asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a person (details supplied) in County Carlow will receive his full pension as he applied some months ago.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
15.
It has been decided by the local pension committee that the person concerned is entitled to an old age pension at the maximum rate, including adult dependant allowance from 17 December 1982. The appropriate pension book and arrears have been issued.
16.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when the claim for injury benefit by a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will be processed.
The person concerned claimed occupational injury benefit in respect of an incapacity resulting from an occupational accident on 29 March 1982.
Pending the completion of investigations arising from the accident he was paid disability benefit on an interim basis together with pay-related benefit. Injury benefit was subsequently awarded in respect of the periods from 30 March, first day of incapacity, to 17 April 1982 and from 22 April 1982 to 6 September 1982, when he was examined by a medical referee and considered to be capable of work.
All injury benefit due over and above the disability benefit paid on an interim basis has been paid.
The person concerned has continued to submit medical certificates in respect of the same incapacity since January 1983 and he has been referred for examination again by a medical referee. His claim will be reviewed in the light of the report of that examination.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the long delay in processing the application for social welfare assistance for a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny.
Applications for unemployment assistance in July 1981 and August 1982 were rejected on the grounds that by refusing to disclose his means the person concerned failed to show that his weekly means did not exceed the statutory limit. He made a further application on 29 January 1983 but when a social welfare officer called on him to investigate his means he was not available for interview. A further effort will be made by the social welfare officer to contact him this week. When the inquiries are completed his entitlement to unemployment assistance will be determined in the light of the social welfare officer's report.
This matter has been going for a long period of time. This man has been seriously maltreated in respect of means which he does not have access to. The question I am asking through the Chair is, why are the Department seeking audited accounts from the brother with whom this man is residing? If this man seeks a demountable dwelling, which he will, from the local authority, at further expense to the State, he will be entitled to full social welfare assistance. In view of that I would ask the Minister to have a further look at the case and to direct this social welfare officer, in view of the number of persons in similar circumstances in the area who are benefiting under the scheme, to examine this case further in the light of the evidence that has been adduced over a long period. This man is demanding his just entitlement.
My information is that there is some problem in getting the applicant to disclose his means but, as I have indicated, the social welfare officer intends to call again to see if he can get full information and then we can dispose of the case.
There is no possibility of getting audited accounts from the brother. I do not think that is on and the social welfare officer has no rights.
18.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (details supplied) in County Meath was not paid disability benefit from 17 to 23 February 1983.
The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 27 May 1982 and was paid to 16 February 1983. Payment was disallowed after that date following examination by a medical referee who expressed the opinion that he was capable of work.
He appealed against the decision to disallow his claim to benefit but in the meantime he submitted a final certificate which certified him as fit to resume work on 24 February 1983. The case was then referred to an appeals officer who decided that the claimant was not capable of work during the period from 17 February 1983 to 23 February 1983 and is entitled to be paid disability benefit for that period.
A cheque for the arrears of benefit, less amount of supplementary welfare allowance advanced, was issued on 5 May 1983.
19.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will investigate the application for a contributory old age pension and other fringe benefits for a person (details supplied) in Dublin 3, as his previous application was rejected on the grounds of not being qualified; and the reason replies have not issued to the representations made by Deputy Vincent Brady which date from 2 February 1983.
The person concerned does not qualify for a contributory old age pension because he does not satisfy the contribution condition which requires a minimum yearly average of 20 contributions. The average test period in his case was the 26-year period from 1953 to 1978 and his yearly average over this period was only 10 contributions. The person concerned was notified of this at the time.
The fringe benefits of free electricity allowance, free telephone rental allowance and free television licence are not payable to persons who are not in receipt of a pension from my Department. Free travel is, however, available to all persons over 66 years of age and the person concerned is already in possession of the appropriate travel pass.
Because of an oversight a detailed reply to the points raised by the Deputy in the representations of 2 February was issued direct to the person concerned on 21 April last and not to the Deputy. This reply should normally have issued to the Deputy and I have since arranged for a full and comprehensive reply on the various points raised in the representations to be issued to the Deputy.
Incidentally, I have received the letter referred to, dated 16 May. My representations were made in February. Would the Minister not consider that there is an anomaly in this case? It is obvious that a person who is aged 74 years, who does not now qualify will never qualify for social welfare benefit under the present system. Is it not anomalous that such a person, who is in receipt of part-time earnings, should have PRSI contributions deducted without there being any possibility of his gaining from those contributions?
If a person does not qualify for contributory pension he can apply for non-contributory pension, in which case there is a means test. If the person does not qualify under a means test, he is not eligible for benefit.
I should like to ask a question in connection with the reply the Minister gave to the last part of Deputy Brady's question when he said that because of an oversight a detailed reply did not issue. I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware of the number of oversights of this kind that have occurred in the Department and is it not indicative of the situation which has arisen that because detailed replies are not sent to Deputies within a reasonable time, so many parliamentary questions are directed to the Minister in relation to delays in processing claims?
I would regret that Deputies would not get detailed replies. I am taking the matter up to ensure that when a Deputy writes to the Department he will get a detailed reply. I am sure that will happen. If there are delays in replies, if the matter is brought to my attention and if I am given factual information, I will take the matter up with the Department.
If it is possible for a Deputy to gain the complete information within a very short period of time as a result of a parliamentary question to the Minister, I suggest it should also be possible for a Deputy to gain the same information by way of detailed reply from the Department. I would ask the Minister to investigate the possibility of having this done.
