Vol. 343 No. 3
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason many persons in the Newbridge area of County Kildare, are being denied social welfare benefits on the grounds that they are not available for work; and if he is satisfied that the grounds are genuine.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is satisfied with the grounds on which the Newbridge office of the Department of Social Welfare is denying people their benefits and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
It is a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit or assistance that a claimant be available for employment. This means in general that a claimant must be free to take up employment and must be making genuine efforts to obtain work.
It also means that a claimant should not place unreasonable limitations on the type or hours of work he would accept or on the location in which he would accept employment.
In the matter of disallowance on the grounds that a person is not available for employment, claims in the Newbridge local office are not treated any differently from those in any other local office in the country. The criteria used, as defined in the preceding paragraphs, are applied uniformly in all local offices.
Every person whose claim to unemployment benefit or assistance is disallowed is advised in writing of the reason for the disallowance and of the right of appeal against the decision given in his case.
It is open to any person who is dissatisfied with a deciding officer's decision to appeal against the decision and to have the case determined by an appeals officer.
Could the Minister indicate to the House the number of claims disallowed from the Newbridge office on the basis that the claimants were not available for work?
That would seem to be a separate question.
It averages two to three a week.
Would that be more than the average for other exchanges throughout the country, or is that normal?
As I indicated in my reply, there is no question of any special treatment being meted out to any other area and Newbridge is being treated in the same way as other areas. I have not the information as to whether this is higher or lower than other areas throughout the country. But I want to assure the Deputy that Newbridge receives the very same treatment as any other area in regard to that.
Would the Minister indicate if there are any figures available to illustrate whether women are refused assistance more often than men on the basis that they are not available for work?
These questions relate to Newbridge only.
I am sorry, I would not have that information.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12 is not being allowed free telephone rental in view of the fact that he is 75 and lives alone; and if he will ensure that this category of individual is not discriminated against.
The application of the person concerned for a free telephone rental allowance was refused as he was not in receipt of a qualifying pension.
In order to qualify for the allowance an applicant must be receiving a social welfare-type pension. A person receiving an occupational pension does not fulfil the conditions and an allowance is not payable in such a case.
To extend the scheme to include occupational pensioners would involve significant additional costs and there are no funds at my disposal to meet such costs.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the cost of abolishing the means test for payment of old age pensions.
The estimated annual cost, at July 1983 rates, is £133 million.
Would the Minister agree that a means test, as it is commonly known, is an insulting and degrading form of investigation for deciding on eligibility for old age pension? Would he agree also that there seems to be no uniform investigatory procedures as far as this is concerned? Will he, once and for all, remove this unseemly practice from the social welfare code?
I do not see anything whatsoever unseemly about a means test. For example, people could be in receipt of a pension of £20,000 a year and apply for a social welfare pension. Is the Deputy saying they would be entitled to get it? I am sorry, I do not see that as the function of social welfare where our business is to provide means to people who have not got any. I indicated to the Deputy the cost of removing the means test, which would be £133 million. That, then, would have a knock-on effect in other areas of means-testing. Therefore, one would be talking about very large sums of money. I might ask if that would be the way to expend any additional funds one might have.
I do not accept the figure the Minister has quoted as accurate, £133 million; £133 million to do what?
I will give the Deputy the facts.
Please.
There are 334,000 persons over the age of 66, or aged 66; of those 267,000 are in receipt of pensions of one kind or another from the Department of Social Welfare — old age contributory and non-contributory pensions, retirement pensions, widows' pensions and invalidity pensions. This leaves approximately 58,000 people who are not in receipt of any pension from the Department and who would be eligible for the old age pension were the means test to be abolished. The estimated cost of paying the maximum old age pension, at July rates, to an additional 58,000 persons would result in approximately £119 million, and an additional £14 million for giving the maximum rate pension to 20 per cent at present, receiving reduced rates.
At present what is the function of the pension committee? What purpose do they serve?
That is a separate question.
No, it is related to this means test.
