asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason disability benefit has been disallowed in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare despite the fact that a senior consultant at St. James's Hospital, Dublin 8 has repeatedly determined that he is unfit for work.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
31.
The person concerned was paid disability benefit to 20 November 1987 after which date payment was disallowed following an examination by a medical referee who considered him to be capable of work. He appealed against this decision and was examined on 23 February 1988 by another medical referee who also expressed the opinion that he was capable of work.
His appeal was referred to an appeals officer who decided, following an oral hearing, that he was not incapable of work in respect of the period from 21 November 1987 to 25 April 1988 and is not entitled to be paid disability benefit in respect of that period.
Payment of benefit was further disallowed by a deciding officer from 26 April 1988 and the person concerned appealed in September 1988 against the continuing disallowance.
He was examined on 11 October 1988 in connection with his appeal by another medical referee who also expressed the opinion that he was capable of work. He has been informed of the result of this examination and was supplied with a form on which to set out the grounds for appeal if he wished to have his case referred again to an appeals officer for determination. His case will be reviewed on receipt of this form.
He has, in the course of his appeal, submitted a number of letters from the doctors he has attended, including one from a senior hospital registrar, and these have been considered by the medical referee in arriving at his conclusion.
33.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if persons on long-term unemployment assistance and other allowances will receive Christmas bonuses this year of 100 per cent of their weekly payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
119.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has any intention of renewing the double payment at Christmas for certain categories of social welfare recipients.
131.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will arrange payment of the Christmas bonus on the basis of 100 per cent of weekly payments rather than as at present proposed; and if not, the reason.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 33, 119 and 131 together.
I have already announced to the House that a Christmas bonus will be paid this year to recipients of long term social welfare and health payments including the long term unemployed. The payment of the bonus recognises the extra financial pressures which those who are dependent on social welfare have to bear coming up to Christmas time.
This year's bonus will be the same as that for last year and the year before, i.e. sixty five per cent of the recipient's weekly payment. It will be paid on the first appropriate pay day in December and in all cases will have been paid by 9 December. Almost 580,000 recipients will benefit, with an estimated 350,000 dependants, giving a total of almost 930,000 beneficiaries. The cost of this year's bonus is £21.0 million compared with £19.8 million last year.
Examples of the effects of the bonus are that: an elderly couple in receipt of old age (contributory) pension will receive a bonus of £60.50 bringing their total payment to £153.50; and a couple with three children on long-term unemployment assistance will receive a bonus of £64.20 bringing their total payment to £163.00.
36.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider, in the context of the free electricity allowance scheme, unused free units of electricity during summer billing periods as additions to the free units of electricity during the winter billing period.
100.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will allow people who qualify for the free electricity allowance to claim their 1,500 units at any time suitable to them throughout the year instead of the present system of 200 units per billing period during the summer and 300 units per billing period in the winter as this is important for people who find that they do not use their full allowance of 200 units during the summer period; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 36 and 100 together.
The free electricity scheme meets the cost of the normal standing charge on the ESB's domestic consumer tariff and allows up to 200 and 300 free electricity units per two-monthly billing period in summer and winter respectively. The scheme will apply to an estimated 170,500 people in 1989 at a cost of £20.58 million.
My Department has been having discussions with the ESB on this matter but the proposal would have significant cost implications — at present rates it could cost up to £2.8 million. Any change of this kind would have to be considered in a budgetary context.
37.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will change the provision in the social welfare code whereby a person who has received 156 days unemployment benefit and has less than 280 contributions paid in the seven years prior to the date of claim is put on reduced rate of unemployment benefit, which is often less than the claimant would receive on unemployment assistance; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
When the maximum duration of unemployment benefit, which is now 390 days, was extended from 156 days to 312 days in 1967, it was decided that payment at the full rate after the first 156 days would be subject to the additional condition that the claimant had an annual average of 40 contributions paid over the preceding 7 years. Where this condition is not fulfilled, the rate of unemployment benefit payable to a claimant is the equivalent of the standard rate of unemployment assistance payable in urban areas.
I would like to point out to the Deputy that by providing an 11 per cent increase in the rates of unemployment assistance in the context of the last budget effective from July of this year I also reduced the gap between the full rate and the reduced rate unemployment benefit. Any further change in this provision would have significant cost implications and would have to be considered in a budgetary context.