John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 400: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of PPS numbers allocated to migrants from the 10 new EU accession countries up to June 2006; the breakdown of the different nationalities involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27764/06]

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

The Personal Public Service (PPS) number is a unique personal identifier for transactions between individuals and Government Departments as well as other public bodies specified in the Social Welfare Acts. The number is required for a significant number of dealings with public agencies including, but not limited to, employment-related purposes.

A person applying for a PPS number is required to present appropriate documentation regarding age, photographic ID, such as a driving licence, passport or identity card issued by the Garda National Immigration Bureau, and evidence of address. Nationality of applicants is recorded by reference to the documentation supplied in support of the application.

From the 1st of May 2004 to the 30th June 2006, 232,483 PPS numbers were issued to nationals of the 10 Accession States as follows: Poland: 133,749; Lithuania: 38,507; Slovakia: 19,470; Latvia: 19,446; Czech Rep: 9,666; Hungary: 6,746; Estonia: 4,330; Malta: 324; Slovenia: 182; and Cyprus: 63.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 401: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the estimated cost of paying all the qualified adult social welfare payments at a hundred percent of the full adult rate. [27774/06]

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

The cost of increasing the maximum weekly rate of all qualified adult allowances to the relevant maximum weekly personal rate of payment is estimated at €311 million in a full year.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 402: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the expected cost of abolishing the limitation rule based on the number of cases where it is currently enforced. [27775/06]

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

Where both members of a couple are claiming social welfare payments and one or both of the claimants is in receipt of unemployment assistance, farm assist or pre-retirement allowance their combined payments cannot exceed the amount which would be payable if only one person was being paid with an increase for a qualified adult dependant, where appropriate. In this situation one or both of the payments would be limited to ensure that the relevant household rate of payment would not be exceeded. The removal of the limitation for the approximately 3,400 cases affected would have a direct cost of €6.60m in a full year.

The removal of the limitation would also provide an incentive to all those for whom qualified adult allowance is currently in payment to claim UA in their own right, subject to satisfying the genuinely seeking work condition, which in the majority of cases would result in an increase of €55.80 per week. This development would have significant implications, both in terms of increased cost and live register numbers as it would apply (subject to means assessment) to qualified adults of working age across a range of schemes in addition to those currently affected by the limitation rule. There are a total of 57,400 payments in this grouping, with additional potential costs estimated at up to €163m per annum if there was full take-up.

My department has recently published a Government discussion paper: Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents. Under these proposals for reform of income support arrangements for lone parents and low income families, a new parental allowance for all low income families with children under a specified age would replace both the current one-parent family payment and the social assistance qualified adult allowance. In these circumstances no limitation would apply where a parental allowance recipient cohabits with a person in receipt of a social assistance payment, e.g. unemployment assistance.

Lifting limitation for this limited period of time would have the effect of increasing household income in such situations by up to €58 per week, recognising the higher costs associated with care of young children. It would also assist in addressing the problem of poverty among children in low income families. Any proposal to abolish the limitation rule in full could only be considered in a budgetary context and in the light of competing priorities.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 403: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the cost of introducing retrospective credits for all women who have lost out on cover due to the Civil Service marriage bar. [27777/06]

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

In general, the social insurance class paid by those affected by the marriage bar was a modified rate which now gives coverage for widow(er)'s and orphan's pensions and occupational injury benefit, bereavement grant and carer's benefit only. This class reflected their occupational pension position and general contract of service at that time. Accordingly, even if they had continued in employment, contributions paid at this class would not have entitled them to an old age pension under the social welfare system.

That said, in line with the Government's commitment to ensure that as many people as possible can qualify for pensions in their own right, a number of measures have been introduced over the years which make it easier for people to qualify for pensions. These include the reduction in the yearly average number of contributions required for pension purposes from 20 to 10 and the special half rate pension based on pre-53 insurance contributions. Pro-rata pensions are also available to allow people with mixed rate insurance. This set of measures is of particular benefit to women who may have less than complete social insurance records due to working in the home.

It is estimated that approx 88% of women aged 65 years of age are at present receiving social welfare support, either in their own right or as qualified adults on the pension of their spouse or partner.

In addition, the homemaker's scheme, which was introduced in 1994, is intended to mitigate the effect of periods spent on caring duties when a person's insurance record is being averaged for pension purposes. The scheme allows up to 20 years spent on caring duties to be disregarded when a person's insurance record is being averaged to assess entitlement for contributory pension purposes. However, it must be borne in mind that the scheme will not of itself qualify a person for a pension. The standard qualifying conditions for pensions, which require a person to enter insurance 10 years before pension age, pay a minimum of 260 contributions at the correct rate and achieve a yearly average of at least 10 contributions on their record from the time they enter insurance until they reach pension age, must also be satisfied. Accordingly, the scheme will not benefit someone whose social insurance record includes only modified rate contributions.

It is not, for a number of reasons, possible to estimate the cost of providing pensions to persons affected by the marriage bar. Some of those affected may have returned to the workforce and have become eligible for a social welfare pension on foot of such employment or may already be receiving social welfare support as non-contributory pensioners or as qualified adults on the pension of their spouse or partner.

I will continue to look for ways, within the current social welfare structure, in which the needs of older people who are at present outside the social welfare pensions system may be addressed further.