Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 423: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason the budget announcement allocating a weekly payment of €35 per week to persons in residential institutions, who have not previously qualified for the disability allowance, is not payable to persons who are legally detained in the Central Mental Hospital; if he intends to amend the current legislation to permit this payment to be so paid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32684/05]

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

The disability allowance, personal expenses rate, was provided for in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2005, at an amount not exceeding €35 per week, effective from 1 June 2005. This payment replaced the spending allowances, formerly paid by the health boards, to people in residential care since prior to 1999 who are not eligible for full disability allowance, solely due to their residency. The Social Welfare Act 1999 made provision for the retention of entitlement to disability allowance where a person who has been living at home subsequently enters residential care, effective from June of that year.

During the administrative preparations for the introduction of the disability allowance, personal expenses rate, my Department contacted the Central Mental Hospital to establish if there were residents who might be eligible for this new payment. A person detained in legal custody is disqualified for receipt of disability allowance under the Social Welfare Acts.

There are a number of different categories of residency in the Central Mental Hospital as follows; those detained under the categories of "guilty but insane" and "unfit to plead" who are deemed to be detained in legal custody and are not eligible for payment of disability allowance under the social welfare Acts and those detained under the relevant mental health Acts who are not considered to be detained in legal custody and are therefore eligible for disability allowance.

Residents in the Central Mental Hospital who are detained under the relevant mental health Acts are therefore eligible for disability allowance personal expenses rate and there are a number of such residents currently in receipt of this payment.

There are no plans to amend the current legislation in relation to persons in legal custody. I do intend, however, to review the situation regarding people in residential settings who are not currently eligible for the payment of full disability allowance and to move towards the removal of this disqualification so that all persons in residential care will have an income maintenance payment on the same basis.

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

Question 424: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons providing care who were refused the respite care grant in 2005; the numbers for each category of refusal, on a county basis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32835/05]

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

The budget for 2005 provided, inter alia, for the extension of eligibility for the respite care grant to people providing full-time care and attention who are not in receipt of either carer's benefit or carer's allowance. Those in receipt of the latter payments receive the grant automatically without having to make a separate application.

A total of 436 applications were refused. In 348 cases, the application was refused because the person to whom care was provided was found not to be in need of full-time care and attention. In 44 cases, the application was refused because the person providing care was self-employed, employed or signing on the live register and seeking employment. In 12 cases, the application was refused because the person was not providing full-time care and attention. In nine cases, the application was refused because the Health Service Executive had already paid the respite care grant in those instances. Three claims were withdrawn and the remaining 20 cases were rejected for a variety of other reasons. A full breakdown of the reasons for refusal by county is set out in the following tabular statement.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 425: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if there is any arrangement in place to award an extra one week payment to pensioners from August 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32840/05]

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

In August 2005, the payment frequency for customers paid by electronic fund transfer, EFT, was moved from weekly in arrears to weekly in advance. This brought EFT payments into line with personalised pension order, PPO, books payable at post offices.

A once-off double payment was made to EFT pension and allowance customers in August 2005 to facilitate this change. The double payment consisted of one week's payment in arrears, which they would have normally received plus one week's payment in advance. These customers now receive their payments weekly in advance. Notification of the new arrangements and details of the period covered by the double payment were provided by my Department in advance to all the affected customers.