Bernard Allen
Question:303 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason the Southern Health Board has refused to award supplementary welfare allowance to a person (details supplied) in County Cork. [28791/04]
View answerWednesday, 17 November 2004
Questions (263, 264, 265, 266, 267)
Written answers
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards, provides for exceptional needs payments to help meet essential, once-off expenditure which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of his or her weekly income.
The Southern Health Board was contacted regarding this case and has advised that an application for an exceptional needs payment was refused on the grounds that the person concerned had been in a position to meet the expenses in question from his own resources and that an exceptional need had not been established.
The board has further advised that the person concerned was unsuccessful in appealing against this decision to the health board's appeals officer. The determination of entitlement to exceptional needs payments is a matter for the health board and neither I nor my Department have any function in deciding entitlement in individual cases.
Paul Connaughton
Question:304 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he is making major changes in the way social welfare benefit is paid to lowly paid part-time workers who through no fault of their own or their employers cannot either find full-time employment locally and where their present employers cannot provide full-time jobs for them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28922/04]
View answerUnemployment benefit or assistance may be paid where a person is employed for three days or less in any six consecutive days (excluding Sunday). For the purposes of unemployment benefit, a person working less than the normal full-time days in a particular employment may be categorised as part-time, casual or systematic short-time. Part-time employment is regarded as employment where the employee is engaged to work for less than the normal full-time number of days or hours in the employment concerned. The volume of work must be of an ongoing nature but not sufficient to sustain full-time employment.
Legislation provides that a person is regarded as being engaged in casual employment for unemployment benefit purposes where s/he is normally employed for periods of less than a week, the number of days and the days of the week on which the person is employed varies with the level of activity in the employer's business, and on the termination of each period of employment, the person has no assurance of being re-employed with the same employer. The requirement to have suffered a substantial loss of employment, where a person must work a reduced numbers of days in the week from that which she or he would normally work, and which applies to all other unemployment benefit claims, does not apply to casual workers, as defined.
A person is regarded as being engaged in systematic short-time working where his or her full-time working week is reduced by the employer and where there is a clear repetitive pattern of employment each week. The number of days of benefit payable each week to a systematic short-time worker is limited to ensure that the total of the number of days paid and the number of days worked does not exceed five.
Where a casual or part-time worker has insufficient contributions to qualify for unemployment benefit, she or he may qualify for unemployment assistance, a means-tested payment. Earnings are assessed at 60% for UA purposes. In addition, persons without children are allowed a €12.70 disregard for each day worked. Casual or part-time workers are subject to the same conditions as any other unemployed person for entitlement to UA. The question of changes in the conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance will be a matter for consideration in a budgetary context and in the context of priorities generally.
David Stanton
Question:305 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons that have been refused rent supplement since January 2004; the number of persons that have appealed the refusal for rent supplement and have been successful in their appeal for the rent supplement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28927/04]
View answerDavid Stanton
Question:306 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons that were refused rent supplement; the number of persons appealed the refusal for rent supplement and have been successful in their appeal for the rent supplement in the year 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28928/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 305 and 306 together.
Rent supplements are provided for under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme which is administered on my behalf by the health boards. My Department exercises general direction, co-ordination and expenditure monitoring in relation to the scheme, but has no involvement in individual claim decisions or appeals. Statistics are not available on the number of people refused rent supplement. However, information is available on the number of applications for rent supplement and on the number of claims awarded. In 2003, 56,466 claims for rent supplement were registered of which 53,750 were awarded. To date in 2004 some 39,145 claims have been registered of which 37,035 have been awarded.
Where a person is dissatisfied with the outcome of an application for rent supplement he or she may appeal against the decision to the appeals officer in the relevant health board and if necessary then to the chief appeals officer of the social welfare appeals office.
In 2003, some 288 appeals relating to rent supplement were dealt with by the chief appeals officer of the social welfare appeals office. Of these appeals, rent supplement was awarded in 50 cases, while in the remaining 238 cases the original refusal of rent supplement was upheld. To date in 2004 some 194 cases have been referred to the chief appeals officer. In 59 cases a rent supplement has been awarded while in the remaining 135 cases the original refusal of rent supplement was upheld. Details of the number of appeals to health board appeals officers relating to rent supplement are not available.
Seán Crowe
Question:307 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons who availed of the back to school clothing and footwear allowances in each of the past five years; the details of the take up of this allowance; and if his Department, from its files, can identify the persons who are entitled to the allowance. [29011/04]
View answerThe back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards. Under the scheme, an allowance of €80 is payable in respect of qualified children aged two to 11 years while €150 is payable in respect of qualified children aged 12 to 22 years.
A person may qualify for payment of a back to school clothing and footwear allowance if he or she is in receipt of a social welfare or health board payment, participating in an approved employment scheme or attending a recognised education or training course, if a child dependant allowance is being paid in respect of the child and the household income is at or below certain specified levels as set out in tabular statement A.
The information held by my Department does not enable it to identify in advance people who might be entitled to the allowance. The information sought by the Deputy in respect of the years 1999 to 2003 is set out in tabular statement B.
|
Couple with |
Income Limit |
Lone Parent with |
Income Limit |
|
€ |
€ |
||
|
1 Child |
348.10 |
1 Child |
238.90 |
|
2 Children |
367.40 |
2 Children |
260.50 |
|
3 Children |
386.70 |
3 Children |
282.10 |
|
4 Children |
406.00* |
4 Children |
303.70** |
*Limit is increased by €19.30 for each additional child.
**Limit is increased by €21.60 for each additional child.
|
Year |
Numbers |
|
1999 |
183,708 |
|
2000 |
158,766 |
|
2001 |
143,029 |
|
2002 |
155,811 |
|
2003 |
172,123 |