Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 386: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will change the rule whereby a person who is either laid off work or who is out of work due to illness cannot get any benefit for the first three days of the claim; if his attention has been drawn to the hardship this sometimes causes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30728/07]

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Waiting days have been a feature of the illness benefit and jobseekers payment schemes since their inception and are a feature of similar social security schemes in many countries. The application of a three-day waiting period avoids the disproportionately high administrative costs involved in processing large numbers of claims of a very short duration.

The waiting day rule is not applied in every case. Where a person is subject to intermittent spells of unemployment it would clearly be unreasonable to impose the three waiting days for each such jobseekers benefit claim.

In the case of illness benefit and jobseekers benefit, spells of unemployment are aggregated so that the waiting period is confined to the first three days of the aggregate period of interruption of employment subject to falling within rules governing linking. Linking rules provide that any two periods of unemployment, not separated by more than 26 weeks, are treated as one such period and payment may be made from the first day of the later claim. The same principle applies in the case of jobseekers allowance but the linking period is 52 weeks instead of 26 weeks.

In addition, linking rules apply in a variety of ways across schemes, e.g. where a person claims illness benefit immediately following an unemployment benefit claim. I would emphasise that people who need financial support are not left without such support during waiting days. A person who has no other income may claim supplementary welfare allowance in respect of the days in question.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 387: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason jobseekers allowance is being refused to a person (details supplied) in County Mayo in view of the fact that this person has made every effort to seek employment. [30782/07]

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 388: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if officials in his Department are aware of employment for a person (details supplied) in County Mayo; and if so, if they will identify a place where this person can get work as they have been unable to gain employment despite being actively and genuinely seeking work. [30783/07]

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 387 and 388 together.

A Deciding Officer disallowed the jobseekers allowance claim of the person concerned from 4 October 2007, on the grounds that he was not genuinely seeking employment. The Deciding Officer took the view that he had failed to produce sufficient evidence on the basis that he produced one letter from an employer who was not in a position to offer employment. The person concerned has now appealed this decision.

In making a decision on a jobseekers claim, a Deciding Officer will take all relevant factors into account, including the level of job opportunities available and the person's availability for and their efforts to find work. The onus is on the customer to prove to the satisfaction of the Deciding Officer that he or she satisfies the conditions for receipt of payment, including that he or she is genuinely seeking full-time work on a consistent and ongoing basis. Deciding Officers do not refer claimants to specific employment opportunities, nor could their decisions be conditional on them being in a position to do so.

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 389: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will award the bereavement grant to a person (details supplied) in County Clare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30814/07]

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bereavement Grant is a payment designed to assist families in dealing with death and funeral expenses. It is a scheme that relates specifically to those who have made PRSI contributions and is payable on the death of an insured person, his/her spouse and dependent children under age 18 or under age 22 if in full-time education.

In order to qualify for the bereavement grant the deceased must have:

a total of 156 PRSI contributions paid since entry into insurable employment, or

at least 26 PRSI contributions paid since entry into insurable employment and 39 PRSI contributions paid or credited in the Relevant Tax year.

Unfortunately the deceased person in this case does not satisfy the PRSI contribution conditions to qualify for bereavement grant.

Where there are insufficient PRSI contributions to qualify for bereavement grant a person may receive assistance under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Under this arrangement, the local Community Welfare Officer may make a single payment to help meet exceptional expenditure, for example, for funeral expenses, which a family could not reasonably be expected to meet from their own resources.