Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Dec 2003

Vol. 576 No. 1

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

115 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if post viral fatigue syndrome or chronic fatigue syndrome is recognised as a medical condition based on which, if sufficiently serious, disability allowance is payable; and if not, the reason therefor. [28987/03]

Disability allowance is a social assistance payment made to people whose employment capacity is substantially restricted because of a disability and whose income falls below certain limits. Continuing entitlement to disability allowance is subject to the person satisfying both a means test and the medical eligibility criteria that apply. In this regard my Department recognises post viral fatigue syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and ME, myalgic encephalomyelitis, as medical conditions for which, if sufficiently serious, disability allowance is payable.

Where a person claims a payment in respect of illness, an opinion regarding the person's medical condition is given in the first instance by his or her doctor. Where required, a second opinion is provided by medical assessors employed by my Department for the guidance of the Department's deciding officers who ultimately determine entitlement. When conducting an examination the medical assessor does not dispute the existence of the certified cause of incapacity but rather she or he assesses the degree to which the loss of function in work-related activities resulting from the disease or injury affects the ability of the person to perform either his or her own job or alternative work.

David Stanton

Question:

116 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the amount paid in rent supplement in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 to date; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29082/03]

Ciarán Cuffe

Question:

117 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the numbers in 2003 who have claimed supplementary welfare allowance rent supplement, having previously been in rented accommodation for a six month period or less; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29014/03]

Ciarán Cuffe

Question:

353 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to reverse the requirement that those on low income be in rented accommodation for six months prior to applying for rent allowance. [29176/03]

Richard Bruton

Question:

355 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to withdraw rent supplement from persons who are in receipt of the supplement but have not been renting for a period of six months or more. [29191/03]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 116, 117, 353 and 355 together.

The purpose of the supplementary welfare allowance is to deal with emergencies and short-term needs that arise when a person has a change in circumstances, for example when a tenant becomes unemployed and can no longer afford their rent. Expenditure on rent supplements in 1998 was €112 million. In 1999 it was €128 million and in 2000 it was €151 million. In 2001 it rose to €179 million while in 2002 it reached €252 million. Expenditure this year is expected to be approximately €330 million or almost three times the 1998 level.

As Deputies will be aware, future rent supplements will be payable only where, at the time of application for a rent supplement, the person has been in rented accommodation for a period of six months. Provision will be made for cases where a housing authority designates that a person is homeless or a person has been identified by a housing authority as having a housing need which cannot be met by the housing authority or by a voluntary housing organisation or by the person concerned. This will help re-focus the rent supplement on its original objective of short-term income maintenance. The six month requirement is not currently a condition for entitlement to rent supplement and therefore details in respect of the number of recipients in 2003 who had previously been in rented accommodation for a six month period or less are not available.

People currently in receipt of rent supplement will not be affected by the introduction of the six month requirement and their rent supplements will continue to be paid. There was never any question of withdrawing rent supplement from existing recipients who qualified for payment under the current arrangements. Rent supplements were never intended to meet persons long-term housing needs. The scheme is not a housing programme but despite this over the years the scheme has become a form of housing support outside of the remit of the housing authorities. It does not make sense to have two parallel but entirely separate programmes, one operated by the housing authorities and the other by the health boards in this area. In consultation with the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I am considering how to address the anomalies in the recent arrangements.

Gerard Murphy

Question:

118 Mr. Murphy asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of recipients of the one parent family allowance who have received notification from the external review section of her Department to indicate that they have been overpaid due to income from earnings. [29064/03]

In April of this year my Department commenced a special review of the one parent family payment scheme to examine the entitlement of clients identified as having earnings from employment at a level above the statutory limit for receipt of the payment and who had not notified the Department of this fact. To date, over-payments have been assessed in 444 cases. Those concerned have received a formal decision on their claim, a detailed breakdown of the amount of money overpaid and the period involved. All have been advised of their statutory right of appeal. In all cases, the over-payments are recoverable and those concerned have been notified of the code of practice operated by my Department which affords them the opportunity to comment on the repayment method proposed.

This review is part of the ongoing anti-fraud measures undertaken by my Department which, for the first nine months of this year, have yielded savings of almost €230 million. It is imperative that social welfare payments, funded by the taxpayer, are targeted at those most in need and are not abused. The reviews in question are continuing.

Paul Nicholas Gogarty

Question:

119 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the numbers who will be affected by the change in criteria in the payment of unemployment benefit; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29017/03]

The conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit or UB aim to preserve a fair balance between contributions paid and the benefit received. In view of this and the need to remove a number of anomalies or to better target scheme resources, a number of measures were introduced as part of the Estimates process.

The new measures are: increasing the weekly earnings threshold for payment of a full rate of unemployment benefit and the corresponding thresholds for the three bands of graduated rates; withdrawal of half rate child dependant allowance of €8.40 per child where a claimant's spouse or partner has weekly earnings in excess of €300; discontinue entitlement to half rate unemployment benefit where a person is in receipt of a widow's or widower's pension or a one parent family payment; increase the period where unemployment benefit claims are linked to a previous claim from 13 weeks to 26 weeks; increase the number of paid contributions required to qualify for unemployment benefit from 39 to 52, applicable to new cases; reduce the maximum duration of unemployment benefit claims from 15 months to 12 months where a person has less than 260 paid contributions.
Most of these measures will affect only new claimants or, in some cases, people who are returning to unemployment benefit after a break in their current claim. The impact of the measures differ in effect. The first four measures outlined are expected to reduce the average payment made to persons on unemployment benefit. On any given week in 2004, it is expected that these measures will affect 8,400, 13,500, 1,300 and 150 cases respectively. This compares with an expected average of 74,000 UB claims in 2004 before policy measures were introduced. The last two measures will impact on the number of persons on unemployment benefit. The first of them will affect 300 new claims per week in 2004. This compares with an average of about 3,100 applications weekly currently. The final will result in shorter durations for about 700 persons per week on average.
Top
Share