Richard Bruton
Ceist:372 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the cost of increasing the cover for maternity benefit from 14 weeks to 20 weeks. [19571/01]
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Last December's budget provided for a four week increase in the duration of maternity and adoptive benefit, from 14 to 18 weeks, for women commencing maternity leave from early February 2001. In addition the minimum and maximum rates of payment were increased by £8 and £10.20 a week, respectively, from the beginning of April 2001. The full year cost of these measures amounts to £16.16 million.
The cost of further increasing the duration of maternity and adoptive benefit by two extra weeks to 20 weeks in total would be in the region of £6.92 million in a full year.
Richard Bruton
Ceist:373 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the estimated cost of abolishing the means test for carer's allowance. [19573/01]
Richard Bruton
Ceist:374 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the estimated cost of allowing persons in receipt of another social welfare payment to simultaneously receive carer's allowance. [19574/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 373 and 374 together.
The carer's allowance is a means tested payment for carers on low income who look after people in need of full-time care and attention. There are almost 17,300 carers in receipt of carer's allowance. This is an increase of more than 88% in the number of carers in receipt of the allowance since this Government took office and it should also be noted that the expected increase of another 5,000 carers following the recent increases in income disregards will increase this percentage to 42% of all carers who are providing more than three hours care per day, based on the results of the census pilot survey carried out by the Central Statistics Office.
This large increase is reflected in the expenditure on carer's allowance, which was £36.5 million in 1997 and is projected to be £108.4 million next year, representing an increase of almost 200%.
In Budget 2001, in addition to the substantial weekly rate increases of £8 for carers aged under 66 and £10 for carers aged over 66, I also announced a number of other measures to support carers. In particular, I made provision for a substantial increase from April 2001 in the income disregards in the carer's allowance means test from £75 to £125 for a single person and from £150 to £250 for a couple. As I have already outlined, this will enable more than 5,000 new carers to qualify for carer's allowance and almost 3,000 existing carers to receive an increased payment.
The effect of this increase will ensure that a couple with two children, earning a joint income in the region of £15,100, will qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance while a couple in receipt of £26,000 will qualify for the minimum carer's allowance, plus the free schemes and respite care grant. The means test applied to the carer's allowance is one of the more flexible tests in terms of the assessment of household incomes. These income disregards already exceed the income limits for the minimum wage rate for joint income households and ensure that carers receive a maximum allowance. As I announced in my budget speech, I envisage moving towards what I see as the optimum situation, whereby all carers, whose joint family income is at average industrial earnings, will qualify for carer's allowance at the maximum rate.
In view of the many supports required by carers, particularly in the community care and respite care areas, I do not consider that abolition of the means test, at a cost in the region of £180 million to be the best way to support carers or the best use of resources.
The Review of the Carer's Allowance, published in October 1998, considered the purpose and development of the carer's allowance scheme, both in terms of its current operation and its future development. It examined a wide range of issues, including the payment of carer's allowance, in conjunction with another social welfare payment. In this regard, the review estimated that approximately 65% of carers qualifying for carer's allowance were in receipt of another social welfare payment, either in their own right or as a qualified adult on their spouse's payment. This would not be the situation today due to the increased income disregards I have introduced which allow carers on higher joint family incomes to qualify.
The review examined the purpose of the carer's allowance and concluded that it is an income support payment and not a payment for caring. It noted that the primary objective of the social welfare system is to provide income support and, as a general rule, only one social welfare payment is payable to an individual to ensure that resources are not used to make two income support payments to any one individual. Therefore, the review concluded that two income support payments should not be made, in line with current practice. It is not possible to estimate the cost involved as information on the number of people who would qualify if the current arrangements were relaxed is not available. However, it is considered that this would be substantial and, as I noted earlier, I am not convinced that this would represent the best use of resources. Of course, a person qualifying for two social welfare payments will always receive the higher payment to which they are entitled.
