asked the Minister for Social Welfare if pay-related benefit payments will be reconsidered for a person (details supplied) in County Wexford in view of her current and previous level of earnings.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
35.
Entitlement to pay-related benefit with flat rate unemployment benefit is subject to the condition that the weekly sum of pay-related benefit, flat rate benefit and income tax rebate may not exceed 85 per cent of the average net weekly earnings of a claimant. The person concerned claimed unemployment benefit on 6 January 1986 and her claim was allowed at the appropriate weekly rate of £32.75.
The 85 per cent limit applicable on her claim has been calculated at £30.13 weekly, based on her earnings from insurable employment in the period 6 April 1985 to the date of her claim and as the flat rate unemployment benefit exceeds this figure pay-related benefit is not payable in this case.
36.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person (details supplied) in County Wexford was, in the records of her Department, employed in 1966 and 1967; and, if so, if these earnings were eligible for calculation for redundancy entitlement.
According to the records of the Department the person concerned was insurably employed during the years 1966 and 1967. The name of the employer(s) is not recorded. Details of the contributions paid and credited on his behalf are as follows:
|
Contribution Year |
Contributions |
|
|
Paid |
Credited |
|
|
1966 |
33 |
5 |
|
1967 |
45 |
7 |
If the employment was with the same employer by whom he was made redundant the question of taking service in 1966 and 1967 into account in the calculation of his redundancy entitlement would arise for consideration. However, this is a matter for decision by the employer concerned, in the first instance. If there is any dispute as to the worker's redundancy entitlement this can be appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal for decision.
37.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will allow an oral hearing to consider increasing payments of unemployment assistance to a person (details supplied) in County Wexford in view of his repeated dissatisfaction with the current level of payments.
Following reinvestigation of the unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned he was assessed with means of £20 weekly, derived from self-employment as a musician. He is, accordingly, in receipt of unemployment assistance of £72.35 weekly, being the appropriate maximum rate of £92.35 less means of £20.
He appealed on 13 April 1985 against the amount of means assessed against him and an appeals officer also assessed him with means of £20 weekly. The person concerned did not ask for an oral hearing and the appeals officer decided that the case was of such a nature that it could be determined without an oral hearing and, accordingly, he determined the appeal summarily. If the person concerned considers that his means have changed he may apply to have them reviewed. A form for this purpose may be obtained from his local office.
38.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Kerry is not getting unemployment assistance at the maximum rate; if she will give details of the means assessed against him; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Following reinvestigation of his unemployment assistance claim, the means of the person concerned were assessed at £21.60 weekly, derived from the value of board and lodgings on his parents' holding.
The method of calculation of the value of board and lodgings where the household income is derived from farming is to estimate the yearly profit from the farm and to divide that amount between the members of the household, including the applicant, on a weighted basis. The profit from the farm in this case was estimated at £4,500 per annum and the person concerned was deemed to enjoy a quarter of the income, that is, £1,125 per annum or £21.60 weekly. He was, accordingly, entitled to unemployment assistance at £12.20 weekly, being the appropriate maximum rate payable in his case of £33.80 less means of £21.60. He ceased to sign as unemployed from 13 October 1985.
The person concerned appealed against the assessment of means and it has now come to light that the original appeal was mislaid in the post. A duplicate appeal has been prepared and arising from contentions made in support of his appeal the papers were referred to the social welfare officer for further inquiries. When the inquiries, which will be completed as quickly as possible, are completed, the papers will be submitted to an appeals officer for determination of means, at the earliest available opportunity. The delay in this case is regretted.