Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 74: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will consider changing the rules governing family income supplement, particularly around the area of lack of knowledge when claiming for backdating, as part of his review of legislation. [12120/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy refers, perhaps, to a review on the possible merging of child dependant allowances and family income supplement to form a second tier of child benefit support. The review is being undertaken by the National Economic and Social Council. Under its terms of reference, the review does not specifically deal with the backdating of claims as there is a general obligation on people to claim their social welfare entitlements on time. However, legislative provisions have been designed to cater for the inevitable cases in which people fail to claim on time. The legislative provisions on late claims for social welfare benefits are set out in section 205 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, as amended, and in regulations made under the section. The provisions set out the periods within which persons must claim, the disqualifications which apply where late claims are made and the circumstances in which time limits may be extended.

Currently, regulations provide for payment to be made on foot of late claims across a range of schemes, including family income supplement, for a period of six months prior to the date of claim if a satisfactory cause for claiming late can be demonstrated. The legislation sets out the circumstances in which a relaxation of the restrictions on back-dating of late claims may be warranted under all schemes except those on unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance. The legislation also outlines the circumstances in which further payment may be made up to the level of full retrospection. Such circumstances arise where a delay was due to the provision of incorrect information by my Department, illness or force majeure or where the person is dependent on the arrears of payment to relieve financial hardship.

Lack of knowledge is not in itself a consideration to be taken into account when back-dating claims. The Department operates a comprehensive information service as an essential element of the effective delivery of its schemes and services. The underlying objective of the service is to ensure people are made aware of their entitlements and kept informed of developments. Information on social welfare schemes and services is also available from local and branch social welfare offices and through the wide network of citizens' information centres. I am satisfied the current provisions on late claims strike a reasonable balance between, on one hand, the need to supervise and control claims, the requirements of sound financial management and control of public expenditure and, on the other, the need to recognise appropriately cases of genuine hardship or difficulty.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While the reply stated that lack of knowledge is not a sufficient reason for failing to claim on time, the Minister has said himself that of those with entitlements, 25% fail to claim. Part of the reason for that is lack of awareness. While I acknowledge the Department's information campaigns and leaflets, people are still unaware of their entitlements. Will the Minister examine the phenomenon as part of the review? Family income supplement is provided to subsidise low income families. I am not asking for people to be provided with something to which they are not entitled. Unfortunately, people who are not aware of the entitlement are not receiving the supplement. When they realise the mistake and submit a claim, payments are not back-dated.

How many people are affected? According to my information, it is a great many. I have rung different citizens' advice offices and have been made aware of a number of cases at my own advice centre. Will the Minister consider the issue in the context of the current review to give people what they are entitled to receive? He said the system is, on balance, fair, but I call for a minor change to skew it in favour of people with an entitlement to receive payment. The guidelines as set out prevent them from receiving funding.

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can see how difficulties arise for individuals. It has been a long-standing feature of the social welfare code here and in other jurisdictions that, other than in exceptional circumstances, claims are accepted only from a current date. Where extenuating circumstances exist, backdated payments can be made for up to six months, or longer in the case of some schemes, where proof of entitlement from an earlier date can be provided. Proof of entitlement at an earlier date can be difficult to obtain where a person's circumstances have changed rapidly. He or she may not be able to show that he or she was entitled two or three years ago to a benefit which has been approved today. Therefore, the code has operated according to the long-standing feature I outlined.

As I have told the House many times, one must keep all aspects of the social welfare code under constant review. No element of the code is set in concrete and as society changes, the social welfare system must be amended. In that context, I will certainly keep this and other matters under review. Potential claims are difficult to quantify. Our practice is to use a long-standing code and I hope we do so sympathetically in most cases.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 75: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which his Department calculates child maintenance payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12130/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Applicants for one parent family payment are required to make ongoing efforts to obtain adequate maintenance from former spouses or, in the case of unmarried applicants, the other parent of a child. Generally, maintenance is obtained through negotiation or court order, although it is increasingly the case that separated couples use my Department's family mediation service which is being progressively extended nationally.

Since 2001, one parent family payment claimants may retain half of all maintenance received without reduction in their social welfare entitlements as an incentive to seek support. Where social welfare support is being provided to a one parent family, the other parent is legally obliged to contribute to the cost of this payment. In every case where a one parent family payment is awarded, the maintenance recovery unit of my Department seeks to trace the other parent, referred to as the liable relative, in order to ascertain whether he or she is in a financial position to contribute towards the cost of one parent family payment. This follow-up activity takes place within two to three weeks of an award of payment.

All liable relatives assessed with maintenance liability are notified by my Department and they are issued with a determination order setting out the amount of contribution assessed. In assessing maintenance liability, the financial situation of each liable relative is first examined in detail. The assessment is based on the net income of the liable relative. Allowances are made for any child dependent she or he has residing with him or her, and also for certain outgoings such as mortgage payments, house rent or home improvement loans on the liable relative's residence. The methods of assessment of the liable relative's ability to pay are specified in detail in regulations.

When a liable relative's maintenance liability to the Department is assessed, a determination order setting out the amount of contribution assessed issues to that person. The amount assessed can vary but it would not exceed the maximum amount set out in the Family Law Maintenance of Spouses and Children Act 1976, in respect of each qualified child. The current weekly maintenance amount set by the District Courts is €150 per child per week. The average amount of weekly maintenance assessed by the maintenance recovery unit of my Department is of the order of €84 per week.