The review did propose the introduction of a non-means tested continual care payment to recognise carers providing the highest levels of care and to promote care in the community. It envisaged that this payment would be made, irrespective of income or social welfare entitlement, to carers caring for those who are in the highest category of dependency.
To differentiate between the levels of care and care needs, the review considered that a needs assessment encompassing both the needs of the care recipient and the carer should be introduced, and that the continual care payment could be introduced following the introduction of such an assessment. It was considered that a needs assessment would separate care needs from income support needs and could be used by all State organisations which provide reliefs or grants to those in need of care.
Establishing a pilot system of needs assessment for carers and people needing care was identified as a priority in the Government's review of its action programme. This area is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moffatt.
Government policy is strongly in favour of supporting care in the community and enabling people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. However, the State cannot, and would not wish to, replace the personal support and care provided within the family and the community. Therefore, its primary role is to provide adequate support to carers and to those for whom they are caring, to enable them to remain in their own communities.
The development of the range of supports for carers will continue to be a priority for this Government and, building on the foundations now in place, we will continue to develop the types of services which recognise the value of the caring ethos and which provide real support and practical assistance to people who devote their time to improving the quality of life for others. The question of further improvements to the carer's allowance and for carers generally will be considered in a budgetary context, taking account of our key priorities in the care area, as set out in the review of our action programme.
Richard Bruton
Ceist:375 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the cost of extending the supplementary welfare payment towards rent or mortgage to cover the low paid at work. [19577/01]
Under the terms of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, payment of a weekly or monthly supplement may be made in respect of rent or mortgage interest to any person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their needs. The SWA scheme is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards and neither I nor my Department have any function in deciding entitlement in individual cases.
Rent supplements are normally calculated to ensure that a person, after the payment of rent, has an income equal to the rate of SWA appropriate to their family circumstances, less £6. This £6 represents the minimum contribution which recipients are required to pay from their own resources. Most recipients pay more than £6 towards their rent because applicants are required to contribute any additional assessable means they have over and above the appropriate basic SWA rate towards their rent.
SWA is subject to a means test and is not ordinarily payable to people in full-time employment. However, arrangements have been in place for some years now to enable rent or mortgage interest supplement recipients to retain their housing supplement as an in-work benefit on taking up employment, subject to a gross household income limit of £250 per week and certain other conditions. It is not possible to estimate the cost of extending these arrangements to low paid workers in general without specific data on the number of potential claimants and their circumstances.
The conditions for receiving and retaining rent and mortgage interest supplement will be examined as part of the review of the SWA scheme which is currently being undertaken as part of my Department's series of formal programme evaluations. However, income maintenance payments deal with the symptoms of the housing problem but it is also necessary to deal with the underlying imbalances in the overall housing system.
As the Deputy will be aware the Government has decided in principle to introduce a new scheme of private sector rent assistance. The new scheme will be operated by the local authorities and will help to ensure that a full range of housing options is made available to people with long-term housing needs, many of whom currently rely on supplementary welfare allowance rent supplement. The priority is to provide housing solutions rather than social welfare solutions to meet the housing needs of people on low incomes. In that regard, I understand that my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, will be bringing detailed proposals to Government shortly.
The Government has also taken a number of other initiatives to improve the supply of social and affordable housing in response to the current housing situation. This is the best approach to meeting the housing needs of people on low incomes.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:376 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 141 of 21 June 2001 and Parliamentary Question No. 310 of 29 May 2001, he will indicate whether the particular application form has been returned to the health centre in question; the nature of the proof required by the health board in respect of whether the applicant's ex-husband is contributing to mortgage repayments; if his attention has been drawn to the hardship and stress caused to the applicant arising from the delay in processing the application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19604/01]
The South-Western Area Health Board has been contacted again on behalf of the person concerned and has advised that the position in relation to the individual's application for mortgage interest supplement remains the same as outlined in Parliamentary Questions No. 310 on 29 May 2001 and Parliamentary Question No. 141 on 21 June 2001.
The completed application form and the community welfare officer's request for clarification as to who actually makes the mortgage repayments, that is, the person concerned on her own or with assistance from her ex-husband, remain outstanding.
