mean that the personal rates of payment for 94 per cent of social welfare recipients are now above the CSW recommended rates.
However, the appropriateness of the 1.6 equivalence scale, as recommended by the CSW, has been questioned by a number of commentators. The expert group on the integration of the tax and social welfare systems, in examining this issue, recommended that further research should be carried out on this matter.
In this regard, the interdepartmental working group, which is currently examining the treatment of one and two-parent families under the tax and social welfare codes, is looking at the existence of the concept of qualified adult in the social welfare payment system, with particular reference to individualisation of payments. One of the group's specific terms of reference is to carry out research on equivalence scales.
The working group will be reporting to me later in the year and I expect that its report will be of considerable assistance in formulating future policy in this area.
Barr
Roinn