Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Feb 2000

Vol. 514 No. 2

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Róisín Shortall

Question:

104 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will give details of the recent directive issued to community welfare officers in the Eastern Health Board in relation to claims for rent deposits and supplements from person who have been provided with full board accommodation; the rationale for this policy in view of the fact that full board accommodation is substantially more expensive than rental accommodation; the person or persons who decided on this policy; the cost implications for an individual and for an average family of disallowing these claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3890/00]

Róisín Shortall

Question:

105 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the rates payable in relation to payment of supplementary welfare allowance to persons in full board accommodation; the level of residual income which applies after paying board and lodging; the recent change, if any, in these rates; if so, the reason for this change; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3892/00]

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 104 and 105 together.

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme provides entitlement to any person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their needs. In effect, the main objective of the scheme is to make up the difference between a person's means, whether cash or in kind, and his or her needs.

The maximum rate of SWA payable where a person has no means of any kind is £72 per week for a single person, £115.20 for a couple and £13.20 for a child. The maximum rate of rent supplement paid to a single person in the Eastern Health Board area is £64 per week, while the average family can receive up to £167 per week in rent supplement.

Payment at the full basic weekly rate is not made in cases where some needs are met directly or in kind. This is the situation, for example of persons in long stay institutions and, to a different extent, people in "digs" type accommodation. A payment of £15 per week is typically made to people in long-term institutional care and it has been the practice in the Eastern Health Board to pay £25 per week to people in "digs" type accommodation.

Guidance was sought by and provided to health boards recently in relation to the amount of SWA which would be appropriate in the case of people who have been provided with full board accommodation, mainly in hotels and tourist hostels outside Dublin. Where a person in full board accommodation receives all meals and has access to other facilities such as laundry and leisure areas, the weekly allowance is £15 per adult, in line with the practice in long-term institutions referred to above and £7.50 per child. Furthermore, where there are other reasonable expenses, exceptional needs payments are being made by the health board.

General guidance and clarification regarding the payment of rent supplements and deposits was also sought by and issued to the health board community welfare staff recently. The legislation provides that it shall be a condition of any claimant's entitlement to a rent supplement that the health board is satisfied that the claimant is in need of accommodation. Therefore, in general, a person who is in full-board accommodation does not have an accommodation need and would not be entitled to a rent supplement and or a deposit.

However, there will be instances where, in the view of the health board, the full board accommodation is not appropriate. In those circum stances, deposits and rent supplements will be paid in the normal manner.

Noel Ahern

Question:

106 Mr. N. Ahern asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will clarify regulations on treatment benefits particularly in relation to a person (details supplied) in Dublin 9; the reason she was refused in view of the fact she was under 21 in the relevant year; the contributions for each year she worked; if the basis should be age in a relevant year in view of the fact that Department leaflets are open to differing interpretations; the average age at which a person qualifies for treatment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3894/00]

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

The treatment benefits scheme administered by the Department provides assistance towards the cost of dental, optical and audiology services to people who satisfy certain statutory PRSI conditions and to their dependent spouses. The scheme is a contributory social insurance scheme and the qualifying conditions are set at a level which maintains a reasonable balance between social insurance contributions received and the costs of the benefits concerned, which amounted to £35 million last year.

For persons aged under 21 years at the date of claim, the only contribution condition is that they have 39 weeks PRSI paid since entering insurance. Between the ages of 21 and 25, there is an additional requirement that they have 39 contributions in the relevant income tax year – the 1997-8 year in the case of the person concerned. It is the claimant's age at the date of claim that counts and not her age in the relevant tax year.

The person concerned has contributions as follows:

Tax Year	Class A	Class J
1996-7	31	2
1997-8	29	1
1998-9	12	0

As she has only 29 reckonable contributions in the 1997-8 tax year, her claim for dental benefit could not be approved and she was notified accordingly.

Information is not available on the average age of claimants who qualify for benefit nor on the eligibility of persons in particular age groupings or take-up by them. The position, however, is that the conditions for people under age 25 are more favourable than for those over that age who must have 260 paid contributions as well as 39 paid or credited in the relevant income tax year.

Any further changes to the qualifying conditions would have significant cost implications and there are no plans to amend the qualifying conditions at this time.

I might add that the person concerned is due to complete full-time education in July 2000. If, at that stage, she takes up insurable employment, she will be entitled under regulations governing the award of student credits to credited contributions which will have the effect of qualifying her immediately for treatment benefit.

I have asked my Department to review the relevant explanatory literature in the light of the Deputy's comments.