Austin Deasy
Ceist:148 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason unemployment benefit in the case of a person (details supplied) has been reduced; and if he will have full payment restored.
Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
The rate of unemployment benefit payable to an applicant is reduced after 156 days of benefit where he does not satisfy the contribution condition of having 280 paid contributions in a seven year period.
The person concerned was in receipt of flat-rate unemployment benefit at the maximum rate appropriate in his case until 13 February 1990 when he had received 156 days of benefit. He does not satisfy the contribution condition for further payment at the maximum rate and, accordingly, his weekly rate of unemployment benefit was reduced from £95.80 to £88.90 from 14 February 1990 and he is at present in receipt of payment at this rate.
Charles Flanagan
Ceist:149 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Social Welfare when disability benefit will be awarded to a person (details supplied) in County Laois who is suffering severe hardship.
The person concerned was paid disability benefit to 2 October 1989 after which date payment was disallowed following examination by a medical referee on 22 September 1989 who expressed the opinion that she was capable of work.
She appealed against the disallowance of benefit and was examined by a different medical referee on 8 December 1989 who also expressed the opinion that she was capable of work.
Her appeal has been referred to an appeals officer. Following an examination of the papers in the case, the appeals officer has decided to hold an oral hearing to afford the person concerned an opportunity of presenting her case personally. This hearing will be held as soon as possible.
Jim Higgins
Ceist:150 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in deciding the appeal of a person (details supplied) in County Mayo for unemployment assistance.
Following investigation, the unemployment assistance claim of the person concerned was disallowed from 6 December 1989 on the grounds that he had failed to disclose full details of his means.
He appealed against this decision. Following an examination of the papers in the case an appeals officer decided to hold an oral hearing to afford the person concerned a full opportunity to explain his case personally. This hearing is likely to take place next month and the person concerned will be informed as soon as the date is set.