Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 229: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will address the issue of persons losing the rent allowance when they take up a community employment scheme or low paid employment by either increasing the €317.40 income limit or by increasing the €50 disregard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29632/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Social welfare programmes aim to be responsive to the needs of those who depend on income maintenance support while providing incentives to assist people to become more independent financially, particularly through employment. A number of measures have been introduced in recent years to remove disincentives to taking up employment and to assist in the transition from welfare to work. These measures include special means disregards and tapered withdrawal of benefits as earnings increase and employment support schemes such as the back to work programme. People are entitled to retain certain social welfare and other secondary benefits in total or in part for the duration of the employment scheme, subject to certain conditions.

For most people the most significant secondary benefit is rent or mortgage interest supplement, which is paid under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. An income limit of €317.43 per week applies to the retention of these supplements. No income limit applies to the back to work allowance itself. While this supplement retention income limit has not changed since its introduction, significant other improvements have been made to the means test subsequently. Back to work allowance and family income supplement, in cases where one or both of these are in payment, are disregarded in the assessment of the €317.43 weekly income limit. PRSI and reasonable travelling expenses are also disregarded in the means test.

In effect, this means that people who commence employment through a back to work scheme, following a period of unemployment, can have a weekly household income significantly in excess of the €317.43 limit and still qualify to retain 75% of their rent or mortgage interest supplement: for example, in the first year of their participation in the back to work allowance scheme, a single person can have combined income from the back to work allowance and wages of €429, while a couple with two children can have a combined income of €528.25. These thresholds increase each year in the budget.

Rent supplement may be retained for up to four years on a tapered basis, that is, 75% of supplement in year one, 50% in year two and 25% in years three and four. In addition, the maximum payment limit of €317.43 per month on the amount of supplement payable was abolished for people on the approved schemes. As a consequence, many families retain more of their rent supplement than had been the case prior to these changes taking place.

People availing of an employment support scheme may opt to be assessed under either standard supplementary welfare allowance rules or under the special retention rules, and will be entitled to receive payment under whichever is the more favourable option for them. A person on a community employment scheme or other back to work scheme whose household income is above the €317.43 limit for retention of secondary benefits may still qualify for rent supplement under the standard rules. In that context, I introduced amending regulations in January 2005 to increase the income disregard in the standard rules of the scheme from €50 to €60 per week.

Overall, I consider that the current eligibility thresholds and disregards, together with improvements in the standard rules of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, ensure that people have a financial incentive to take up back-to-work opportunities. The effectiveness of these arrangements is being considered further in the context of a policy review of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme which my Department is undertaking at present.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 230: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo was not granted unemployment benefit on finishing work; if he will provide a full and complete breakdown of their PRSI contribution record. [29706/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To qualify for unemployment benefit a person must have, since the date of entry into insurance, at least 52 weeks of insurable employment for which the appropriate social insurance contributions have been paid and must have at least 39 paid or credited contributions in the relevant tax year, currently 2003, or 26 paid contributions in the relevant tax year and 26 paid contributions in the preceding year.

According to the records of my Department the person concerned has 20 class A contributions and 21 class J contributions in the tax year 2003. Class J contributions normally relate to employed persons with reckonable pay of less than €38.00 per week and provide cover for occupational injuries benefit only. The application for unemployment benefit from the person concerned was, therefore, disallowed from 4 April 2005, as she did not satisfy the contribution conditions for receipt of the benefit. She was informed accordingly on 29 April 2005. The person concerned may have an entitlement to credited contributions while she is unemployed. She should contact her local social welfare office for further information in this regard.

Under social welfare legislation decisions on claims and the insurability of employment 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.

The PRSI record of the person concerned is set out in the following table.

Ordinary rate contributions and class A contributions are reckonable for all benefits and pensions. Class J contributions are reckonable for occupational injury benefit only.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 231: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will review the decision not to award unemployment benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Mayo. [29707/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A deciding officer disallowed the unemployment benefit claim of the person concerned from 3 August 2005 on the grounds that he was not genuinely seeking employment. The person concerned had failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that he had been consistently seeking full-time work. It is open to the person concerned to appeal this decision and a form for this purpose was issued to him on 11 October 2005.

Under social welfare legislation, decisions on 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.