asked the Minister for Social Welfare the percentage of the appeals in respect of the following which were upheld at the latest date for which figures are available: (i) unemployment benefit/assistance, (ii) disability benefit, (iii) occupational injuries benefit, (iv) deserted wife's benefit/allowance and (v) contributory and non-contributory old age pensions; the percentage of appeals in respect of unemployment benefit/assistance which were held in the absence of one or more of the assessors; the percentage of appeals heard without an oral hearing; the percentage of such appeals upheld at the latest date for which figures are available; and the percentage of claimants represented and the percentage of such appeals upheld.

Records are not kept in such a manner as would enable all of the information sought by the Deputy to be given. The information available is set out in the following statement and relates to the calendar year 1980. As the statement contains an amount of statistical material, I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to circulate it with the Official Report.

The statement is:

Statistics relating to non-contributory old age pension appeals are not available. The primary decisions in these cases are given by old age pension committees and not by deciding officers of the Department. The vast majority of appeals are made by social welfare officers, who investigated the claims to pension in the first instance, against the decisions of pension committees awarding pension at rates considered inappropriate having regard to the means of the pension claimant.

Assessors are invited to all oral hearings relating to unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. Records are not kept, however, of the number of occasions on which one or more of the assessors failed to attend.

Records of appeals which involved oral hearings are available in relation to disability benefit and occupational injuries benefit only. The percentage of appeals in relation to these benefits held without oral hearings and the percentage of such appeals allowed are:

Records are not kept of the numbers of appeals in which claimants were represented.

22.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange for the immediate payment of disability benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Galway.

The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 18 November 1980 to 17 January 1981 after which date she was certified fit to resume work All disability benefit and pay-related benefit due for the full period of her incapacity, less supplementary welfare allowance, have been paid.

Will the Minister tell us the date payment was made?

I think around 7 January.

Why did Deputy Molloy table a question on the matter in March?

I am sorry, payment was issued on 27 February.

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is a disgrace.

Will the Minister explain why a claim made in respect of a period that ended in early January was not paid until the end of February, some seven weeks later?

It is not a very favourable situation but there were problems in this case that had to be resolved.

I am calling Question No. 23.

23.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a person (details supplied) in County Cork will receive in his retirement pension the weekly allowance of £18.30 due in respect of his wife.

An order book for payment of the adult dependant's allowance from 26 February 1981 has been issued to the person concerned.

24.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Galway is not receiving the old age pension at the full rate.

The local pension committee decided that the person concerned is entitled to the rate of pension currently in payment. His means, consisting of the weekly value of a holding and capital, only entitle him to this amount.

25.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the delay in dealing with the claim of a person (details supplied) in County Galway who has applied for an old age pension.

The local pension committee decided in October last that the person concerned was not entitled to a pension as his means exceeded the statutory limit.

There was no delay in dealing with this case.

When a reply is sent from the Department explaining that a person's means exceed the statutory limit, will the Minister take steps to ensure that a detailed explanation is given about what the Department mean? The person concerned should be given enough information to understand why he has been refused. This happens north of the Border and I do not see any reason why it should not be introduced here. I am asking the Minister to instruct his Department to explain the matter in detail to the person concerned so that the applicant may have a fair chance of appealing against such a decision.

As far as I know that explanation is given. However, I will certainly take up the matter with the Department.

I thank the Minister but what I have suggested does not happen at the moment.

26.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (details supplied) in County Galway has been signing for unemployment benefit since 6 January 1981 and has not yet received payment; and if he will take action in the matter.

According to the records of my Department the person concerned does not satisfy the statutory contribution conditions for entitlement to unemployment benefit. She has, however, been asked to furnish additional evidence in respect of her previous employments.

In the meantime a claim to unemployment assistance has been accepted from her and is being processed.

27.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (details supplied) in County Meath who was in receipt of disability benefit for approximately two years up to 27 December 1980 has received no benefit since that date.

