Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 217: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a person was awarded the family income supplement of €65 per week with effect from 1 June 2005 based on income consisting of earnings and back to work allowance of €74.47 per week; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that the back to work allowance was payable in this case from 19 May 2005 to 15 September 2005; if his attention has further been drawn to the fact that when their entitlement to back to work allowance ceased they were informed that their family income supplement entitlement could not be reviewed before 31 May 2006; if this person is thereby effectively deprived of an additional €44.82 per week in the family income supplement; his views on whether administrative convenience for his Department justifies such a decision in circumstances where the person concerned was not advised that they would be financially better off if they received their full entitlement to the family income supplement and no back to work allowance; if he will review this case to ensure that this person is not financially disadvantaged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39736/05]

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

Family income supplement, FIS, 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 that the claimant remains in employment. However, the rate of payment can be amended where an additional child is born in the course of the 52 weeks.

A key advantage of that approach, which is unique to the FIS scheme, is that claimants can be certain that they will receive a guaranteed level of income support throughout the period. That certainty is important to the success of the scheme in providing a real incentive to workers with families to avail of employment opportunities. For those reasons, rather than for reasons of administrative convenience, this policy measure is specifically provided for in legislation.

On balance, the net impact of the present approach is likely to be significantly positive for workers, given that wage movements are likely to rise rather than fall in the majority of cases during the year. The impact of more regular reviews would most likely be lower payments for most FIS recipients.

Any change in the existing arrangements would require legislative change. Given the nature and purpose of the FIS scheme, I am not convinced that any such change would be appropriate.

Back to work allowance, BTWA, is a transitional employment support measure paid for up to three years to assist the long-term unemployed and other social welfare recipients back to full-time work. It is paid on a reducing basis at 75% of the previous social welfare weekly payment for the first year followed by 50% and 25% respectively for the following two years.

In the specific case to which the Deputy refers, the customer had received BTWA for approximately two years and eight months, after which he became unemployed and transferred back to unemployment assistance. When he subsequently returned to employment, only the balance of four months' BTWA remained to be paid. FIS officials were apparently unaware of that fact when processing his FIS application. As a result, it appears that the customer in question may not have received the best advice at the start of his FIS claim.

In view of the exceptional circumstances as outlined above, both the BTWA and FIS claims will be reviewed, and my officials will be contact the person concerned in the near future.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 218: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if arrears of rent allowance will be awarded dating back to August 2005 to a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny; if the rent allowance being awarded will be increased; and if an exceptional needs payment will be made relative to their ESB account. [39789/05]

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

Rent supplements are provided through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered on my behalf by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive. Neither I nor my Department have a function in determining entitlement in individual cases.

The southern area of the executive has advised that the person concerned originally applied for a rent supplement in August 2005. However, it was not possible to process her claim, as the executive could not contact her either by letter or by home visit after her application was lodged.

The person concerned made contact again with the executive earlier this month. By that time, she had moved to new accommodation. The executive advised her that, in the circumstances, the payment of rent supplement would only be considered from December 2005 and regarding her current accommodation. The person has been advised that if she is not satisfied with a rent supplement entitlement determined on this basis, she may appeal the decision to the designated appeals officer of the executive.

The executive can provide an exceptional needs payment through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to assist with essential, once-off exceptional or unforeseeable expenditure that a person is unable to meet out of his or her household income or other resources. The person concerned should contact her local community welfare office if she wishes to apply for assistance with her electricity costs under that scheme. It is also open to her to apply to my Department to have her fuel allowance eligibility re-assessed in her new household circumstances.