Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:428 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to improve pay ments to old age pensioners; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13788/03]
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
The Government will continue its policy of providing significant increases in pensions each year and in this regard An Agreed Programme for Government and the new social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, provide for a target rate for the basic pension of €200 per week to be achieved by 2007. The improvements announced in budget 2003 saw the old age contributory pension increase to €157.30 per week and the old age non-contributory pension increase to €144.00 per week. In addition, the Government is committed to increasing pensions over a five to ten year period to 34% of average industrial wages and to increasing the payment for qualified adults, aged 66 or over, to the same level as the personal rate of the old age non-contributory pension. This process had already commenced in budget 2000 and a number of special increases have been granted since then. The rate of the qualified allowance on the contributory pension now stands at €121.50 per week which is about 84% of the maximum rate of the non-contributory pension.
From October 2002 new applicants for pension can arrange for the payment of the allowance direct to their spouse or partner. Improvements for the pensioners remain one of the Government's main priorities. In this regard, social welfare provision for this group will be kept under review and further improvements will be considered where appropriate.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:429 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she proposes to rationalise the situation whereby a person can be in receipt of disability benefit for up to half their working life without qualifying for invalidity pension which would be the more appropriate payment. [13789/03]
People who have been in receipt of disability benefit for at least a year can apply to transfer to the invalidity pension, if they satisfy the relevant conditions. In order to be eligible for invalidity pension a person must have been incapable of work for at least 12 months and be likely to be incapable of work for at least a further 12 months. People can qualify for invalidity pension at an earlier date if they have an incapacity for work which is of such a nature that the likelihood is that they will be incapable of work for life. In addition, a claimant for invalidity pension must satisfy the PRSI contribution requirements.
While many people who have been in receipt of disability benefit for more than a year transfer to the invalidity pension, there are others who, for a variety of reasons, choose not to do so. It is recognised that there is a significant overlap between the invalidity pension scheme and the disability benefit scheme for those in receipt of payment in the long term. This overlap is one of a number issues which is currently being examined as part of a programme expenditure review of the various income maintenance payments for people who are ill and people with disabilities, which is being undertaken by my Department. The key elements of this study include clarifying the objectives of each scheme; identifying gaps and overlaps in the overall provision, with a view to producing a more simplified system which is consistent and comprehensive; examining the extent to which schemes support self-sufficiency – for example, as regards incentives to move into work/training/rehabilitation; and looking at possible alternative approaches to the design and delivery of social protection for people who are ill or disabled.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:430 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she proposes to ease the means test for the various means-tested payments; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13790/03]
Social assistance payments feature a means test which is intended to ensure that available resources are targeted at those most in need. In recent years, considerable improvements have been made to means tests to allow persons to qualify more easily for payments, to retain more of their income before payments are withdrawn or to withdraw payments more gradually if means exceed a certain level. In the most recent budget, the income disregard for carer's allowance was increased from €191 for a single person and €382 for a couple per week to €210 for a single person and €420 for a couple per week. It is estimated that this measure will cost €5.34 million in a full year. The assessment of benefit and privilege for unemployment assistance recipients aged 29 years or more was abolished from May of this year at a cost of €0.76 million.
In line with the current arrangements for one parent family payment, the treatment of maintenance in the assessment of means for disability allowance, unemployment assistance, farm assist, PRETA, OANCP, widow or widower's pension and blind persons' pension was standardised at a cost of €0.85 million. Any further changes to means assessment would require the allocation of additional resources and would have to be considered in a budgetary context.
Questions Nos. 431 and 432 answered with Question No. 135.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:433 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to improve the farm assist scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13793/03]
The farm assist scheme was intro duced in 1999 as an income support scheme for low income farmers. It is a means tested scheme with a more favourable method of assessment, including disregards in respect of qualified children, than had applied under the previous smallholders' unemployment assistance scheme. The scheme was further improved in two ways from 2000. The child related income disregards were increased by €126.97, bringing them to €253.95 in respect of each of the first two children and to €380.92 in respect of the third and subsequent children. The means assessment rate was reduced from 80% to 70%, thereby increasing the income from self-employment which a farm assist claimant can keep before the level of payment is reduced. Farm assist recipients also benefited from the improved capital assessment regime which was introduced in 2000. I do not have any proposals to make further changes to the scheme at this time.
Question No. 434 answered with Question No. 88.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:435 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons who have been refused back to education allowance payments in 2003 and in 2002; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13795/03]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:436 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she has contemplated improvements to the back to education allowance scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13796/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 435 and 436 together.
