Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
Jack Wall
Question:
574
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
the discussions his Department had with each health board in regard to rental subsidy; if his Department will investigate the scheme; the plans his Department to assess the value of the scheme; if his Department examines the flats, houses or mobile homes that are leased; if he is satisfied with the rental subsidy scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[26959/01]
Jack Wall
Question:
575
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
the methodology adopted by health boards in determining rent subsidy payments in different areas; if he is satisfied this meets the demands of the applicants; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[26960/01]
Jack Wall
Question:
576
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
if his attention has been drawn to the fact that applicants for rent subsidy are no longer able to receive deposits from the relevant community welfare offices; if his attention has further been drawn to the hardship that this is causing for applicants, especially those who reside in very bad conditions; the plans his Department has to rectify the matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[26961/01]
Jack Wall
Question:
577
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
if rent subsidy applications are vetted to ensure that the landlord is registered with the local authority; his plans to implement such a scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[26962/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 574 to 577, inclusive, together.
Under the terms of the supplementary welfare allowance 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 their needs. The SWA scheme is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards and neither I nor my Department have any function in deciding entitlement in individual cases. In order to qualify for a rent supplement, a person must firstly satisfy a means test. A health board must also satisfy itself that the applicant has a genuine accommodation need, that the property being rented is suitable to those needs and that a bona fide tenancy exists between the applicant and their landlord.
Each health board is required to set reasonable maximum rent levels in respect of various classes of persons, such as single persons, couples or lone parents with one child, as a basis for calculating the amount of rent supplement payable. The limits are set using local knowledge as to what constitutes a reasonable rent for private rented accommodation for various household types within and across the health board area. These maximum rent levels are reviewed regularly by the boards to take account of fluctuations in accommodation costs observed in each area. When accommodation is no longer available within these limits, rent levels are reviewed and revised upwards, at the initiative of the health boards, in the light of their experience in dealing with claims for rent supplement. Health boards must be satisfied that accommodation is generally available within the limits set. If any tenant is experiencing difficulties, health boards have discretion to award a supplement based on an amount of rent which exceeds the maximum level set if there are extenuating medical or social circumstances having regard to the applicant's means and all the other requirements of the legislation.
It is not a requirement that the landlord is registered with the relevant local authority. To introduce such a requirement would inevitably lead to a restriction in choice of accommodation for applicants for SWA as only a minority of rented property is registered with local authorities. It would also lead to difficulties for tenants who have been living in unregistered accommodation for some time before the need to claim rent supplement arose. With regard to housing standards, my Department does not examine the properties being rented by tenants who receive rent supplement payments. Responsibility for enforcing both the housing standards and housing registration regulations rests with the local authorities. However, a health board may consider that a property is not suited to the applicant's needs if the accommodation does not comply with the Housing Regulations (Standards for Rented Housing), 1993.
As the Deputy may be aware, the Government has decided in principle to introduce a new scheme of private sector rent assistance which will also be operated by the local authorities. This will increase the level of contact that local authorities have with the private rented sector and place them in a better position to enforce both the standards and registration regulations. It should lead to increased value for money in this area. I understand that my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, will be bringing detailed proposals to Government shortly.
Health boards provide assistance with rent deposits to enable people to secure private rented accommodation. So far this year over 6,600 people have been assisted in this way at a cost of over £2 million–2.54 million. Finally, the entire SWA scheme is being reviewed as part of my Department's series of programme evaluations. The health boards are represented on the working group that is undertaking this task. All aspects of the scheme, including rent supplements will be examined to consider whether the scheme is providing value for money.
Question No. 577 answered with Question No. 574.
Michael Ring
Question:
578
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
if he will double the fuel allowance payment in the upcoming budget; if he will provide this allowance all year round; and the cost to the Exchequer if this was implemented.
[27210/01]
Jack Wall
Question:
618
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
the plans he has to increase the fuel allowance scheme in the budget; if he will extend the period of its application to 52 weeks per year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[26939/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 578 and 618 together.
The aim of the national fuel scheme is to assist householders who are on long-term social welfare or health board payments and who are unable to provide for their own heating needs. A payment of £5 – 6.35 – per week is normally paid to eligible households. However, an additional £3 – 3.81 – per week is paid in smokeless zones, bringing the total amount in those areas to £8 – 10.16 – per week. In the case of a relatively small number of people living in smokeless zones, the £3 – 3.81 – per week smokeless fuel supplement only is payable. As a result of last year's budget, I announced that the fuel season has been increased from 26 weeks to 29 weeks. The fuel season was extended by two weeks in April and now also commences one week earlier in October.
The estimated expenditure on fuel allowances this year will be approximately £50.58 million – 64.22 million. Based on the current number of recipients and the current length of the fuel season each £1 – 1.27 – increase in the current basic £5 – 6.35 – payment rate would involve additional expenditure of £8.06 million – 10.23 million. Doubling the basic payment rate to £10 – 12.70, for the 29 week fuel season would cost £40.31 million – 51.17 million. It is estimated that it would cost an additional £40.12 million – 50.94 million – to extend the fuel season to run for 52 weeks of the year at the current payment rates. Doubling the basic payment rate and making the higher rate payable for all 52 weeks of the year would cost £112.40 million – 142.72 million.
The national and smokeless fuel schemes were reviewed in 1998 as part of my Department's series of programme evaluations. The review group took the view that improvements in the national fuel scheme cannot be looked at in isolation from the improvements in the primary weekly payment rates. The group concluded that the present rates of payment should remain unchanged if improvements in primary payment rates fully compensated recipients for all price inflation, including fuel price inflation.
In that regard, the increases in primary payments that I introduced in the three budgets since the scheme was reviewed have provided for a substantial real increase after fully compensating for inflation, including fuel price inflation. The increases in primary payments of £8 – 10.16, to £10 – 12.70 – per week that I brought into effect in April of this year are the largest ever implemented. Giving people a real increase in their primary payment for 52 weeks of the year is a more expensive option than increasing the fuel allowance payment rate for part of the year. However, it is the correct approach to take as it gives people greater flexibility in meeting their needs. Any further changes in the scheme would have to be considered in the context of the budget and in light of alternative proposals for delivering improvements in social welfare supports to pensioners and others.
I would also point out that fuel allowances are not the sole mechanism through which assistance is provided to people with heating needs. There is a facility available through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to assist people in certain circumstances who have special heating needs. An application for a heating supplement may be made by contacting the community welfare officer at the local health centre. Where a person would not normally qualify for a heating supplement there is provision under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to pay an exceptional needs payment.
Exceptional needs payments are payable at the discretion of the health board taking into account the requirements of the legislation and all the relevant circumstances of the case. These facilities are considered to be a more appropriate mechanism for meeting heating needs outside the fuel season.
