asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in payment of unemployment assistance to a person in County Mayo (name supplied); and why payment at a very low rate was made.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Mayo Unemployment Assistance.
12.
There was no delay in payment of unemployment assistance to the person concerned. He was not entitled to assistance on his original application as he failed to furnish the necessary information to show that his means were within the statutory limit. When the required information was eventually furnished it transpired that in fact he did not qualify for assistance on grounds of means.
He did become entitled to a very much reduced rate of assistance from 4th July, 1973, under the legislation which gave effect to the budget proposals of that year, and payments including the increased rates payable from 3rd July, 1974, and 2nd April, 1975, and taking account of an appeals decision, continued to be made as they fell due.
There has in the meantime been a further decision increasing his means with effect from 9th April, 1975, which will result in a further reduction in the rate of assistance payable. He has been advised of his right to appeal against this decision if he is dissatisfied.
Did I hear the Parliamentary Secretary say there was no undue delay in payment? Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept from me that this man has no means? His only means would appear to be that he is staying with his brother.
That is not my information.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept that that man has 30p per week and that the rest is from board and lodgings?
My information is that he first applied in 1973.
Exactly.
At that time he was entitled to 40p, and he received 40p. Since then, because of increases granted in subsequent budgets, he was in receipt of £2.70. I understand that there is a farm, that two single brothers are on the farm but that the other brother spends most of the year in Great Britain; that the assessment made was made by a deciding officer and, I understand, upheld by an appeals officer. A further assessment has now been made which will result, I understand, in a reduction of the payment being made to the claimant. Of course, he has the right to appeal against this decision if he so wishes.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept from me that this man has no means? Would he also accept that this man sent an affidavit to the Department of Social Welfare to that effect? Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept that he is living with a married brother and that the means assessed against him is £6.30 for board and lodgings?
All I can say is that my information shows there are two brothers, both of whom are single. The other brother spends the majority of the months of the year in Britain. But, in view of what the Deputy has said about the brother being married and being resident, I shall certainly have the matter gone into again.