Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Nov 2002

Vol. 557 No. 1

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Paul McGrath

Ceist:

477 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on whether it is fair that a family already in receipt of family income supplement and who subsequently suffer a substantial drop in income cannot have their FIS payments reviewed or increased due to the fact that they are already receiving a lower payment under the scheme than they are now entitled to; and if she will make the necessary adjustments to social welfare regulations to amend this anomaly. [21151/02]

The family income supplement, FIS, scheme is designed to provide an incentive for low paid workers with families to take up or remain in full-time employment. An integral feature of the scheme is that, once the level of the FIS payment is determined, it continues to be payable at that level for a period of 52 weeks, provided the claimant remains in employment. The only circumstances in which the rate of payment can be amended is where an additional child is born in the course of the 52 weeks.

The purpose of this measure, which is unique to the FIS scheme, is to ensure that claimants can be certain they will receive a guaranteed level of income support throughout the period, regardless of any change in circumstances. This certainty is critical to the success of the scheme in providing an incentive to families to avail of employment opportunities. It is recognised that, as a consequence of this measure, there is no provision to adjust the level of FIS payable upwards to compensate for any reduction in income that may occur in the course of the 52 week period. Conversely, where earnings rise in the course of that period, there is no provision to reduce the amount of FIS payable. After the 52 week period has expired, the rate of FIS payable may be adjusted if warranted by changed circumstances. Any change in the existing arrangements would require legislative change, and given the nature and purpose of the FIS scheme, I am not convinced that such a change would be appropriate.

Michael Ring

Ceist:

478 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason the disability allowance rate for a person (details supplied) in County Mayo was reduced from ?72.80 to ?11.30; if an appeal can be opened for this person; and the way in which this person was assessed. [21180/02]

The person concerned has been in receipt of reduced rate disability allowance since July 1999.

Under the legislative provisions that apply to disability allowance all income which the claimant or spouse or partner have is assessable for means purposes. The means assessment takes account of a spouse's net earnings and an income disregard of €88.88 is deducted, half the balance being assessed as means.

Following a review, the means, of the person concerned, deriving from her spouse's income from employment, were assessed at €109.73 per week. Accordingly, with effect from 13 November 2002 her rate of disability allowance payment will be reduced from €72.80 to €11.30 per week plus free fuel allowance of €9 per week. She has recently been notified of this decision and the reasons for it. An appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office has been opened on her behalf.

Under social welfare legislation, decisions in relation to claims must be made by deciding officers and appeals officers. These officers are statutorily appointed and I have no role in regard to making such decisions.

Michael Ring

Ceist:

479 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when an unemployment assistance appeal will be finalised for a person (details supplied) in County Mayo. [21181/02]

To qualify for unemployment assistance a person must be available for and genuinely seeking work.

The person concerned was in receipt of unemployment assistance from 11 November 1993 up to 24 April 2002. In the context of a review of the entitlement in April 2002, he was asked to provide details of his efforts to find work. Based on his response, a deciding officer disallowed his claim from 24 April 2002, on the grounds that he is not genuinely seeking work.

The person concerned appealed this decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office and an appeals officer upheld the deciding officer's decision. The appeals officer's decision issued to the person concerned on 31 July 2002.

An appeals officer's decision is final in the absence of new facts or fresh evidence.

Under social welfare legislation, decisions in relation to claims must be made by deciding officers and appeals officers. These officers are statutorily appointed and I have no role in regard to making such decisions.

Michael Ring

Ceist:

480 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will address the anomaly that exists with the back to work allowance scheme between people applying for the scheme as self-employed persons and people applying for the scheme as employees, considering that those who were long-term unemployed for five years out of the previous seven could qualify for the allowance if becoming employees, but not if they became self-employed; if she will grant the back to work allowance scheme to those entering self-employment who satisfy the five out of seven years unemployment condition, retrospective to 2000; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21220/02]

The back to work allowance scheme is designed to encourage long-term unemployed people, lone parents, and other social welfare recipients to return to work by allowing them to retain part of their social welfare payment when they take up employment or self-employment.

To qualify for the scheme a person must be in receipt of a relevant social welfare payment for 15 months, or if taking up self-employment or aged over 50 years, 12 months.

Where the claimant does not satisfy the 12-15 month condition payment may be awarded if he or she had 24 months unemployment in the previous 36 months. In May 2000 an enhanced version of this scheme was introduced, specifically targeted at persons who had been five years or more on the live register. This programme applies only to persons taking up employment and not to persons in self-employment. Persons participating in this scheme avail of a compulsory six week training period either on or off the job and during this period receive a top-up of €44.50 a week in addition to their weekly social welfare payment. When they take up employment they are paid a bonus of €254 and a further payment of €254 after they have completed six months work.
When an applicant for this scheme has been employed for a brief period(s) within the previous five years, he or she may qualify for payment if there was at least five years unemployment in the previous seven years.
The special programme for the long-term unemployed was introduced to meet a particular need which had been identified at the time, usually the difficulty for people out of work for a long period in accessing paid employment is the need for a high level of personal support to make them ready for return to the workforce. There are no plans at present to extend the arrangement to people engaging in self-employment.

Michael Ring

Ceist:

481 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if the dispute with the Irish Dental Association has been fully resolved; and if so, the reason there are circumstances whereby people are being refused treatment again other than to have to pay fully for it. [21252/02]

Michael Ring

Ceist:

482 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of dentists who have agreed to return to operating the dental treatment benefit scheme; the number who have disagreed, giving figures on a county to county basis; and when the dispute will be fully resolved. [21253/02]

Michael Ring

Ceist:

483 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the outcome of the meeting with the Irish Dental Association which was scheduled for 1 November 2002; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21254/02]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 481 to 483, inclusive, together.

My Department is engaged with the IDA with a view to resolving the difficulties which gave rise to the current dispute. Discussions in this regard are at a sensitive stage. The meeting scheduled for 1 November 2002 did not take place but contact with the association is continuing.

I am not in a position to provide full details of dentists who are or are not operating within the terms of their contracts at present. I hope shortly, however, to be in a position to announce that all dentists involved have returned to operating the terms of the scheme.

I have been advised by my Department that the detailed information requested by the Deputy is being compiled. This process is near com pletion and a letter enclosing the information will issue to the Deputy in the very near future.
Barr
Roinn