Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 May 1998

Vol. 490 No. 5

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Liz McManus

Ceist:

238 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, when a person finishes a community employment scheme and is eligible for unemployment assistance, any rent allowance he has is reduced; the action, if any, he will take on this anomaly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10391/98]

People in receipt of rent or mortgage interest supplement are required to contribute towards their rent or mortgage interest costs. The minimum contribution is £6 per week which applies to people whose means are equal to the basic supplementary welfare allowance rate, currently £65.40 per week for a single person. People who have assessable means in excess of the appropriate basic supplementary welfare allowance rate are required to contribute £6 plus the amount of means in excess of the appropriate basic supplementary welfare allowance, SWA rate.

For example, people on long-term unemployment assistance receive £2.10 more than the relevant SWA rate and are required to contribute a total of £8.10 per week, £6.00 plus £2.10, towards their rent or mortgage interest costs. People on one parent family payment who have two children receive £6.10 more than the relevant SWA rate and are required to contribute a total of £12.10 per week, £6.00 plus £6.10, towards their rent or mortgage interest costs.

Under the rules of the community employment, scheme, participants are paid a set weekly wage which is generally greater than the social welfare payment that they formerly received. However, the amount of rent supplement payable is calculated on the basis that all participants contribute a standard minimum contribution of £8.10 per week towards their accommodation costs. In practice, this means that a higher rate of rent supplement is payable than would be the case under the standard means test which applies to other applicants for rent supplement.

When participants finish a particular CE programme, they are then subject to the normal means test which is less favourable than that which applies while they are on the CE scheme. This can result in a reduction in rent supplement to the standard levels applicable to people in similar household and financial circumstances.

In the normal course, former CE workers who are solely dependent on a social welfare payment should continue, where appropriate, to receive a rent supplement although they may qualify for a lower rate than that received while participating on the CE scheme.

CE participants are insured for PRSI class A benefits from 6 April 1996. As a result, those who complete the CE programme may qualify for unemployment benefit. As unemployment benefit is paid at a higher rate than SWA, their rent supplement is reduced accordingly. Any increase in means will result in a decrease in the rent supplement rate payable as the more means a person has the less supplementation they will receive.

Noel Ahern

Ceist:

239 Mr. N. Ahern asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will clarify regulations in relation to the entitlement to free phone rental for persons on old age pensions in circumstances (details supplied). [10446/98]

The free telephone rental allowance is available to people who are in receipt of certain long-term welfare-type payments or who satisfy a means test and who are either living alone, with dependent children or with a spouse or other person who is providing care for the applicant or who is permanently incapacitated and therefore unable to summon help in an emergency.

Pensioners aged 75 or over may retain the allowance even where the qualifying household and medical conditions are no longer met, for example where another person comes to live with them. This concession applies similarly in the case of couples, as soon as the pensioner in receipt of the qualifying payment reaches age 75.

The type of case referred to in the question, concerns a situation where the pensioner is 73 and the spouse is 75. Neither spouse is permanently incapacitated. The pensioner himself is not yet eligible for the allowance, but his spouse might qualify in her own right, either by being in receipt of a relevant qualifying payment or by satisfying a means test and provided the telephone account was registered in her name. The weekly means limit applicable to such a household is £163.40 a week. If the spouse's half of the aggregate household income is below this limit, then she would be eligible.

If the persons concerned wish to have their entitlement to free telephone rental allowance examined, they should complete and send the relevant application form to the Department.

240.

asked the Minister for Social,

Community and Family Affairs when the grant application for £35,000 submitted by an organisation (details supplied) will be decided upon. [10472/98]

The group mentioned by the Deputy submitted an application for funding under the 1998 scheme of grants to voluntary organisations, which is administered by my Department.

As at 1 May 1998 a total of 2,406 applications had been registered under the scheme, including 327 in the southern region where this group is based. As the Deputy will appreciate it will take time to process all these applications. My Department will contact the group as soon as a decision has been made regarding its application.

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

241 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the average weekly payment to claimants of dietary supplement under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme operated by his Department; the method of calculating the dietary allowance in individual cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10583/98]

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

242 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs whether his Department has in hand a process of review, consideration or modification which might lead to a rationalisation of the rather cumbersome method employed by it in calculating individual entitlement to dietary allowance under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10584/98]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 241 and 242 together.

Recipients of social welfare or health board payments, who have been prescribed a special diet as a result of a specified medical condition and whose means are insufficient to meet their needs, may qualify for a diet supplement under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.

