Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 February 2004
510 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs further to Parliamentary Question No. 470 of 10 February 2004, the reason her Department did not respond to the queries; the resources this family is to live on; if an oral hearing can be arranged immediately. [4950/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe position regarding the entitlement of the person concerned to an unemployment payment was fully set out in responses to the Deputy's previous questions. The person concerned has, for some years, been engaged in employment on a part-time basis, five days per week. This has been confirmed once again with his employer. He is also engaged in self-employment, as a tiler. He has an income from this employment and his self employment, however, it has not been possible to quantify his income from this activity, as he failed to provide the necessary information for my Department to do so. The person concerned has suggested that his income from self-employment is £50 per week.
The issue as regards the entitlement of the person concerned to an unemployment payment is quite clear. He is not and was not unemployed, for the duration of his unemployment assistance claim. The person concerned did not inform my Department of his part-time employment. When his employment came to light, a deciding officer disallowed his unemployment assistance claim from 16 January 2001 to 23 September 2003 on the grounds that he was not unemployed for this period. A letter informing him of the decision and the overpayment which he had incurred, was issued to him on 4 December, 2003.
As regards an oral appeal hearing, the position as stated in my last reply to the Deputy is that "where the appeals officer is of the opinion that the case is of such a nature that it can properly be determined without an oral hearing, the appeal may be determined summarily". This was the position in relation to the appeal submitted by the person concerned.
On 27 January 2004 the appeals officer made a summary decision to disallow the appeal of the person concerned. The formal determination is as follows:
"I decide that the appellant is disallowed from receipt of unemployment assistance from 16 January 2001 to 23 September 2003, on the grounds that he is not unemployed".
The appeals officer also provided a note on the reason for his decision which is set as follows:
"The appellant has acknowledged that he was employed as a part-time home help from Monday to Friday each week during the period 16 January 2002 to 23 September 2003. In the circumstances the appeal must fall."
The person concerned was notified of this decision. The only question before the appeals officer in this case was whether the person was "not unemployed" during the period in question. As it would appear that the central fact, that the person concerned was employed part-time, on five days per week, it is understandable that an oral hearing could not serve any useful purpose. Questions relating to the arrangements for recovery of the overpayment are outside the remit of the appeals officer.
Under social welfare legislation, decisions as regards 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.
511 Mr. McGuinness asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason the rent allowance was decreased in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; if her Department will have the case re-examined with a view to increasing the allowance, in view of the original commitment and the hardship of the case. [4997/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards, provides for the payment of a weekly or monthly supplement in respect of rent to eligible people in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation needs.
Rent supplements are subject to a means test and are normally calculated to ensure that a person, after the payment of rent, has an income equal to the rate of supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to his or her family circumstances, less a minimum contribution, currently €13.
In addition to the minimum contribution each applicant is required to contribute towards his or her rent any additional assessable means that he or she may have over and above the appropriate rate of basic supplementary welfare allowance. The South Eastern Health Board was contacted on behalf of the individual in question and has advised that the reduction in the amount of rent supplement is due to an increase in the level of household income.
The person in question applied for rent supplement in December 2002. On the basis of her income at that time, that is, part-time earnings, she was required to pay towards her rent only the standard minimum contribution, which was then €7.62 per week, giving a weekly rent supplement of €162.40. In addition to her earnings from part-time employment the individual was subsequently awarded one-parent family payment from this Department. In the circumstances the amount of supplement payable fell to be revised to take account of the increase in household income. Her contribution towards her rent was deemed to be €70.50 per week. Based on the board's appropriate maximum rent level of €170 per week this gives entitlement to a weekly rent supplement of €99.50.
The person in question presented at her local health centre recently stating that she was unhappy with the decision to reduce her rent supplement. She was advised of her right to appeal against the decision and was given the appropriate appeal form to complete.
It has also come to light that, when the person in question applied for one-parent family payment from my Department, she declared that in addition to her part-time earnings she was also in receipt of maintenance payments to the value of €50 per week. The issue of the maintenance payments will be raised with the person in question in the course of the latest review of her case.