No, it has to do with the cost of abolishing the means test. I am calling Question No. 11.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total number of persons unemployed in the Dublin West constituency.
Statistics are not maintained in a way which would enable the information requested by the Deputy to be furnished.
12.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement on the reason for the refusal of unemployment assistance for a person (details supplied) in County Laois, who has no income and is fully available for work.
The unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed for three 6-week periods from 5 January 1983, 16 February 1983 and 30 March 1983, on the grounds that he was not genuinely seeking work and unable to obtain suitable employment.
He has appealed against the disallowances and arrangements are being made to have his case determined at the earliest opportunity. His entitlement to unemployment assistance will be reviewed in the light of the decision of the appeals officer.
13.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for refusing an unemployment assistance claim by a person (details supplied) in County Laois, who has no income and is available for work.
The person concerned claimed unemployment assistance on 7 December 1982 and his case was referred to a social welfare officer for investigation. Following inquiries, his claim was disallowed on the grounds that, by failing to disclose particulars of his means, he failed to show that his means did not exceed the statutory limit. The decision was conveyed to him on 12 January 1983.
On 23 May 1983 the person concerned submitted an appeal at his local office and arrangements are being made to have his case referred to an appeals officer. His entitlement to unemployment assistance will be reviewed in the light of the decision of the appeals officer.
14.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will approve an application for unemployment assistance in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Laois.
The unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed on the grounds that by failing to furnish particulars of his means he failed to show that his means did not exceed the statutory limit.
He has appealed against the disallowance and arrangements are being made to have his case determined by an appeals officer. His entitlement to unemployment assistance will be reviewed in the light of the decision of the appeals officer.
Questions Nos. 15 to 20, inclusive, and Nos. 23 to 27, inclusive, are for written reply.
21.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason disability benefit was stopped in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12 up to April of this year; and the reason he was not reimbursed for the intervening 10 weeks.
The person concerned was paid disability benefit from 7 October 1982, fourth day of incapacity, to 17 January 1983, 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 decision to disallow payment and, in this connection, was examined by a different medical referee on 2 March 1983 who also considered him to be capable of work. His case was then referred to an appeals officer who upheld the decision to disallow payment in respect of the period 17 January 1983 to 28 March 1983 — date of the latest medical certificate before him.
He again claimed disability benefit from 25 April 1983 in respect of a different incapacity. All disability benefit due from 28 April 1983, fourth day of incapacity, to 9 May 1983, after which date he was certified fit to resume work, has been issued.
22.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in paying unemployment assistance to a person (details supplied) in County Laois who has been signing since December 1982.
The person concerned claimed unemployment assistance intermittently from 6 December 1982 to 25 January 1983, from 31 January 1983 to 17 February 1983, less a number of odd days, and from 6 April 1983 continuously.
Her case was investigated by a social welfare officer but his report about her means went astray in postal transit and was not received at headquarters until 5 May 1983. Her means were assessed at £13.80 derived from the value of board and lodging on her father's holding. She is, accordingly, entitled to unemployment assistance at £11.65 weekly, being the maximum rate payable to her £25.45 less £13.80.
All arrears due were paid on 17 May 1983 and further weekly payments at £11.65 continue to be made as they become due.
28.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the way in which an old age pension is calculated in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 12; and the arrears included in it.
The person concerned claimed contributory old age pension on 25 March 1982 and under the regulations he was awarded pension from 25 December 1981, which is three months before the date of claim. He was issued with a pension book containing orders payable from 2 April 1982 and the arrears for the period from 25 December 1981 to 1 April 1982 amounting to £732.20 were sent to him by means of a payable order on 28 July 1982. The pension at present being paid to him is £65.40 a week, made up of the personal rate of £39.70 plus £25.70 in respect of his wife. This will be increased to a total of £73.25 a week from 1 July 1983.
The rate of pension has been calculated on the basis of a yearly average of 43 qualifying contributions from 5 January 1953 to 5 April 1979. He would require a yearly average of at least 48 contributions to qualify for the maximum rate of pension.
