asked the Minister for Social Welfare the present position concerning the application of a person (details supplied) in County Waterford who applied for invalidity pension.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
77.
The person concerned has been awarded invalidity pension from 17 March 1988. A pension order book payable from 26 May 1988 will be issued to the designated post office of payment within the next two weeks. Arrears in respect of the period from 17 March 1988 to 25 May 1988, less the amount of disability benefit paid during that period, will be paid by payable order.
78.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if an appeal in relation to the disallowance of disability benefit for a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be heard as soon as possible.
The person concerned was paid disability benefit to 31 March 1988 after which date payment was disallowed following an examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that she was capable of work. She appealed against the disallowance and arrangements have been made to have her examined by a different medical referee as soon as possible. Her entitlement to benefit will then be reviewed in the light of the medical referee's report.
79.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Waterford has had her disability benefit discontinued; and if he will have the matter re-examined with a view to restoring the benefit.
Payment of disability benefit to the person concerned was disallowed from 15 April 1988 following examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that she was capable of work. She appealed against the disallowance and arrangements are being made to have her examined by a different medical referee at an early date. Her entitlement to further payment of disability benefit will be reviewed in the light of the medical referee's report following this examination.
80.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the facts of a case where a person (details supplied) in Dublin 10 who is a deserted husband with two dependent children, who is living on £57 per week which is over £20 less than a woman in similar circumstances would receive, he will empower community welfare officers to bridge the gap between unemployment assistance payable to men in these circumstances and the amount that a woman in similar circumstances receives; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The person concerned is in receipt of unemployment assistance at the rate of £57 which is the maximum weekly rate appropriate in his circumstances. A deserted wife with two children would be entitled to £70.50 deserted wife's allowance (maximum rate). From July the person concerned will, as a result of the additional increases in unemployment assistance provided in the budget, receive £62.40 while the corresponding rate for a person on deserted wife's allowance will be £72.60.
The basis rates of supplementary welfare allowance are set out in the legislation and may only be supplemented by payments in respect of rent, special heating or dietary needs or other exceptional needs. There are no provisions where by additional payments of supplementary welfare allowance could be made on the lines proposed by the Deputy.
81.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will have an oral hearing in relation to his disability benefit.
The person concerned was paid disability benefit to 28 November 1987 after which date payment was disallowed following examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that he was capable of work. He appealed against the disallowance of benefit and was examined by a different medical referee on 8 February 1988 who also expressed the opinion that he was capable of work.
The person concerned then completed an appeal form and submitted fresh medical evidence which has been forwarded to an appeals officer who proposes to hold an oral hearing of his claim as soon as possible.
82.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a person (details supplied) in County Wexford who applied for disability benefit on 25 November 1987 is still awaiting payment on his claim up to 4 January 1988 as his British insurance record is relevant to this claim; and when his Department's inquiries to the British Department of Health and Social Security on this case are likely to be completed.
The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 25 November 1987. Payment of benefit was not authorised from that date, as, according to the available records, he had not the required minumum of 39 contributions paid or credited in 1985-86, the contribution year governing his claim. He had a total of 28 credited contributions recorded for that year.
The claimant, who indicated that he was employed in Britain during the 1985-86 contribution year, submitted a copy of his P.60 and the Department of Health and Social Security was requested to clarify the position. From 4 January 1988 payment of benefit to this claimant is dependent on his insurance record in the 1986-87 contribution year, which records 44 credited contributions. Payment was accordingly, authorised from that date at the appropriate weekly rate of £40.70, and continued to issue to 28 February 1988 when a final certificate was submitted.
The British insurance record for the person concerned has been notified to the Department and these contributions when added to his Irish record, qualify him for maximum rate disability benefit, £42.50 per week, in respect of the period from 25 November 1987 to 28 February 1988. Pay-related benefit has been authorised from 16 December 1987, the 19th day of incapacity. All arrears of disability benefit and pay-related benefit due to this person were issued on 26 April 1988.
83.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason Deputy Gay Mitchell has not received a reply to a letter concerning a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12 since he received an acknowledgement on 16 February 1988; and if he will confirm that a reply will now issue.
The Deputy initially made representations in respect of the person concerned on 7 December 1987. Two letters were issued to the Deputy in reply to these representations. The first stated that the person concerned would not be entitled to contributory old age pension on the basis of his contribution record as an employee. It also promised a further reply regarding the position under the proposals for PRSI for the self-employed. The second letter was issued on 10 February 1988 and it dealt with the question concerning the introduction of PRSI for the self-employed.
The Deputy's subsequent representations, dated 12 February 1988 and acknowledged on 16 February, concerned the query about PRSI for the self-employed. This letter was acknowledged in the normal way. It had, however, obviously crossed in the post with the letter which was issued to the Deputy on 10 February and, when this was realised, it was assumed that a further reply was not necessary. It is presumed in the circumstances that the Deputy does not now need any further response.