asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Cork has not been paid disability benefit as the final medical certificate was submitted on 25 January 1983 and the first certificate was submitted on 28 December 1982; if he will investigate the reason the certificates were mislaid; and the reason he has not yet been paid even though he has submitted duplicate certificates.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
4.
The person concerned was paid disability benefit on 24 March 1983 in respect of the period from 31 December 1982, fourth day of incapacity, to 24 January 1983, after which date he was certified fit to resume work. He was also paid pay-related benefit from 11 January 1983, the thirteenth day of incapacity for work.
5.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when unemployment assistance which was applied for over three weeks ago will be paid to a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny.
The claim of the person concerned to unemployment assistance on 10 March 1983 was allowed at the weekly rate of £16.45 being the appropriate maximum rate in his case of £25.45 less means £9.00. Following a review of his case his means were reduced to nil from 10 March 1983 and his weekly rate of unemployment assistance was increased to the appropriate maximum rate in his case of £25.45. All arrears of the increase due were paid to him on 19 May 1983 and weekly payments of £25.45 will continue to be made as they become due.
6.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason it took almost five months to process an application for unemployment assistance for a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and the reason the application was refused given that he has no means and has sought work in many places without success.
To be entitled to unemployment assistance an applicant must satisfy a means test and be the holder of a qualification certificate.
When the person concerned claimed unemployment assistance his case was referred to a social welfare officer for investigation to enable his means to be assessed. The social welfare officer made several calls to his home address but he was not available for interview, thereby causing delay in the investigation of the case.
Following the completion of inquiries he was assessed with means in excess of the statutory limit derived from self-employment as a painter and his claim was disallowed. He appealed against the disallowance and his case has been referred to an appeals officer for determination. His entitlement to unemployment assistance will be reviewed in the light of the appeal officer's decision.
When is the appeal likely to be determined? When was the appeal lodged?
I do not have the date when the appeal was lodged but I am informed that the appeal will be held within the next three weeks.
What is the average waiting period for processing a claim for unemployment assistance?
It varies from area to area depending on the volume of work at a particular time, but it can be from one month to three or four months.
There is a similar situation in my constituency to the one outlined by Deputy Molony in that the average waiting period would be three or five months. Does the Minister propose to take any measures to alleviate the situation for those unfortunates who have to wait for that time?
We have additional staff on the ground and we are seeking more staff to improve the situation.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Mayo who satisfies all conditions has not been granted unemployment assistance.
The person concerned last claimed unemployment assistance on 26 November 1982. Following an investigation of his case his claim was disallowed on the grounds that he was not genuinely seeking work and was accordingly not available for work. The investigations revealed that he was occupied working on his father's farm.
He appealed against the disallowance and an oral hearing of his case was arranged to take place on 28 March 1983 but he did not attend the hearing. The appeals officer upheld the disallowance and notification of this decision was issued to the applicant on 31 March 1983.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange to pay an old age pension to a person (details supplied) in Dublin 9.
It has been decided by an appeals officer that the person concerned is not entitled to an old age pension as the assessment of her means, consisting of the letting value of a holding, the transfer of which has not been accepted for old age pension purposes, exceeds the statutory limit. The appeals officer's decision is final and conclusive except in the light of new facts or fresh evidence.
What is necessary to have a transfer accepted for old age pension purposes since this person put through the transfer and had the deeds transferred into her son's name? To the best of her knowledge she satisfied the conditions required.
As neither party is living in the area where the farm is, the social welfare office are satisfied that the person is indeed gaining from the letting. On that basis the appeal was turned down.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Cork who had an accident at work was declared fit for work although his family doctor and hospital specialist say he is unfit for work; if his Department has received medical certificates in his case; and if his Department intends to investigate this case further.
The person concerned was paid disability benefit from 22 July 1982 to 30 September 1982. Payment was disallowed after that date following examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that he was capable of work.
He appealed against the disallowance and, in connection with his appeal, he was examined on 18 November 1982 by a different medical referee who also considered him to be capable of work.
His case was then referred to an appeals officer for determination. The appeals officer held an oral hearing of the case at which the claimant was present. Following the hearing and having regard to the medical reports in the case, including the specialist report of 13 January 1983, the appeals officer decided that the claimant was not incapable of work during the period from 1 October 1982 to 10 January 1983 (the date of the latest medical certificate before him) and is not entitled to be paid benefit in respect of that period.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Cork is still receiving unemployment benefit at a reduced rate although all the relevant papers have been submitted to his Department.
The person concerned exhausted his title to unemployment benefit on 14 October 1982. He was, however, in receipt of unemployment assistance at the weekly rate of £47.70 being the maximum rate £65.00 less £17.30 means which were derived from the benefit of his wife's earnings.
He applied for a re-investigation of his means and following the completion of inquiries by a social welfare officer he was assessed with nil means from 8 February 1983.
He applied for a reinvestigation of his maximum rate of unemployment assistance from that date and all arrears due to him were paid on 21 April 1983.
Further weekly payments at £65.00 continue to be made to him as they become due.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when arrears of a children's allowance which are due for the period April to June 1982 will be paid to a person (details supplied) in County Waterford.
A payable order for £29.25 in respect of arrears due in this case was issued on 26 April 1983.
12.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (details supplied) in Dublin 11 has been refused unemployment benefit-assistance on the grounds that she was not available for work; and if he will explain this decision.
The claim of the person concerned to unemployment benefit on 1 December 1982 was disallowed on the grounds that she was not available for employment as she had not made sufficient efforts to get work. She appealed against the disallowance and following an oral hearing the appeals officer on 3 February 1983 confirmed the decision given in her case.
She continued to sign the unemployed register but her claim was again disallowed on similar grounds as she had informed the local office that she was only interested in getting work in her own locality. She appealed on 26 April against the further decision disallowing her claim and arrangements are being made for an oral hearing of her case to the appeals officer and to furnish evidence on her own behalf.
Is the Minister aware that a number of women entitled to benefit on payment of their contributions are experiencing difficulty in getting their entitlements because they have a child? Does the indication that one is interested in a certain type of work mean that one is not available for work? Does the existance of a child automatically preclude a woman from benefit? In this case details of possible arrangements were given at various times. Is there an automatic negative presumed in case of a woman with a child unless she has been sacked?
There is no discrimination. A person must be readily available for work. To be available only for a certain type of work does not mean that a person is readily available for work. This woman will have an opportunity to put her case on appeal and she may be successful on that basis.
I support Deputy Flaherty. I agree that there seems to be a situation in the Department of Social Welfare where a woman with a child is automatically disqualified from benefit. I would like an assurance that the Minister will have the matter investigated as a matter of urgency.
People in the same circumstances get benefit, so that answers that question. However, I will have the matter examined.
13.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Cork who was granted a deserted wife's allowance on 22 February 1983 has not yet received the arrears due to her since 11 November 1982.
A payable order has been sent direct to the person concerned in respect of all arrears of deserted wife's benefit due from 11 November 1982 to 23 February 1983. Before issuing the arrears it was necessary to confirm that there was no overlap of this payment and unemployment benefit which she had also claimed during that period.