Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 May 2001

Vol. 535 No. 1

Written Answers - Social Welfare Payments.

Gay Mitchell

Question:

453 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will direct that repayment of assessed overpayment of rent allowance will not be sought from a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12 and that rent subsidy will continue to be paid in this case. [11895/01]

The supplementary welfare allowance – SWA – scheme is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards. Neither I nor my Department has any function in deciding entitlement, nor how overpayments should be dealt with, in individual cases. Under the terms of the SWA scheme payment of a weekly or monthly supplement may be made in respect of rent or mortgage interest to any person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their needs. SWA is subject to a means test. Rent supplements are normally calculated to ensure that a person, after the payment of rent, has an income equal to the rate of SWA appropriate to their family circumstances, less £6. This £6 represents the minimum contribution which recipients are required to pay from their own resources.

Most recipients pay more than £6 towards their rent because applicants are required to contribute any additional assessable means that they have over and above the appropriate basic SWA rate towards their rent. The person concerned had been in receipt of rent supplement at the rate of £658.70 per month. Following a recent routine review of rent supplements by the local community welfare officer – CWO – it came to light that the person has been working part time since early September 2000 and had not notified the health board of this fact, giving rise to an overpayment of rent supplement. The CWO contacted the person concerned and advised her that payment of her rent supplement would be suspended pending a revision of her means assessment to take account of her earnings from the part time job. The CWO has asked the person concerned to contact him so that he can advise her of the new rate of rent supplement to be paid and to discuss any action to be taken regarding the overpayment. As the CWO has not been contacted, he has written to the person in question setting out the position. As the Deputy will appreciate I cannot give any directive relating to an overpayment in a specific case as responsibility for operational matters of this nature rests with the health board concerned.

Question:

454 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on the need to extend maternity benefit to women who have paid a B class PRSI contribution; the number of applicants who have applied for maternity benefit through his Department but have been refused due to this class of PRSI contribution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11924/01]

Permanent and pensionable civil servants employed before April, 1995 are liable for PRSI class B contributions. This is a modified rate of PRSI, i.e. the combined employer and employee contribution rate is 4.91% as opposed to the standard class A contribution of either 12.5% or 18%, depending on the level of weekly income. In return, class B contributors are insured for a limited range of social insurance benefits – widow/er's and orphan's (contributory) pensions, bereavement grant and limited occupational injury benefits only. As their conditions of employment provide for full pay during the period of maternity leave, there is no need to cover such employees for maternity benefit purposes.

However, I understand that the case that the Deputy has in mind involves a woman who has left the Civil Service to take up employment in the private sector and who claimed maternity benefit shortly afterwards. On leaving the Civil Service to take up other employment, for example, in the private sector or self-employment, a former class B contributor's employment rights may change considerably. For example, they may no longer be entitled to occupational sick pay or maternity pay and there may also be different occupational pension arrangements or, indeed, no occupational pension cover at all. In addition, such a person's PRSI status would change. For instance, they would become liable for the standard class A PRSI contribution if they took up employment in the private sector or PRSI class S contribution if they took up self-employment.

Eligibility for benefits in this case would be determined in the same way as anyone else becoming insured for the first time at either class A or S. In order to qualify for short-term social insurance payments, a claimant must have paid a minimum number of contributions – 39 weeks – and demonstrate a recent attachment to the work force by having a minimum number of contributions in a recent tax year. More flexible conditions apply in the case of the maternity benefit scheme. For instance, a woman may also qualify if she has paid at least 39 contributions in the 12 months immediately before she commences her maternity leave.
I am satisfied that the current contribution conditions applying to the maternity benefit scheme are reasonable and strike a fair balance between the interests of the average contributor and those of the average beneficiary. In the case in question, the woman left the Civil Service last September and commenced her maternity leave at the end of March 2001. It does not appear that her new employer operates an occupational maternity pay scheme. As she does not satisfy the contribution conditions for entitlement she is not eligible for maternity benefit. In this case, she has failed to qualify for maternity benefit, not by virtue of her class B contributions, which do not provide cover for maternity benefit, but because she has not paid a sufficient number of qualifying class A contributions. My Department does not maintain separate statistics on this type of case. However, it is understood that it would be a rare occurrence. She is, however, currently receiving supplementary welfare allowance.

Michael Ring

Question:

455 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will be awarded the carer's allowance for providing full time care for her mother, in view of the fact that medical letters have been submitted three times in support of this case stating that the woman is in need of full time care. [12083/01]

The person concerned applied for a carer's allowance on 20 September 2000, in respect of both her parents. Carer's allowance was awarded with effect from 21 September 2000, at the maximum weekly personal rate of £80.50, in respect of her father. The decision in respect of her mother was that the evidence provided did not show that she required full-time care and attention and the application in her case was disallowed. The person concerned was notified of this decision, the reasons for it and of her right to appeal, on 12 February 2001. No appeal was lodged. Following a further request by the person concerned to have her application in respect of her mother reviewed, she was invited to submit further medical evidence in support of her claim. This information was received on 25 April 2001 and will be considered by the Department's assessor. The entitlement of the person concerned will then be reviewed and she will be notified directly of the outcome. Under social welfare legislation decisions on claims must be made by deciding officers and appeals officers. These officers are statutorily appointed and I have no role in regard to making such decisions.

Michael Ring

Question:

456 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will be approved and paid the carer's allowance. [12084/01]

The person concerned applied for a carer's allowance on 28 February 2001. However, the medical details submitted in the application were insufficient and a more comprehensive medical report form was sent to the applicant. The completed medical report has been provided and will be considered by a medical assessor. In the light of the medical assessor's report, the application will be further considered and the person concerned will be notified of the outcome. Under social welfare legislation decisions on claims must be made by deciding officers and appeals officers. These officers are statutorily appointed and I have no role in regard to making such decisions.

Top
Share