asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Donegal who is in part-time employment and paying income tax and pay-related social insurance, both in the full-time and part-time employment cannot be paid pay-related benefit on his part-time employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
207.
The person concerned claimed injury benefit under the occupational injuries scheme in respect of an incapacity which he attributed to an accident on 1 February 1984 in connection with his part-time employment as a fireman.
Pending the completion of investigations arising from the accident he was allowed disability benefit on an interim basis from 6 February 1984, the fourth day of certified incapacity. Benefit was paid in respect of the period to 18 February, after which date he was certified fit to resume work. Following the completion of investigations, injury benefit was awarded from 1 February and injury benefit over and above the disability benefit already paid has been issued.
Pay-related benefit is not payable in respect of the first 18 days of incapacity in a period of interruption of employment. The period of incapacity was for 15 days only and accordingly pay-related benefit was not payable. Had the claim been for over three weeks he would have qualified for pay-related benefit based on his earnings from the full-time employment.
His employment contributions in respect of his part-time employment (Class J) are reckonable only for occupational injuries benefits. The contributions contain no element in respect of disability benefit and accordingly the part-time earnings do not reckon for determining pay-related benefit entitlement. His entitlement to pay-related benefit on his claim would accordingly have been determined on his reckonable earnings in respect of his main employment which was insured at Class A.1.
208.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make available to members of the House and representatives of farming organisations the full report on which unemployment assistance was refused to a person (details supplied) in County Laois; if he will take immediate steps to ensure that the system of assessment takes all farm costs into consideration; and the justification for delays of over six months in processing appeals.
The claim of the person concerned to unemployment assistance was disallowed by a deciding officer. He appealed against the decision and an appeals officer also rejected his claim assessing him with means derived from farming of £48 a week or approximately £2,500 a year. This amount exceeded the maximum rate of assistance appropriate to the case of the person concerned and he was not, therefore, entitled to unemployment assistance.
The circumstances of this applicant's case were unusual in so far as his cattle herd became infected by tuberculosis and in consequence it was necessary for him to dispose of all of the herd. He received £12,000 from the disposal of the herd and this included £7,435 given by the Department of Agriculture by way of compensation. He also received £2,700 from the Department of Agriculture by way of a hardship grant to meet normal living expenses while he was restocking his farm. Furthermore the applicant at the time of the investigation had £3,850 cash in bank. The restocking of the farm commenced in October 1983 when 14 cattle were bought.
At all times, therefore, substantial amounts of cash were available to the person concerned from his own resources, from the sale of cattle and from the compensation provided by the Department of Agriculture. The assessment of £2,500 for the year allowed a very significant margin for expenses having regard to the size of the enterprise involved.
Every effort is made to process appeals as quickly as possible. In many cases, however, numerous inquiries are necessary before decisions can be given. This was the position in the present case and inquiries were not in fact completed until the end of January 1984.
209.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will change the situation where a living alone allowance will not be paid to a widow over 66 years of age, because she has a four year old grandson living in the house.
The living alone allowance is payable to a qualified pensioner only where the living alone condition is satisfied. Where a child is living with a pensioner she would normally be entitled to an increase in pension for the child or, if the child's parents are dead, an orphan's pension if she is the guardian. Children's allowance would also be payable in respect of the child. She could on the other hand be in receipt of payment towards the child's maintenance from the parents or guardian. In one way or another the total amount received by the pensioner for the child should normally be greater than the current living alone allowance of £3 per week.
In general, therefore, no good reason is seen why there should be a change in the living alone condition which is the fundamental criterion for payment of the allowance. If, however, the Deputy has a particular case in mind which is a cause of difficulty I will be glad to have it looked into on receiving the details from him.
210.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the disallowance of unemployment assistance in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Galway whose annual income has been assessed at £2,587 despite the fact that he has no income and owns no property.
The unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed on the grounds that his means, derived from his earnings from self-employment as a stonemason and from the benefit of board and lodgings afforded to him by his wife's relatives, exceeded the statutory limit.
He appealed against the amount of means assessed against him but the appeals officer also assessed him with means in excess of the statutory limit.