Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 15 December 2004
39 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the position regarding claimants for rent supplement being referred to the local authority for an assessment of housing need in a more systematic manner, following his announcement on 1 December 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33491/04]
View answer44 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if detailed guidance notes have been prepared for community welfare officers in relation to the changes in the criteria for eligibility for rent supplement. [33316/04]
View answer51 Mr. English asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when more detailed user friendly guidelines in relation to rent and mortgage supplement will be drawn up; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33511/04]
View answer77 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason he decided not to reverse the decision to refuse rent supplement to persons in full-time employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33490/04]
View answer176 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when and if it is likely there will be an alleviation of the conditions imposed in respect of rent support in the budget of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33782/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 39, 44, 51, 77 and 176 together.
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme provides for the payment of a weekly or monthly supplement in respect of rent or mortgage interest to assist with reasonable accommodation costs of eligible people who are unable to provide for their accommodation costs from their own resources and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. The scheme is administered on my behalf by the health boards.
It is a condition of the scheme that an applicant must be in need of accommodation. In the past, applicants were referred to the local authority at the discretion of the health boards for an assessment of housing needs. Applicants are now referred on a more systematic basis. The intention is that local authorities will determine in all cases whether the "in need of accommodation" condition is met. I consider that it is appropriate that the housing authority rather than the health board should make such assessments.
I am satisfied that the change will benefit people in the medium term as it provides the housing authorities with a more accurate picture of the long-term housing needs of those living in its area.
A working group was established under the Sustaining Progress agreement to facilitate engagement with the social partners in relation to monitoring the impact of the changes made to the rent supplement scheme. The working group, which was chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, included representatives from ICTU and the community and voluntary pillar as well as my Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The group concluded that the measures introduced in the 2004 budget were not having any significant adverse impacts. It was satisfied with the exclusion of the spouse or partner of a person in full-time employment from receipt of rent supplement. It was also satisfied with the design of the measures introduced including the operation of the appropriate levels of discretion by the community welfare officers. I do not consider it necessary to amend this measure at this point in time.
I have accepted the recommendation in the report of the social partners working group that the measures should continue to be monitored and evaluated. In that regard, the group has reconvened and will advise me on any further actions that may be needed in this area.
In the meantime I recently announced two changes in the conditions for receipt of rent supplement which will come into effect from January 2005. In future, rent supplement may remain in payment until a third offer of local authority accommodation has been refused. Also, the six months rule has been abolished and has been replaced by new measures in order to ensure that bona fide tenants who experience a change in circumstances are not disadvantaged.
A formal circular, which will issue to the community welfare staff, relating to changes in the supplementary welfare allowance scheme is in the course of being drafted in my Department. This will be issued later this month.
A fundamental appraisal of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme in which all of its aspects are being examined with the aim of improving customer service and administrative efficiency is also under way in my Department at present. The question of producing more detailed user friendly guidelines in relation to rent and mortgage interest supplement will be considered in that context.
41 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of sub-post office managers who made occupation benefit contributions but have received no benefit due to the fact that they were defined as agents and not employees. [33466/04]
View answerMy Department does not have any figures to show the numbers of sub-post office managers who were refused benefit or pension due to their paying class J, rather than class A, PRSI contributions.
In general, pay related social insurance contributions are made by employers, employees and the self-employed. The rate of PRSI contribution depends on the class of social insurance applicable. This, in turn, determines the range of benefits and pensions to which contributors may become entitled.
Sub-post office managers are regarded for PRSI purposes as being employed under a contract of service and not as agents. In general they pay class A contributions which entitles them to all benefits and pensions subject to fulfilling certain contribution conditions. A small number of sub-post office managers pay class J contributions as their employment is deemed to be employment of inconsiderable extent. Contributors insured under class J are covered only for occupational injuries benefits.
Prior to 1991, employment of inconsiderable extent was defined as: one or more employments for fewer than 18 hours in a contribution week where the employed persons were not mainly dependent for their livelihood on the remuneration received for such employment or employments; or employment in respect of which the rate of remuneration of the person did not exceed €6 per week or €26 per month where the employed person had no other employment.
From 1991, employment of inconsiderable extent was defined as employment in one or more employments where the total amount of reckonable earnings was less than €25 per week. This threshold was raised to €30 in 1994 and has remained at that level since then.
