asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will arrange for disability benefit to be paid to a person (details supplied) in County Cavan.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
14.
The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 6 June 1985, and payment was issued to 7 June 1986, based on his contribution record in the 1983-84 contribution year. He was not entitled to payment of benefit from 9 June 1986 as according to the records of the Department he had less than the required minimum of 26 contributions paid or credited in the 1984-85 contribution year which governed his claim from that date. He had no reckonable contributions recorded in that year.
Credited contributions in respect of this claim from 6 June 1985, have been awarded up to 18 August 1986, the date of the latest medical certificate received. These credited contributions preserve the continuity of his insurance record and should he remain incapable of work he would again be entitled to payment of disability benefit from 5 January 1987 when his entitlement will be based on the 1985-86 contribution year. In the meantime, the person concerned is in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance, from his local health board.
15.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the progress, if any, she has made towards introducing comprehensive free dental care for non-working wives.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare her views on the provision of full optical and dental benefit to the wives of insured workers; and whether she plans to implement this measure.
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 15 and 17 together. I am very conscious of the position of the wives of insured workers, particularly those with family responsibilities who work in the home and I would hope that it would be possible to extend the treatment benefit schemes covering optical and dental benefit to them. A step towards this objective was taken by this Government in July 1985 when the benefits were extended to pregnant wives of insured persons. The question of extending the scheme further is still under consideration in my Department.
18.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will outline her proposals for additional assistance, through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, for families who stand to lose through the application of social welfare equalisation; the discussions she has had with the health boards regarding the administration of the assistance; the additional staff and resources which have been allocated to the health boards for it; how much additional finance has been provided; and the measures it is intended to take to assist those families who will suffer losses, but who will not qualify for assistance through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
The additional alleviating measures which I announced on 29 October are intended to provide further assistance in certain circumstances to those families dependent on social welfare payments where both spouses are entitled to a payment in their own right and the man loses the adult dependant allowance as a result of equal treatment. Families in this situation will already qualify for the special £10 temporary payment and the additional measures are intended for families where, despite this payment, hardship would arise in continuing to meet necessary financial commitments which these families may have.
Discussions are at present taking place between officials of my Department and of the health boards on this matter and I am not, therefore, in a position to give a firm indication of the final outcome. I believe that the alleviating measures contemplated represent a fair response to the needs of persons who will be affected by the introduction of the equal treatment provisions and there are no proposals for further such measures.
20.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a rebate of contributions deducted by the North Eastern Health Board and forwarded to her Department for the period 1 December 1985 to 5 April 1986 on behalf of a person (details supplied) in County Louth will be paid to him; if she is aware that he was engaged by the North Eastern Health Board under the social employment scheme and therefore no contribution should have been deducted; if she is aware that this has happened in many other cases; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
A refund of PRSI contributions incorrectly deducted in this case during the period 1 December 1985 to 5 April 1986 was issued to the North Eastern Health Board on 20 October last and the board refunded the employee's share to the person concerned on 30 October.
Employment under the social employment scheme is insurable for occupational injuries benefit only and is therefore liable for a Class J rate of PRSI contribution of 2.43 per cent made up of 2 per cent from the employee and 0.43 per cent from the employer. In the case of a current medical service card holder, however, the employer is liable for the full amount. The person concerned falls into this category and consequently he was not liable for any payment arising from his employment by the board which commenced on 1 December 1985.
I understand that contributions at the higher Class A rate of PRSI contributions were deducted in error in the case of some 12 persons employed by the health board under the social employment scheme. Refunds are being made in these cases also.
21.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will remove the discriminatory type treatment which a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12 and others in the same area suffer whereby he does not qualify for a fuel voucher, or the same rate of unemployment assistance as others who live a couple of roads away; and if she will ensure that this anomaly is now removed.
There are two fuel schemes at present. The national scheme applies generally but under this scheme persons receiving unemployment assistance are not eligible for fuel vouchers. The urban scheme applies to eligible persons resident in certain urban districts or to eligible persons rehoused by those local authorities outside their areas. This scheme includes unemployment assistance applicants with dependants. The person referred to by the Deputy does not, however, reside in the functional area of Dublin Corporation and does not accordingly qualify for a fuel allowance.
I said in reply to another question that, pending the outcome of court proceedings in relation to the national fuel scheme, it is proposed to continue the fuel schemes in their present form for the 1986-87 heating season and to examine the question of providing a single uniform scheme for the whole country from October 1987 onwards.
As regards unemployment assistance, under the legislation, applicants who reside in certain urban areas qualify for assistance at a rate which is higher than the basic rate of unemployment assistance which applies elsewhere. The person concerned was assessed with means of £0.20 per week, derived from capital. He is, accordingly, in receipt of £61.10 weekly which is the rate payable in his case of £61.30 less means of £0.20. This rate of payment is the appropriate rate payable in his case having regard to his place of residence.
Equalising the basic rates of unemployment assistance would have significant cost implications. The levels of social welfare payments generally will be reviewed in the light of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare having due regard to constraints on the public finances.
22.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the withdrawal of a widow's pension from a person (details supplied) in County Roscommon.
Following a reinvestigation of her circumstances on 19 August 1986 the means of the person concerned derived from a farm holding and a small amount of capital were assessed at £53.10 a week. This exceeds the limit of £48 a week applicable to her as a widow under 66 years of age with no qualified children. She appealed against this decision but the appeal was disallowed by an appeals officer on 17 October 1986. On 3 November 1986 the widow forwarded a letter from her solicitor indicating that she had transferred her farm to her son. A social welfare supervisor later confirmed that the deed was acceptable as proof that the widow had divested herself of her farm.
As a result, she has now been awarded a widow's non-contributory pension at the rate of £44.90 a week from 25 July 1986 i.e. the date of the deed. This is the maximum rate of widow's non-contributory pension payable in her case. A pension book with orders payable from 3 October 1986 was sent to the designated post office on 7 November 1986 for collection by her and she has been notified accordingly. Arrears for the period from 25 July 1986 to 2 October 1986 will be sent direct to her shortly by payable order.