Vol. 434 No. 2
166 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason deductions have been made from the disability benefit of a person (details supplied) in County Meath who took part-time work over a five week period; and his views on whether this level of deduction is disproportionate and constitutes serious discouragement of those on disability benefit from seeking part-time work which might contribute towards their rehabilitation with a view to working on a full-time basis.
The general rule is that a person may not work while in receipt of disability benefit. However, the legislation provides that a person may be permitted to work where the work is part-time and is part of a rehabilitation programme.
Before starting such work, a person must apply in writing for approval from the Department and give details of the employment together with medical evidence on its rehabilitative nature. There is no trace of any notification or request having been received from the person concerned in relation to the work in question. It has not been suggested by any medical evidence that the work was part of a rehabilitation programme.
The person concerned claimed and was paid disability benefit from 26 April 1986 to 18 August 1986. It subsequently came to light that he had worked on various days during this period as a tote clerk. The deciding officer accordingly disallowed payment for those days. He was notified of this decision and of his right to appeal.
The total amount of the overpayment assessed in this case was £373.74. The amount outstanding and due to be repaid since 1986 was £354.24 when the person was awarded a retirement pension with effect from 8 October 1992. The current rate of pension payable is £112.80 per week.
167 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will give details of the present weekly value of the invalidity pension of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 10 who has recently become a widow; the weekly value of her other entitlements with the invalidity pension, that is, free travel, electricity allowance, free television licence and free telephone rental; the weekly value of a widow's contributory pension if she transferred to it; the amount of disability benefit she would be entitled to each week along with her widow's contributory pension; the manner in which that sum is calculated; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The person concerned is in receipt of invalidity pension at the weekly rate of £60.80. In addition, for the duration of the heating season (26 weeks, mid-October to mid-April) she receives a fuel allowance of £8 per week.
|
£ |
|
|
Free Electricity Allowance (including “standing charge” and based on maximum unit consumption). |
2.76 |
|
Free Colour Television Licence. |
1.19 |
|
Free Telephone Rental Allowance (average). |
2.71 |
168 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will use the discretionary power available to him to allow a person (details supplied) in Dublin 7 to backdate the credits due to her for unemployment benefit as she believed at the time that she could not sign-on because she was in receipt of lone parent's allowance.
The person concerned made an application for unemployment benefit on 31 March 1993. She failed to qualify for payment on the grounds of insufficient contributions in the governing contribution year 1991-92. In this regard, she applied to sign the live register retrospectively in respect of the period from 9 June 1990 on the grounds that she believed she was not eligible to claim unemployment benefit as she was already in receipt of lone parent's allowance from the Department.
On the evidence available to the Department the deciding officer decided that the person concerned did not satisfy the statutory conditions that would entitle her to payment of unemployment benefit. As a consequence the question of retrospective signing for "credits" did not arise. However, in view of the circumstances of the case I am arranging for a further review to be carried out and I will be in touch with the Deputy about the outcome.
169 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the circumstances of a case (details supplied) in Dublin 8 the person concerned is now entitled to either deserted wife's allowance or deserted wife's benefit.
The person concerned applied originally for deserted wife's allowance in February 1993. Her application had to be disallowed as she failed to satisfy the deciding officer that her husband had left her of his own volition. She did not appeal against the disallowance.
170 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if phases 2 and 3 of the equal treatment payments are due to a person (details supplied) in Dublin 3; if so, the amount due to her under each phase; and when these amounts will be paid.
The person has received equal treatment arrears in respect of disability benefit payments paid between December 1984 and May 1986.
The arrears paid are known as Phase 1 arrears and were based on the difference between the lower personal rates of benefit paid to certain married women and the rates generally paid during the period in question. A cheque for £342 was issued to her on 5 March 1993.
Additional arrears payments are being made to certain persons whose spouse was not also receiving a social welfare payment contemporaneously between December 1984 and November 1986. Arrears due in such cases are typically paid in two instalments and are called Phase 2 instalments.
This person's late husband was in receipt of disability benefit, including increases for dependents, during the period in question. Accordingly no arrears under Phase 2 will be payable in this case.
171 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will review the claim of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 3 for the free fuel allowance in view of alternative calculations.
I am pleased to be able to inform the Deputy that a more favourable method of assessing the income was applied in this case. The allowance is now being awarded. The new decisions advisory office which I recently established has been set up to monitor and review the type of marginal situation which arose in this case. While I am insisting on a firm line against persons who abuse the system, I am equally anxious that any element of doubt should be applied to the benefit of social welfare customers.
