asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of applications for the 5/- increase in non-contributory pensions since 1st January, 1967; the number granted; and the number refused.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pension Increases.
30.
Separate statistics in respect of applications for the 5/-increase were not kept after the 19th May, 1967. From the first of January until that date receipt of 4,379 claims for the increase was recorded. From the first of January until 31st May, 4,087 claims for the 5/- increase were allowed. No statistics were kept of the number of applications disallowed.
Why is it the Minister has no statistics? It seems very strange.
We have statistics for most things but we do not keep statistics of the number of people refused applications. If you subtract one figure from the other, you will get the answer near enough, but it will not be accurate. Some of them were new applications.
31.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the date on which his Department decided to give the 5/- per week increase promised in the 1966 Budget to non-contributory old age and widow pensioners, even though it had been disallowed because of nominal means; and whether or not they have been notified either individually or through the press, radio or television of the change in his Department's policy.
There has been no decision to grant the 5/- increase provided in the 1966 Budget to persons who have assessable means, but as the assessment of a small amount of means has more significance now than formerly, supplementary instructions have been issued to Social Welfare officers to clarify certain aspects in regard to such cases.
My Department is not empowered to decide claims otherwise than as laid down by statute.
Would the Minister not agree that he stated in reply to a supplementary question here a fortnight ago that in future those who had a small house in their name or those who had free sleeping accommodation would be entitled to get the 5/- increase? Would the Minister say when the decision to interpret the regulations in that way was taken?
There were some complaints about too rigid an interpretation of the means assessment regulations. I found a comparatively small number of appeals cases in respect of persons who were assessed with means due to having free lodgings with relatives and persons living in sub-standard dwellings. I did have the officers in my Department advised that those should not be rigidly interpreted as means, and I think any of the appeals that came before the deciding officers in those cases were allowed.
Is the Minister not aware that before he took this Christian view of the rules, very many people had applied and were refused, and even the appeals submitted by themselves or by somebody else on their behalf were also rejected? What I want to know from the Minister is: have these people been notified that they can now qualify for this 5/-? It may appear small to certain people, but it means an awful lot to an old age pensioner.
(Cavan): In view of the Minister's statement that the interpretation of the regulations has been changed, would he not consider it desirable to re-investigate the cases in which the 5/- has been disallowed on the grounds that the applicants were in receipt of free lodgings or were in occupation of substandard dwellings?
The number of cases refused is very small.
The Minister told me he does not know whom he has refused.
The number of applications turned down would be very few, if any. When those cases came on appeal, a lenient view was taken, and I do not agree with Deputy Tully when he says that many people were refused.
We can quote the cases.
I have 20 cases alone.
The Minister told me that these people would have to re-apply. He told the House a fortnight ago that if these people re-applied, they would get the 5/-. Are we to take it now the situation has altered, that these people are not now entitled to what they would have been entitled to if they had applied a fortnight ago?
Nobody said any such thing. The Deputy asked me would we now notify them.
Under the rules—I think the Minister will agree with me— if there is an appeal and an adverse decision given, you cannot apply again for six months. All Deputy Tully is asking—and I support him in this—is that the Minister will look at the cases which were turned down under the stringent interpretation and give the people their 5/- without requiring them to wait for the statutory period of six months before an appeal may be reopened in the ordinary course.
The Deputy seems to think that this less rigid interpretation of means of people at the very lowest scale of means, is something quite different from what I have in mind. The number of people involved is very small. There are a few exceptional cases and, as far as I am aware, any of them who appealed—and all of them did in that low category—succeeded. I am not, however, going to create a wrong impression by writing to the people who were refused— which would be an indication that they were going to qualify—inviting applications from people in that marginal position among low means cases.
They were all refused and I am surprised that the Minister was not aware of this. Do we take it now that if they decide to appeal, they will not be disallowed because it is within the six months statutory period?
I will not give any undertaking.
(Interruptions.)
But the Minister said this last week or the week before. Of course circumstances were different then.
The Deputy did not tell anybody about the Minister's promise last week.
(Interruptions.)