Vol. 573 No. 3
730 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if her attention has been drawn to cases in which disability allowance is paid directly to the home in which the recipient is in care; and if so, the number of these cases. [25075/03]
731 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if her attention has been drawn to the practice of residential homes which receive a person's disability allowance issuing the recipient with pocket money on a weekly basis and that in cases in which the money is not spent, it is returned to the home; her views on whether this practice is legal or acceptable; and if she will introduce measures to eliminate this scenario. [25076/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 730 and 731 together.
Disability allowance is a personal allowance payable to the claimant concerned. However, under social welfare legislation, payment may be made to a person other than the claimant in certain circumstances. Such persons are appointed and act as agents to collect payments on behalf of a claimant.
There are some 19,312 persons who have appointed agents to collect their disability allowance payments for them. Agents are normally appointed where a person is unable to cash their payment due to serious illness or loss of mobility. They may also be appointed in cases where a person is permanently unable to act for themselves or discharge responsibility generally due to severe mental incapacity. In many cases parents, guardians or other family members are appointed as agents.
Disability allowance is not generally payable to persons in residential homes, where their care and maintenance is being funded in part or in whole by the relevant health board. In instances where the allowance is payable, agents may be appointed to cash payments for the claimant. The number who act as agents in these circumstances is not known.
In all cases where agents are appointed, including residential home cases, a formal application is required and the consent of the claimant is needed. The agent is responsible for ensuring that the payment is used for the benefit of the claimant. Such arrangements may be withdrawn at any time by the Department where it has reason to believe that the payment is not being used for the benefit of the claimant.
My Department formally consults on a quarterly basis with organisations and service providers for persons with disabilities. No specific cases have been brought to my Department's attention where disability allowance is not used for the benefit of the claimant.
732 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if the current monthly method of payment to a weekly or fortnightly payment will be changed in view of the centrality of child dependant allowance to families in consistent and relative poverty. [25077/03]
733 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on whether the freezing of child dependant allowance since 1994 is having a negative long-term effect on families living in poverty; and if she will address this issue in the forthcoming budget. [25078/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 732 and 733 together.
Child benefit, CB, is paid monthly at present, while child dependant allowance, CDA, increases, in weekly social welfare payments, are paid weekly with the personal payment. There are no plans at present to pay child benefit on a fortnightly or weekly basis. As the payment is made monthly in advance, a change along the lines proposed would lead to a later payment than is currently available. In addition, significant additional administration costs would be involved.
Since 1994, rates of child dependant allowances has been maintained at the same levels. This was done in the context of significant increases in child benefit, thereby concentrating additional resources for child income support on the child benefit scheme. The combined CB-CDA payment has increased by more than double the rate of inflation over that period. In 1994 where 70% of child income support for a family claiming social welfare payments was in the form of child dependant allowances, whereas the current position is that child dependant allowances account for less than 33%.
The approach adopted has had considerable advantages in the overall aim to reduce poverty. Child benefit is neutral vis-à-vis the employment status of the child's parents and does not contribute to poverty traps, whereas the loss of child dependant allowances by social welfare recipients on taking up employment can act as a disincentive to availing of work opportunities. As a universal payment, which is not taxable and is not assessed as means for other benefits, child benefit is more effective than child dependant allowance as a child income support mechanism when account is taken of these incentive issues.
In the partnership agreement Sustaining Progress, the importance of child income support arrangements is recognised, and the agreement includes a commitment to examine the current arrangements. This is being advanced in the context of implementing the agreement.