I would have to say that it is not possible. As the Deputy is well aware, the fact that questions have to be replied to in a given time makes it incumbent on the Department to reply. As a result of these questions being put down there are often delays in other areas of the Department because intense pressure has been put on. As regards the ordinary, mundane question, I would prefer that Deputies would direct them in the normal way. If they would take them up with me I would ensure that delays would be cut to a minimum. The fact that questions are put down and have to be answered puts tremendous pressure on the Department which I believe is not in the best interest of social welfare beneficiaries.
Would the Minister accept that not only are Deputies not being replied to but ordinary individuals who most of us agree should be replied to promptly are not getting acknowledgments from the Department for a considerable time? This is not a new problem. It has been there for a long time. I would ask the Minister to turn his attention to that matter. It may save a lot of questions appearing on the Order Paper.
I would agree. Unquestionably, Deputies and the general public are entitled to replies from the Department and this is something I have taken up with the Department and that I am very concerned about. I am having a thorough ongoing examination made with a view to having more computerisation in the Department, which will lead to more efficiency and quicker replies.
As the Deputy who put down the question I should like to make it clear that I do not attach blame to the Minister of State for the delays or for my not having received a reply to my earlier representations, but I am sure the Minister will appreciate that I am not a Deputy who puts down questions very frequently. My reason for doing so on this occasion was to try to get information on representations made six months ago. It is most unreasonable for any Minister or any Department to indicate——
A question, Deputy, please.
Would the Minister agree with me that it would be most unfair for any Minister to indicate that the time of the House is being wasted by such questions?
This is more of a speech, Deputy.
Certainly it would not have been necessary to ask such questions if we had received the information on time. Could I ask the Minister for his recommendation as to what we should do in the future in relation to representations?
That is a separate question.
Can the Minister give any guarantee that we may receive replies?
The Deputy is abusing Question Time. That is quite clear.
I would like to point out to the Deputy that I did not indicate that he was wasting the time of the House. Every Deputy has a right to put down a question and I would not deny that right. I merely said that it has to be answered in a given period of time which puts tremendous pressure on the Department. I did not request Deputies not to put questions down but asked that they do it in the normal way. If there are undue delays in receiving replies, the Deputies should bring that fact to my attention and I will have the matter looked into. I will bring this general question to the attention of the Department to see if matters can be improved. Everybody is entitled to a quick reply.
I have a path worn to the Minister's office.
20.
Mr. Moynihan
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be paid his full entitlement to unemployment assistance.
The person concerned is in receipt of weekly unemployment assistance at the rate of £20.70, being the maximum rate payable to him, £25.45, less means £4.75 derived from the value of board and lodging in his parents' home. This is the full amount to which he is entitled having regard to the means assessed against him.
If he is dissatisfied with the means assessment it is open to him to apply to have them re-investigated. A form for this purpose may be obtained from his local office.
Arising out of the Minister's reply——
I have a feeling — perhaps I am wrong — that the Deputy may be going to question the policy involved.
But the Chair did not even hear the question yet.
May I express the wish that the Deputy is not going to question the policy of charging free lodgings? That would be getting into policy issues.
The Deputy was going to fringe around the edge of it. He was going to ask what criteria were being used. In my own constituency it ranges from £2 to £24 or £25. It is about time that the Minister of State paid attention to that also. Especially in the last few weeks and in Mayo in particular, a very intensive campaign has been carried out by officers. Is the Minister aware of that fact and that charges relating to board and lodgings go from £2 to £24 or £25?
This is a question dealing with a specific case.
It got lost somewhere and slipped down the line.
Obviously, there should not be any great discrepancy with regard to charges for board and lodgings and I will have that matter checked out. With regard to investigations, I would hope that there would always be ongoing investigations with regard to payments of State moneys and that there should always be ready accountability for these, so that those who are entitled to get payment get it and those who are not entitled do not.
I agree wholeheartedly with that.
21.
Mr. Moynihan
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a person (details supplied) in County Cork will be paid his full entitlement to unemployment assistance.
The person concerned is presently in receipt of unemployment assistance at the weekly rate of £15.75, being the maximum rate payable to him, £69.55, less means £53.80 derived from self-employment as a carpenter. He is therefore receiving his full entitlement having regard to the means assessed against him.
If he is dissatisfied with the means assessed against him it is open to him to apply for a reinvestigation of means. A form for this purpose may be obtained from his local office and when it is completed his case will be referred to a social welfare officer for investigation.
22.
Mr. Moynihan
asked the Minister for Social Welfare when unemployment assistance will be paid to a person (details supplied) in County Cork.
The unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed on the grounds that his means derived from self-employment as a carpenter exceeded the statutory limit.
He appealed against the disallowance and his case has been referred to a social welfare officer for further inquiries about his income from self-employment. When these are completed his case will be submitted to an appeals officer and his entitlement to unemployment assistance will be reviewed in the light of his decision.
23.
Mr. Moynihan
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the rate at which unemployment benefit was being paid to a person (details supplied) in County Cork; and how the initial lump sum payment was calculated.
The person concerned is entitled to flat-rate unemployment benefit at the reduced rate of £29.30 weekly on the basis of 39 weeks of insurable employment during the governing contribution period 6 April 1981 to 5 April 1982.
He was paid arrears amounting to £346.75 representing the amount of unemployment benefit due from 6 January 1983, the fourth day of unemployment, to 29 March 1983. He was also entitled to pay-related benefit with flat rate unemployment benefit at £7.64 weekly and all arrears of pay-related benefit amounting to £78.96 were paid to him on 13 May 1983.