Entitlement to a diet supplement is determined by the health boards under the provisions of S.I. No. 382 of 1995, as amended by S.I. 190 of 1996, which specify the medical conditions in respect of which a diet supplement may be paid. The various types of recognised diets are grouped into two categories, with the amount of supplement payable depending on which category of diet has been prescribed by the applicant's medical adviser.

The amount payable depends on the type of diet and on the person's weekly means. The formula typically results in payments of up to £6.20 per week in the case of one category of diets and up to £14.20 in the case of the other category of diets. The average weekly expenditure on diet supplements is estimated at £60,000 with approximately 6,800 cases in payment. I am arranging to send to the Deputy a number of examples showing how the calculations are made in practice.

In the past, people in receipt of diet supplements could experience a reduction in the amount of their dietary allowance as a result of an increase in their basic social welfare or health board payments. While it is accepted that the current method of calculation is complicated, it was introduced in 1997 to prevent general budgetary increases reducing the rate of diet supplement already in payment. It is intended to review the diet supplement element of supplementary welfare allowance, including the formula for calculation. Any changes would have to be made in the context of the budget.

Gay Mitchell

Ceist:

243 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the plans, if any, he has to make provision for those with free travel passes to travel free during the morning rush hours to attend appointments in Tallaght Hospital, Dublin 24 following the closure of the three inner city hospitals. [10588/98]

The free travel scheme operated by my Department is available to all people living in the State aged 66 years or over as well as certain people with disabilities under that age who are in receipt of certain social welfare type payments. The scheme provides free travel, primarily at off-peak periods, to eligible people on the main public and private transport services. At the end of last January, free travel passes had been issued in respect of about 505,000 people at an estimated annual cost of £33 million.

The operation of the free travel scheme is based on the use of spare capacity and, therefore, time restrictions have been a feature of this scheme since its inception. They apply generally from 7.00 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. and from 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. Monday to Friday inclusive, and on Bus Éireann long distance buses from 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. on Fridays for up to 20 miles out from Dublin, Cork or Limerick.

Time restrictions have been put in place on city and provincial bus routes because the transport companies concerned are under severe pressure from commuters travelling to or from work or school in the morning and evening. They do not, however, apply in the case of people with mental disabilities, those attending long-term rehabilitation courses and certain other people with disabilities.

While the issue of time restrictions has been discussed with the CIE companies on a number of occasions, their position remains that the capacity constraints faced at peak hours do not allow for an easing of those time restrictions.

However, the free travel scheme, in common with the other free schemes operated by this Department, is kept under review with a view to identifying the scope for further improvements and the issue raised by the Deputy will be considered in that context.

Ceist:

244 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will ease the conditions of eligibility for the free travel pass to include those on the pre-retirement allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10589/98]

The Free Travel scheme is available to all people living in the State aged 66 years or over and also to certain people with disabilities under that age who are in receipt of certain welfare type payments. The scheme provides free travel, primarily at off-peak periods, to eligible people on the main public and private transport services. At the end of last January, free travel passes had been issued in respect of about 505,000 people at an estimated annual cost of £33 million.

The pre-retirement allowance is a payment which allows people aged 55 or over, who are in receipt of a long-term unemployment payment to opt to retire from the workforce. At the end of 1997 there were 13,647 in receipt of this allowance.

To extend the free travel scheme, on the lines suggested by the Deputy, would involve additional expenditure which could only be examined in a budgetary context.

Michael Ring

Ceist:

245 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will receive a disability allowance for which she has applied in view of the fact that she has undergone her medical examination. [10618/98]

The person concerned, who is currently in receipt of deserted wife's benefit, applied for disability allowance on 9 January 1998. She was examined by a medical assessor of the Department on 24 February 1998 who was of the view that she did not satisfy the medical criteria for receipt of disability allowance.

She appealed this decision and arrangements were made to have her re-examined by a different medical assessor before her case was considered by an appeals officer. The person concerned was examined by a medical assessor on 1 April 1998 who was also of the view that she did not satisfy the criteria for receipt of disability allowance.

The appeals officer has now requested her to set out the complete and up-to-date grounds of her appeal and to furnish any further medical evidence she wishes to submit in support of her appeal. A form was sent to her for this purpose. The completed form has not been received back in the social welfare appeals office to date. On receipt of the completed form the appeal will be referred to an appeals officer for early consideration.

Barr
Roinn