Gay Mitchell
Question:326 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will restore full rental subsidy to a person (details supplied) in Dublin 10; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18513/01]
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Under the terms of the supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, scheme payment of a weekly or monthly supplement may be made in respect of rent to any person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet his or her needs. The SWA scheme is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards and neither I nor my Department has any function in deciding entitlement in individual cases.
The purpose of rent supplements is to assist with reasonable accommodation costs of eligible persons living in private rented accommodation who are unable to provide for their accommodation costs from their own resources and who do not have accommodation available to them from another source.
Supplements are normally calculated to ensure the person, after payment of rent has an income equal to the rate of SWA appropriate to the fam ily circumstances, less £6. This £6 represents the minimum contribution which clients are required to pay from their own resources towards their accommodation costs. In addition to the minimum contribution, applicants are required to contribute any assessable means in excess of the appropriate SWA rate.
To qualify for a rent supplement a person in the first instance must satisfy a means test. A health board must also satisfy itself that the applicant has a genuine accommodation need and that the property being rented is suitable to that need. In this regard each health board sets reasonable maximum rent levels in respect of various classes of persons, for example, single persons, couples, lone parents etc., as a basis for calculating the amount of rent supplement payable.
These maximum rent levels are reviewed regularly by the health boards to take account of fluctuations in accommodation costs observed in each area. When accommodation is no longer available within the limits, the levels are reviewed and revised upwards, at the initiative of the health board, in light of its experience in dealing with claims for rent supplement.
The South Western Area Health Board, SWAHB, has been contacted on behalf of the person concerned and has advised that payment of rent supplement was stopped on the grounds that the accommodation being rented is overpriced and, therefore, not considered suitable to the applicant's needs.
The SWAHB further advised that the person concerned is separated from his family and for the purpose of his application for rent supplement he was treated as a single person. When he made his initial application in September 2000 he was advised that his rent of £600 per month was almost double the maximum rent limit for a single person and was advised to seek more reasonably priced accommodation.
As he had been residing in the accommodation for some time, while previously working, he was given three months by the health board to source alternative accommodation. His case was reviewed in November 2000 and he was allowed a further extension until the end of December 2000.
The health board was not satisfied that he had made genuine efforts to secure more reasonably priced accommodation and accordingly on 10 January 2001 stopped payment of his rent supplement. He appealed this decision and the appeals officer decided that payment of his rent supplement should continue to the end of April to allow him more time to secure appropriate accommodation.
The health board has advised that there is accommodation available in the area that is within its current maximum rent levels for a single person and therefore payment of his rent supplement was stopped at the end of April as he has failed to secure reasonably priced accommodation as appropriate to his circumstances.
Should the person concerned secure suitable accommodation the health board will resume payment of rent supplement in this case.
Michael Ring
Question:327 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive an unemployment benefit payment for the period she was not working. [18684/01]
To qualify for unemployment benefit a person must be available for and genuinely seeking work.
When the person concerned applied for unemployment benefit on 28 February 2001, she was asked to provide details of her efforts to find work. Based on her response, a deciding officer disallowed her claim on the grounds that she was not available for full-time work.
The person concerned appealed this decision to the independent social welfare appeals office. Having considered the case, an appeals officer upheld the deciding officer's decision. An appeals officer's decision is final in the absence of new facts or fresh evidence.
Under social welfare legislation decisions in relation to 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.
Dick Spring
Question:328 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the reason a person (details supplied) in receipt of lone parent allowance is having the value of land assessed against her. [18739/01]
The person concerned is receiving one-parent family payment. In determining entitlement to this payment, account must be taken of the applicants means. Under the relevant legislation, the value of property, such as land, which is not personally used or enjoyed is calculated on the basis of the capital value of the property.
The person's entitlement was reviewed on 27 April 2000. She was found to be the sole owner of approximately 42 acres of land with an estimated value of £43,000 which she was not using. On the basis of her means deriving from the estimated capital value of the holding, her entitlement to one-parent family payment was reduced by a deciding officer. She appealed against this decision to the social welfare appeals office. The appeals officer upheld the deciding officer's decision, stating that it was in accordance with the legislation.
The person's entitlement to one-parent family payment was reviewed again recently in the light of a more recent valuation of the lands which she forwarded to my Department. On the basis of this new valuation, her means have been assessed at £210 per week. As this is above the statutory limit of £104 per week which applies in her case, she is no longer qualified for receipt of this payment and she has been requested to return her book of payable orders. When she replies to this request, the deciding officer will make a further decision on her entitlement and if she is dissatisfied with that decision, she will have a right to appeal, within 21 days, to the social welfare appeals office.
Under social welfare legislation decisions in relation to 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.
Dick Spring
Question:329 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will consider extending the companion pass scheme to recipients of British retirement pensions. [18740/01]
Companion free travel passes are available to certain people who qualify for free travel and who, on account of their disability, are unable to travel alone. The companion pass enables a person 16 years of age, or over, to accompany the pass holder free of charge.
In addition, since September 1998, all people aged 75 years or over, who are unfit to travel alone, qualify for a companion free travel pass.
Recipients of a British retirement pension who hold a standard free travel pass are not excluded from these arrangements.