asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a prescribed relative's allowance is being refused to a person (details supplied) in respect of her son.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
165.
To qualify for a prescribed relative allowance a pensioner must be receiving full time care and attention from a prescribed relative who is residing with her for that purpose. The prescribed relative allowance was withdrawn from 10 January 1986 in this case on the grounds that the prescribed relative, who farms a holding, is not considered to be in a position to provide full time care and attention.
166.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Wexford in receipt of disability benefit is not in receipt of the maximum single person's rate; and if payments will be increased to the maximum rate.
The shortfall arises from the fact that, in the 1984-85 income tax year, the person in question has only 36 contributions credited. In order to qualify for payment at the full rate, he would require at least 48 contributions paid or credited. If he has any additional contributions in this year, he should forward evidence to this effect and the position will be reviewed.
167.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will arrange an oral appeal and a review on behalf of a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath.
Following investigation, the unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed on the grounds that his means, derived from profit from his holding and from the value of capital, exceeded the maximum rate payable in his case.
He appealed against the means assessment on 20 June 1986 and arrangements are being made to refer his papers to the social welfare officer for reinvestigation. When these inquiries are completed, his case will then be submitted to an appeals officer for determination at the earliest available opportunity.
While it is a matter for the appeals officer to decide if a claimant should be afforded an oral hearing nevertheless the request for an oral hearing will be considered by the appeals officer.
168.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will arrange an oral appeal on behalf of a person (details supplied) in County Westmeath.
Following a review of his unemployment assistance claim in July 1985, the means of the person concerned were assessed at £9.60 weekly, derived from profit from his holding. He is, accordingly, entitled to unemployment assistance at the weekly rate of £24.20, being the appropriate maximum rate payable in his case of £33.80 less means of £9.60. Although the person concerned was informed of his right to appeal against the means assessment he did not do so and the time allowed to appeal has long since lapsed.
However, if he is of the opinion that his circumstances have changed since the last investigation of means it is open to him to apply for a review of his case and his means will be reinvestigated by a social welfare officer. An application form for a review may be obtained at his local office. In the meantime, further weekly payments of £24.20 will continue to be made as they become due.
169.
Mr. Walsh
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will pay the maximum rate of unemployment assistance to a person (details supplied) in County Cork.
Following investigation the unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed on the grounds that his means, derived from the profit from his holding, exceeded the statutory limit.
A form on which to appeal against the means assessment has been issued to the person concerned and when the completed form is returned to his local office his case will be submitted to an appeals officer for determination at the earliest available opportunity. His entitlement to unemployment assistance will be reviewed in the light of the outcome of the appeal.
170.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a person (details supplied) in County Monaghan will receive unemployment benefit, and the reason for the delay.
The person concerned claimed unemployment benefit from 23 December 1985. He was paid up to 5 May 1986 during which time he was required to attend at the local office once a week to sign the unemployed register as proof of unemployment.
In May 1986 some doubt arose as to whether he continued to satisfy the condition of being unemployed. As a result he was requested to sign the unemployed register daily as proof of unemployment. He failed to comply with those instructions and payment of benefit was discontinued with effect from 6 May 1986. He continued to sign the unemployment register once a week to 6 June 1986 after which date he ceased to sign.
If the person concerned is unemployed and wishes to have payment of benefit resumed he should contact his local office as soon as possible. However, in order to be entitled to payment of benefit he must prove unemployment and in that respect he must comply with instructions from the local office regarding the frequency at which he is required to sign the unemployed register.