The back to education allowance is a second chance education opportunities scheme designed to encourage and facilitate certain groups who are receiving social welfare payments to improve their skills and qualifications and, therefore, their prospects of returning to the active work force. The number of persons who applied for back to education allowance but did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for participation in the scheme in the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years is as follows: 2001-02 academic year, 490; 2002-03 academic year, 626.
A review of the basic purpose underlying my Department's back to education provisions was carried out recently. In light of this, and in view of the expenditure constraints facing us this year, the scheme has been revised. In framing proposals to change elements of the BTEA scheme, my concern was to ensure that resources should be focused where the need is greatest. In line with this, payments under the scheme for the summer period have been discontinued, as people who had been previously unemployed often find work opportunities either at home or abroad during the summer months. Participants in the scheme who fail to find employment during the summer may be entitled to an unemployment payment, subject to satisfying the usual qualifying conditions.
Regarding changes to the scheme as it relates to postgraduates, I am satisfied people in possession of a third level degree have already attained a good level of academic qualification, which should impact positively on their employment prospects. In a time of financial constraint I want to ensure that supports are directed to those with most pressing needs. However, I recently asked my Department to liaise with the relevant bodies to identify postgraduate courses such as the higher diploma, H.Dip, which add significantly to a person's employability and to which the BTEA should continue to apply. Arising from this review my Department will continue to support those wishing to take up a higher diploma in all disciplines or a graduate diploma in primary school teaching.
I am satisfied that the new arrangements will ensure the back to education scheme continues to provide support to those people who are most distant from the labour market and whose need is greatest.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:437 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to improve the back to work allowance scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13797/03]
The back to work allowance scheme was reviewed recently in the light of economic and labour market changes and, in particular, of the drop in unemployment levels since the introduction of the allowance in 1993. This review also took cognisance of an evaluation of the scheme by independent consultants who recommended restructuring of the scheme in the light of the transformed labour market situation and, in particular, that the scheme be refocused on the longer-term unemployed, that the non-financial supports be enhanced, and that the overall numbers on the scheme be reduced.
Following on this review, the qualifying period for persons on unemployment benefit-assistance has been increased to five years with effect from 1 January 2003. Other social welfare qualifying payments are not affected by the change. It is important that my Department's employment support services retain their relevance to current employment and economic conditions and continue to focus on the most vulnerable groups. I will continue to monitor the scheme but I have no immediate plans to change the existing qualifying criteria.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:438 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the extent to which she has examined the possibility of extending the family income supplement scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13798/03]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:439 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to improve the FIS scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13799/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 438 and 439 together.
Family income supplement, FIS, is designed to provide cash support for employees with families on low earnings and, thereby, preserve the incentive to remain in employment in circumstances where the employee might only be marginally better off than if he or she were claiming other social welfare payments. The improvements to the family income supplement scheme instituted by the Government, including the assessment of FIS on the basis of net rather than gross income and the progressive increases in the income limits, have made it easier for lower income households to qualify under the scheme.
In this year's budget, I provided for further increases in the FIS income limits with effect from January 2003. These increases raised the weekly income limits by €17 at each point, adding an extra €10.20 to the payments of most existing FIS recipients. The average weekly payment stands at €60 per week, with a total of 12,067 families receiving a supplement under the scheme. The question of further improvements to the scheme is a matter for consideration in a budgetary context, having regard to available resources and Government commitments.
Questions Nos. 440 and 441 answered with Question No. 93.
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:442 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if there is an issue for her Department and perhaps the Equality Authority in addressing the discriminatory practice whereby in the case of two parents being separated, unemployed and having their children 50% of the time, that neither parent appears to qualify for one parent allowance based on a flawed administrative decision which refuses to allow children's allowance or a one parent allowance to be divided, even where both parents are agreeable to such an arrangement. [13803/03]
To qualify for the one-parent family payment, a person must, among other things, have main care and charge of at least one qualified child. Where one parent has care of a child for most of the week that parent may, subject to the other qualifying conditions, receive payment of the one-parent family payment. In cases where both parents claim joint equal custody, neither can be considered to have main care and charge of the child and so a one-parent family payment cannot be paid.
In the case of child benefit, regulations provide that payment is made to the mother where a child is resident jointly with both mother and father. The basis of the one-parent family payment is to support a parent who has main care and charge of a qualified child and is parenting alone without the support of a spouse or partner. The OPF scheme does not cater for joint equal custody-parenting and it would be difficult to cater for this without compromising the basis of the scheme or creating inequalitiesvis-à-vis other categories of claimants. The issue will be reviewed in the context of ensuring that the social welfare system responds effectively to the needs of different family situations.
Question No. 443 answered with Question No. 99.