The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 27 December 1980 but he was not entitled to payment on the insurance number quoted by him as he had no contributions paid or credited in the contribution year governing his claim under that number.

Following inquiries it was established that he had been quoting the insurance number of his son of the same name on the documents submitted in connection with his claim. As he was qualified for payment under the correct number his claim was admitted from 27 December 1980 and payment issued from 31 December 1980, fourth day of incapacity. All disability benefit due to 3 March 1981, date of latest medical certificate received, has been paid.

When details of his earnings in the relevant tax year are available payment of pay-related benefit, if due, will be made.

Surely the Minister is aware that the person concerned has been on disability benefit for the past two years and, therefore, pay-related benefit does not arise in this case. Will he tell the House when this man was paid benefit?

Payment issued from 31 December 1980.

When was it paid?

It must have been fairly recently because all disability benefit due to 3 March 1981, the date of last medical certificate, has been paid.

Does the Minister not agree that this is one of the ridiculous situations arising as a result of the change-over? In this case the person did not have an RSI number and, therefore, some other excuse had to be found for not paying him. Does the Minister not accept that it is disgraceful that a person living on the verge of poverty was left without payment? I am not satisfied that the wrong number was quoted in this case because there was no reason for quoting the number. The person quoted his own number for two years.

The position is as I have stated. The son's number was quoted and this caused the delay.

28.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will explain the position where a children's allowance is being paid in respect of a qualified child who is undergoing a recognised apprenticeship and who through no fault of his or her own is made redundant; and if he will in these circumstances order that children's allowances be paid up to the date of the child's 18th birthday.

Childrens' allowances are payable in respect of children between the ages of 16 and 18 years who are (a) in full time education, (b) apprentices or (c) incapable of self-support by reason of physical or mental infirmity.

Under these conditions any termination of apprenticeship whether voluntary or involuntary results in the cessation of the allowance unless the child resumes full time education or is incapacitated.

These conditions are laid down in the legislation and a change in them such as that suggested by the Deputy would require a statutory amendment.

I have noted the Deputy's suggestion for consideration in the context of any future review of the children's allowances scheme.

Does the Minister not consider it very unfair that a child of a poor family, whose parents have not got the money to send him to school, and to put him into a recognised local apprenticeship, is let go if, through no fault of the child's, the company go bust? This is total discrimination against this child. Many young boys or girls may find themselves in this predicament. Would it not be easier to simply say that this is an injustice and we will have to correct it? Would that not be the honest straightforward thing to do?

It might be the most straightforward thing to do but it would require a statutory amendment to existing legislation. Any change in that respect will have to be considered when a review of the Childrens Allowance Act is taken into consideration.

Are we not about to pass the Social Welfare Bill in a few moments? There will be no obstruction from this side of the House and we will work in co-operation with the Minister and give him all Stages in half-an-hour. Why can the Minister not change the statute to allow this?

He did not get permission from the computer.

May I have a reply to my question?

I have already replied to it.

Will the Minister not change the law? That is not a very difficult thing to do.

It is not possible to do that at this stage.

I am not asking that it be done now. Can we have an assurance that it will be done at some stage?

I cannot give the Deputy any such assurance. It can be considered when the Childrens Allowance Act is being amended.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will arrange to have outstanding pay-related and disability benefits paid to a person (details supplied) in South West Cork.

The person concerned, who had been in receipt of unemployment benefit to 13 August 1980, claimed disability benefit from 19 August 1980 and was paid from 22 August 1980, the fourth day of incapacity. She was paid pay-related benefit from 2 September 1980.

She was not entitled to payment of disability benefit for the first three days of her claim nor to pay-related benefit for the first 12 days. These periods are waiting days for which no benefit is payable where the interval between two claims to benefit exceeds three days. There is, therefore, no benefit outstanding in respect of the periods referred to by the Deputy.

Questions Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 are for written reply.