Decisions can be reviewed where new information comes to light about the financial or household circumstances of a liable relative. In addition, decisions on the amounts assessed can be appealed by liable relatives to the social welfare appeals office. There are currently 1,946 liable relatives contributing directly to my Department. As a result of maintenance recovery unit activity, savings of €8.5 million were achieved in 2002 and €14.2 million in 2003. Savings of €16.6 million were achieved in 2004.

Additional Information not given on the floor of the House.

These savings are composed of direct cash payments by the liable relative to the Department and of scheme savings. Savings on scheme expenditure arise where maintenance recovery activity leads to the liable relative beginning to pay maintenance in respect of a spouse and-or children and the consequent reduction of a one parent family payment. In 2004, a total of 722 one parent family payments were cancelled while a further 512 payments were reduced as a result of maintenance recovery activity.

In implementing maintenance recovery provisions to date my Department has concentrated on cases where the liable relatives concerned, being in employment or self-employment, would be in a financial position to make a contribution towards the relevant benefit or allowance being paid to their families. Legislation allows my Department to seek recovery from liable relatives through the courts in appropriate cases. A total of 182 cases has been submitted for court action from 2001 to date. The majority of these cases have resulted either in orders being written against the liable relative in court or alternatively in the liable relative agreeing to pay a contribution to the Department or to the lone parent.

Issues relating to maintenance are kept under continuous review within my Department. I am currently reviewing a number of aspects of the lone parent allowance and the position of lone parents within the welfare system. I am also looking at maintenance and liable relatives matters in the light of experience in this area in other countries.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the light of an earlier response from the Minister, what is he doing with all these savings? He said he has no money.

Is it true that when fathers pay directly to the mother — in most cases the liable relative is a father — the child is better off because the payment is 50% more than it would be if the payment was paid directly by the Department, in other words, if the payment is made to the Department, the one parent family payment stays as it is, but if the payment is made directly to the parent who lives with the child, that parent can retain 50% of the maintenance payment? Why is that not made known to liable relatives — fathers in most cases — when letters of determination are sent? Is it not the case that children lose out because of this?

Why does the Department not make the same level of payment to the family as it would receive if the payment was made directly to the family by the other parent? Surely an anomaly exists in this regard. When payments are made to the Department rather than directly to the family, why does the Department retain the contribution from the liable relative? Does the Minister not agree that children lose out if payments are made directly to the Department?

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have acknowledged that this area is in need of a serious overhaul. Only 14% of single fathers — by and large the maintenance comes from fathers — have had determination orders issued against them. No contributions are due from a further 49% who, although they were working, their income was deemed to be low. Some 13% of liable relatives are on social welfare and it has been deemed that they can make no contribution. A further 11% of liable relatives cannot be traced.

In terms of the point made by Deputy Stanton, the mother — in most cases it is the mother who lives with the children — is in receipt of a lone parent's allowance. That is her allowance. If the Department receives a contribution from the father, that money is not passed on but remains in the Department. It is considered as a contribution by the father towards the lone parent's allowance which the Department has paid. I am investigating the matter.

Deputy Stanton referred to 50% of a payment, which is a slightly different matter in that in cases where the payment is paid directly by the father to the mother, the mother keeps the whole payment but she is allowed to disregard half of that payment in any assessment of her entitlement to social welfare. This area is in need of a serious overhaul. It is important that fathers would become more involved and would make payments in more cases.

Many fathers do make payments currently but it is apparent from the statistics I gave that not nearly enough of them do so. The Department's rationale for collecting the funds directly is to hold them accountable in some way. I accept that work remains to be done in this area because the idea that money received by the Department is offset against a lone parent's allowance does not really make the connection I want to make between the mother, child and father. We must work out a better way of doing that.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has acknowledged that there is a problem which needs to be addressed. How soon will he set the wheels in motion to deal with this issue? For instance, when the maintenance section of his Department sends out letters, would he consider including in the letter the fact that if the payment is made directly to the mother by the father that the child and his or her mother would benefit financially as a result, rather than to have the benefit accruing to the Department, which is the case if the father makes the payment to the Department?

This serious anomaly has previously been brought to the Minister's attention. Will he give a commitment in the House that before next Question Time he will have examined the matter in detail and will be able to answer questions on it and have a response prepared? We do not only want talk, we want action. Children are losing out. Does the Minister agree this is the case because his Department is holding on to money that should be passed on to families? In cases where the payment is made directly to the mother — this happens in most instances — she benefits financially. However, if the payment is made to the Department, she does not benefit.

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not that simple. I wish that it were. The mother is in receipt of the lone parent's allowance. The money paid to the Department by fathers is almost certainly considerably less than the lone parent's allowance. It is not a matter of the money not being passed on to families. If it were passed on, it would likely interfere with the mother's lone parent's allowance because her income would be above the lone parent's eligibility limit.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is missing the point.

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not the case that the Department is holding money back from children who are entitled to it. A mother is entitled to a lone parent's allowance but maintenance funds from the Department could affect her means-tested payment.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a disregard if the mother receives the payment directly from the father.

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Only half of it is not affected.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Then there is a substantial financial benefit to that.