Skip to main content
Normal View

Social Welfare Benefits.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 23 March 2004

Tuesday, 23 March 2004

Questions (604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610)

Gay Mitchell

Question:

604 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if there are no proposals to do away with the free telephone rental allowance. [9363/04]

View answer

Mary Upton

Question:

605 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will immediately increase the telephone allowance provided to pensioners so that it covers the full cost of the line rental charge imposed by Eircom; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9390/04]

View answer

Seán Haughey

Question:

618 Mr. Haughey asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the details of changes to the free telephone rental allowance introduced on 4 February; the reason Eircom broke the link between its social benefit scheme and the allowance paid by her Department; if she will restore the previous regime in the context of the budgetary situation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8592/04]

View answer

Seamus Kirk

Question:

623 Mr. Kirk asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if there are plans to change the telephone rental allowance for those in receipt of an invalidity pension and widow’s pension; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8710/04]

View answer

Finian McGrath

Question:

632 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if senior citizens will no longer receive free telephone rental or unit allowances as of 4 February; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9002/04]

View answer

Róisín Shortall

Question:

636 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her policy of negotiating with Eircom or other telecommunications providers for the contract for free line rental for pensioners and others in view of the precedent set in 2004 of not covering the whole of the rental charge; if it is her intention to ensure that her Department pay all of the rental charge in the future; and the steps she is taking to ensure that the precedent set in 2004 is not repeated; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9077/04]

View answer

Written answers

I propose to take Questions Nos. 604, 605, 618, 623, 632 and 636 together.

I am happy to confirm that the telephone allowance remains in place. It is payable at the rate of €40.62 per monthly bill, equivalent to €49.39 per bill including VAT. I have no plans to abolish it. The allowance is an important element in the overall social welfare support package for pensioners, the disabled and carers.

I am committed to the development of the telephone allowance scheme to respond to the expanding telecommunications market and to facilitate greater client choice of telephone services. My Department had extensive discussions with the Commission for Telecommunications Regulation and the industry with a view to enabling telephone allowance customers to select a participating telephone service provider that suits their circumstances.

As soon as the ComReg wholesale line rental agreement is operational telephone allowance customers will be entitled to switch between participating provider companies within a reasonable period. They will receive one periodic bill from their provider, including the rental element and the telephone allowance credit.

It will be up to the provider companies concerned to design suitable marketing packages to attract and retain these clients like any other group. It is likely that participating service providers will offer different cost packages to telephone allowance customers.

To ensure that the costs to my Department are predictable and that the telephone allowance does not become a distorting factor in the market, its structure was changed last October to make it a standard cash credit on bills and not attributable to a component charge. The change makes it easier for additional service providers to participate in the scheme by applying a standardised allowance amount to bills irrespective of the tariff components.

At the same time as the change, a special social benefits scheme was negotiated with Eircom. It provides telephone allowance customers with line and equipment rental plus an enhanced call credit of up to €5.35 worth of free calls per bimonthly billing period. The cost of the scheme, €40.82 plus VAT per bi-monthly bill, was at a substantial discount to the previous cost to my Department for these services, as well as giving increased value to social welfare customers.

ComReg subsequently approved a price increase application from Eircom of 7.5% in line rental and a lesser percentage increase in instrument rental, effective from 4 February. I understand that Eircom will offset these increases by rebalancing call costs in order to limit the average private customer bill increase to the level of the consumer price index.

Following detailed discussions with officials of my Department, Eircom agreed that the increase in the cost of its social benefits scheme would be limited to the prevailing rate of CPI at 1.9%. Eircom also agreed to change its scheme and removed some of the additional call unit value. To offset this it offered to give low use customers up to €10 worth of calls free per bi-monthly bill by promoting its separate vulnerable users scheme in addition to its social benefit scheme.

The revised Eircom package resulted in a small increased cost to the social welfare customer of 94 cent, including VAT per bimonthly bill, or about 72 cent per week. This is in comparison to an increase for non-social welfare customers of €3.78 per bill. The further rebalancing of call costs by Eircom should be broadly beneficial to social welfare customers, especially those who make a lower amount of calls.

Any future changes to the telephone allowance will be considered in a budgetary context, in light of available resources and other priorities.

Gay Mitchell

Question:

606 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, further to Parliamentary Question No. 188 of 26 February, if she will review the maximum earnings disregard because these limits have remained static since 1997 and have not kept pace with rates paid by FÁS, as in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 8, and is only reached by those with more than eight children. [8277/04]

View answer

The policy of the one-parent family payment is to encourage and facilitate them in moving into the paid labour force and avoid long-term welfare dependency. The main element of the policy is an earnings disregard of €146.50 per week. It is designed to help towards expenses incurred from taking up employment such as travel and childminding. Only half of any earnings above the threshold are assessed as means, up to a maximum of €293 per week. In the case of the person concerned, her weekly earnings exceeded the statutory limit of €293 and, consequently, the one-parent family payment was stopped.

Family income supplement may be payable above this level of income depending on family size and average weekly family income. The special earnings disregard arrangements in place for lone parents remain generally appropriate for the group. This position is being kept under review.

Under social welfare legislation decisions on claims must be made by deciding officers and appeals officers. They are statutorily appointed and I have no role in making such decisions.

Top
Share