Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

The amendment refers largely to rent supplement. Subject to certain conditions, the supplementary welfare allowance scheme provides for the payment of a weekly or monthly supplement in respect of rent to eligible persons whose means are insufficient. I have dealt with this question. With the exception of those participating in improved employment schemes, those engaged in full-time remunerative employment are excluded. Basically, if one has a job, one does not get rent supplement.

It was always the intention of the rent supplement that it would not be paid to households where one of a couple was in full-time, open market employment. However, a practice seemed to emerge in recent years where a spouse of a person in full-time employment applied for assistance on behalf of the household. In other words, the person in a relationship who was not working was, in effect, sent to claim the allowance, which was obviously not the intention of the scheme.

In August 2004 a working group reported to the Department in regard to the impact of the changes arising from this scheme. The working group met with a number of community welfare officers and came up with some interesting figures. The group considered 498 randomly selected rent and mortgage interest supplement applications which were refused since the measures came into effect in January 2004. It found that 11% of the refusals were due to the new measures, of which 1% were found to be in respect of the exclusion of the spouse. Therefore, the exclusion of the spouse, which was due to the new regulation, accounted for 1.2% of the refusals. That restriction has applied since the inception of the rent supplement in 1977.

The intention was that the supplement would be paid to one person of the couple. If both were unemployed they were entitled to apply but if one or other was in full-time employment, it was never the intention that the other person in the same household would get the rent allowance. Some 39,000 rent supplements have been awarded since January 2004, which is a significant number, whereas the change affected just 1.2% of refusals.

I will keep the matter under constant review. As I stated many times, if I am convinced there is hardship in any of these areas I will move swiftly to make amendments, as is my duty. For the present, I am satisfied that not paying this allowance in the case of the employment of one member of a couple was always the intention.