Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 May 2000

Vol. 520 No. 1

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Thomas P. Broughan

Ceist:

296 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will address the case of a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary who is in receipt of disability benefit but was not considered eligible for supplementary welfare benefit, mortgage interest supplements and medical card as a result of his co-habiting partner's means, while at the same time his partner is treated as a single person for tax purposes and is not able to benefit in the way that married couples can under the tax code. [15143/00]

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

The supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, scheme is a short-term payment designed to provide immediate assistance for those in need. The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that every person in the State has access to a prescribed minimum income, taking their household circumstances into account.

The amount of SWA payable in all cases is the difference between the person's means and the minimum weekly income prescribed in law for the household type in question. Household income is taken into account and reduces the amount of SWA payable by £1 for every £1 means assessed. In the case raised by the Deputy, the household consists of a cohabiting couple without dependent children. The amount of SWA payable in respect of such a household is currently £123 per week, if they have no means.

If a couple has means of less than £123 then the amount payable is the balance required to bring their income up to £123. If a couple has means of £123 or more, then SWA is not payable. In this particular case, the partner of the person is in employment and, as a result, the household income from this source exceeds £123 per week by some £177 per week. The person concerned has also been awarded occupational injury benefit of £77.50 per week and this increases the household income to some £375 per week.

Under the SWA scheme, a weekly supplement may be paid in respect of rent or mortgage interest to people in receipt of social welfare or health board payments. Entitlement to a supplement is determined by the health boards and supplements are normally calculated to ensure that the person, after payment of rent or mortgage interest, has an income equal to the rate of SWA appropriate to the family circumstances, less £6. This £6 represents the minimum contribution which clients are required to pay from their own resources towards their accommodation costs. Any increase in income over and above the SWA rate will result in a decrease of that amount in the rent or mortgage interest supplement rate payable.

The person concerned applied for mortgage interest supplement but did not qualify on means grounds. The weekly interest is £33 per week. The SWA rate for a couple is £133 but this couple's means are some £250 in excess of this rate so no mortgage interest supplement is payable.

My colleague the Minister for Health and Children, is responsible for medical cards and the treatment of co-habiting couples under the tax code is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners. This latter issue is being dealt with by my colleague the Minister for Finance in his response to a parliamentary question.

Ulick Burke

Ceist:

297 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on whether the farm assist scheme is a fair replacement for the previous assistance scheme to small land holders; the increase in cost of this scheme over and above the previous scheme, allowing for across the board ordinary increases, during the past two years; and the plans if any he has to change the scheme in the near future. [15147/00]

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

The farm assist scheme was introduced in April 1999 and is delivering important additional supports for farmers, and particular to farm families on low incomes.

Total expenditure in 1998 on the smallholder's unemployment assistance scheme amounted to some £27.8 million. In 1999, total expenditure on the farm assist scheme and on the smallholder's unemployment assistance scheme amounted to an estimated £29.8 million and it is estimated that total expenditure in the current year will increase to some £36.8 million.

The increase in expenditure reflects the combined impact of a number of different factors: the general welfare increases provided for in the 1999 and 2000 budgets; the increased level of payments secured by a very substantial number of farmer claimants of smallholder's unemployment assistance whose means were reviewed in the course of their transfer to the new scheme; and the level of payments being made to first time claimants of the allowance – new applicants are receiving average payments of some £59 per week.

It is necessary also to take account of the fact that a number of former claimants of smallholder's unemployment assistance are in receipt of reduced payments under the farm assist scheme, reflecting primarily the improvement in household incomes arising from the substantial increase in off-farm employment in recent years.

The farm assist scheme is making a valuable contribution to supporting those who are at the lower end of the farm income spectrum. The effectiveness of the scheme is being further enhanced as a result of a number of improvements which I have provided for in the Social Welfare Act, 2000.

First, the child-related income disregards are being increased from £100 for the first two children and £200 for each subsequent qualified child to £200 and £300 respectively. Second, instead of 80%, only 70% of self-employment income, including off-farm self-employment, will be taken into account.

Third, I am introducing changes in the way capital is assessed, with the first £10,000 held by a claimant disregarded, and the balance treated more favourably than heretofore.

All of these improvements will take effect in October of this year.

Ulick Burke

Ceist:

298 Mr. U. Burke asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has satisfied himself with the procedures followed by his senior investigative officers in assessing applicants and appellants of unemployment assistance and benefits from the Galway office in centres such as Gort; if his attention has been drawn to the attitude adopted towards these vulnerable groups; and the plans if any, he has to regularise the procedures. [15158/00]

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

Persons in receipt of an unemployment payment are required to be available for and genuinely seeking work without undue restriction. Reviews of entitlements are carried out on a routine, systematic basis. In the context of such reviews, customers are required to demonstrate that they meet the basic conditions for receipt of a payment and may be asked to provide evidence of their efforts to find work.

Reports on interviews with customers are provided by inspectors to deciding officers, who alone make decisions on entitlements, having taken into account all relevant circumstances in each individual case. If a customer is not satisfied with the decision of a deciding officer, it is open to him/her to appeal the decision to the independent social welfare appeals office.

I am satisfied that the correct procedures were followed by the inspectors who carried out recent reviews in the Gort area.

Bernard Allen

Ceist:

299 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the reason a person (details supplied) in County Cork had her disability benefit discontinued and had her appeal against that decision rejected by the appeals office. [15218/00]

Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs (Mr. D. Ahern)

The person concerned was paid disability benefit from 11 June 1999 to 28 September 1999. She was examined by a medical assessor of the Department on 21 September 1999 in line with normal review procedures. In carrying out an examination the medical assessor reviews the history of the case, considers any fresh medical reports received, and following a clinical examination expresses an opinion as to the person's fitness for work.

The medical assessor who examined the person concerned on 21 September 1999 expressed the opinion that she was capable of work. A deciding officer disallowed her payment from 29 September 1999 on the grounds that she was not incapable of work within the meaning of the Social Welfare legislation.

The person concerned appealed this decision to the social welfare appeals office and in the context of her appeal she was examined by another medical assessor on 10 November 1999 who was also of the opinion that she was capable of work.

An oral hearing of her appeal was heard on 29 March 2000 to afford her the opportunity to present her case personally. On the basis of all the evidence, the appeals officer disallowed her appeal. The decision of an appeals officer is final and conclusive and can only be reviewed in the light of new facts or fresh evidence.

It is open to the person concerned to submit, for consideration by the appeals officer, a report from the orthopaedic consultant referred to in the Deputy's representations along with the result of the proposed MRI scan, when available.