Seán Barrett
Question:102 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in dealing with an application for an old age non-contributory pension by a person (details supplied) in County Dublin.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
The person concerned applied for an old age non-contributory pension on 10 October 1991. Her case was referred immediately to the social welfare officer for investigation of her means. The social welfare officer is awaiting details of her assets and liabilities from her accountant.
As soon as these necessary inquiries are completed her case will be referred for decision. The person concerned will be notified of the outcome accordingly.
Gay Mitchell
Question:103 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will review the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12 who according to his Department received an over-payment of £3,498 and has been asked to refund the amount.
The over-payment in this case arose because the wife of the pensioner received disability benefit in her own right while the pensioner was claiming for her as his adult dependant. The pensioner agreed with my officials in July 1991 to make regular refunds equivalent to a special supplementary payment he receives under existing traditional arrangements relating to the implementation of the EC Directive on Equality. This supplement amounts to £12 per week from July 1991 in his case.
It has not been possible to examine all aspects of this case in the time available. I will arrange to have the matter considered fully, and will communicate with the Deputy in due course.
Gay Mitchell
Question:104 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will determine an appeal in favour of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12 who met with an appeals officer on 6 November, and who came off full-time unemployment benefit to take a job for three days a week on the understanding that she would be paid unemployment assistance on the other days of the week.
The person concerned applied for unemployment benefit and her claim was disallowed as she was regarded as not being unemployed, due to the fact that she is employed on a permanent part-time basis three days a week.
The person concerned appealed this decision to the independent social welfare appeals office. Her case was heard by an appeals officer who upheld the decision of the deciding officer. The decision of the appeals officer is final and may only be revised in the light of fresh evidence.
Ned O'Keeffe
Question:105 Mr. E. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person (details supplied) in County Cork, who is in receipt of unemployment benefit on a week-on/week-off basis will receive payment of the Christmas bonus this year.
To be entitled to the Christmas bonus for 1991 an unemployment assistance recipient must be in receipt of long term unemployment assistance during the week commencing 27 November 1991 and ending on 3 December 1991. The person concerned ceased to sign the unemployed register on 9 November 1991. He was engaged on a social employment scheme from 11 November 1991 and, accordingly, would not be entitled to a Christmas bonus payable by my Department.
Seán Barrett
Question:106 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons a person (details supplied) in County Dublin has been notified of a £14 per week reduction in his old age non-contributory pension; the basis for such a large reduction; and if he will confirm that the free fuel allowance is due to this person.
The person concerned is in receipt of a British retirement pension at a rate which is equivalent to £59.74. In general, this level of means would result in entitlement to old age non-contributory pension being withdrawn. However, under special rules which govern the assessment of such pensions, means have been assessed at £58 per week. This assessment allows entitlement of old age non-contributory pension to continue at the minimum rate of £3 per week. This minimum rate is increased by the living alone allowance of £4.30 per week and during the winter months by the basic fuel allowance of £5 per week and smokeless fuel supplement of £3 per week which gives a current entitlement of £15.30 per week. The person concerned continues to be entitled to free travel, free electricity, TV licence and telephone rental.
Michael Creed
Question:107 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the reduction in the weekly rate of widow's pension payable to a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and if he will give a breakdown of the means assessed against this person.
The person concerned had been in receipt of a non-contributory widow's pension at the maximum rate of £111.00 in respect of herself and her four dependent children.
In a recent review of her circumstances it was found that her means, which are derived from capital and a two-thirds share in a farm, have increased from £3.88 to £51.59 per week since they were last assessed in May 1988. As a result, her pension has been reduced to £65 per week with effect from 8 November 1991. If the person wishes to appeal against this assessment, it is open to her to do so.
Details of how her means have been assessed will be sent to the person concerned.
Bernard Allen
Question:108 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason his Department decided that a person (details supplied) in Cork had been overpaid disability benefit by £658; the reason he was informed of the overpayment without any explanation or breakdown on the type of overpayments made; if he will communicate with this person through Deputy Allen outlining exactly where the overpayments were made; if he will agree that in the event of being able to justify the allegations that overpayments have been made, he will stop just £2 per week over a prolonged period; if he will investigate complaints by the person that he received a letter the signature of which he could not read; and if he will give an assurance that in all future communications the author of the letter clearly identifies him or herself.
The person in question was paid disability benefit from 21 March 1989 to 10 July 1990, when he was examined by a medical referee, who found him capable of work. His claim was disallowed by a deciding officer with effect from 11 July 1990. He was also paid pay-related benefit which ceased on 21 June 1990, when he had exhausted his entitlement. He appealed against the decision disallowing him payment of disability benefit. On 8 May 1991 an appeals officer found in his favour and reversed the decision of the deciding officer.
During the period of his disallowance, from 12 July 1990 to 7 May 1991, he applied for and was paid unemployment benefit plus pay-related benefit. The pay-related benefit amounted to £658.00.
However, as a result of the appeals officer's decision he was entitled to disability benefit from 12 July 1990. Pay-related benefit was not payable with this disability benefit as he had exhausted his entitlement to pay-related benefit with disability benefit on 21 June 1990. As a result he received £658.00 that he would not have received had he remained on disability benefit after 12 July 1990.
It is accepted that the amount in question was properly paid on his unemployment benefit claim and the question of recovery does not arise. However due to an oversight at the local office the person concerned was inadvertently asked to pay the money.
My officials are required to identify themselves clearly in all correspondence with the public and I will examine the Deputy's complaint in this case.
Andrew Boylan
Question:109 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason he has refused disability benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Cavan on the basis that he was working at silage contracting, when in fact he was not; and, if he will have payments returned to the person without delay.
The person concerned was in receipt of disability benefit from 18 October 1990. In the course of routine inquiries by inspectors from my Department on 15 October 1991 he verbally admitted to working with his son in a silage contracting business in June 1991. He also signed a statement detailing the exact nature of his work, viz. driving farm machinery.
This work is in contravention of the rules of behaviour governing receipt of disability. The relevant rule states:—"A person shall do no work unless it be light work for which no remuneration is, or would ordinarily be, payble".
The penalty for a breach of these rules provides for a disqualification for receipt of disability benefit for a period of up to nine weeks. Accordingly, this client was disqualified by a deciding officer for the period from 18 November 1991 to 18 January 1992.
The Deputy's representations are being accepted as an appeal against this decision and the case will be referred to the social welfare appeals office for determination.
Further aspects of this person's entitlements are still under review. When he submitted his claim in October 1990, he stated that his wife was not self-employed. It has since been established that she owns a farm and a business. Her income from these sources is being investigated. When these investigations are complete, the question of entitlements to increases for dependants will be reviewed.