The CWO further advised that on receipt of the completed application form and a letter from the applicant's bank or a copy of a bank statement proving who makes the mortgage repayment, a decision on the person's entitlement to the mortgage interest supplement will be made without delay.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:377 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 140 of 21 June 2001, it is Department policy to ensure that employees of institutions which close during the school summer holidays will in future have to seek permanent employment and will not qualify for unemployment benefit; if this procedure is in accordance with previously established practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19605/01]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:380 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the policy directives he has given to staff which have culminated in academic staff at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, being refused unemployment benefit and being requested to seek alternative work during the summer holidays; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19810/01]
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 377 and 380 together.
There has been no change in policy in relation to the entitlement of unemployed persons, including those employed in the educational sector, to unemployment benefit or assistance during periods of involuntary unemployment. Social welfare legislation provides that a person must satisfy the conditions of being available for, and genuinely seeking work to be entitled to unemployment benefit or assistance. The relevant legislation specifies the circumstances in which a person is, or is not, deemed to be available for and genuinely seeking employment.
In applying the legislation, deciding officers have regard to the availability of job vacancies in the locality and to the extent to which a claimant has sought to take advantage of existing labour market opportunities. Any person who fails to satisfy the deciding officer that he or she is available for full-time employment and genuinely seeking work is not entitled to an unemployment payment. Persons employed in the educational sector are treated in the same way and are expected to meet the same requirements as other claimants in that regard. Where a person is dissatisfied with a decision made by a deciding officer he or she may appeal this decision to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office.
Under social welfare legislation decisions in relation to claims must be made by deciding officers and appeals officers. These officers are statutorily appointed and I have no role in regard to make such decisions.
Gay Mitchell
Ceist:378 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will extend the free telephone allowance to those who already had the allowance and who then lose it on entering a nursing home such as a person (details supplied) in Dublin 5; if this person will receive the allowance upon reaching 70 years of age; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19807/01]
The free schemes, including the electricity-gas allowance, telephone allowance and free television licence schemes, are generally available to people living in the State, aged 66 years or over, who are in receipt of a social welfare type payment or who meet the conditions of a means test. They are also available to carers and people with disabilities under the age of 66 who are in receipt of certain welfare type payments.
Widows and widowers aged from 60 to 65 whose late spouses had been in receipt of free schemes retain that entitlement in order to ensure that households do not suffer a loss of entitlement following the death of a spouse.
From October 2000, the free schemes including the telephone allowance, were extended to all persons aged 75 and over, regardless of their income and household composition. Provision was made in budget 2001 to extend further the free schemes to all persons aged 70 years and over from last May. This measure was introduced to support older people in their wish to remain in the community.
The Review of the Free Schemes, which was published by the Policy Institute, Trinity College Dublin in April 2000, noted that the free schemes share a common set of objectives in the area of social inclusion. These are defined as follows: to provide assistance to those living alone by tar geting them with specific benefits providing both income and social inclusion gains; to support older people and people with disabilities in their wish to remain in the community as opposed to institutional care; and to support Government policy which seeks to acknowledge the value of older people in society.
The original objective of the telephone allowance was to provide an element of protection and security in their own homes for older people and people with disabilities who were either living alone or with people who would be unable to summon help in an emergency. A secondary objective of the scheme was to encourage social contact and to assist in the prevention of social isolation for those living alone.
The free schemes act as an important support to encouraging care in the community. The proposal to extend the telephone allowance to pensioners resident in nursing homes does not fit within the community care objectives of these schemes. Persons resident in nursing homes may already be in receipt of State support, either through the public health system or through a nursing home subvention. In addition, those living in nursing homes and other residential institutions have daily support and contact with other residents and nursing staff. For these reasons, and particularly in view of the community care objectives of the scheme, it is not proposed to extend the telephone allowance to people residing in nursing homes. Any further changes in the arrangements for the telephone allowance would have to be considered in a budgetary context.