asked the Minister for Social Welfare why an applicant for a contributory old age pension in Limerick (details supplied), who was notified on 30th October, 1973 that an appeals officer had decided in her favour, has not yet received her pension book; and why his Department has not replied to repeated letters written on her behalf.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Limerick Old Age Pension Application.
9.
The person referred to in the Deputy's question claimed an old age (contributory) pension in 1971. Her claim was rejected on the ground that she did not satisfy the contribution conditions for a pension and this decision was upheld on appeal. She subsequently contended that her employment, in respect of which contributions had not been paid, was, in fact, insurable. On appeal this contention was upheld but only in reference to a limited period. This is the decision of which notice was issued to her on 30th October, 1973, and which is referred to in the question. The number of contributions available as a result of that decision is, however, insufficient to satisfy the contribution conditions for an old age (contributory) pension. Inquiries are in progress as to the insurability of her employment during a period before the period covered by that decision, with a view to establishing whether further contributions may be due which would serve to satisfy the contribution conditions.
She has corresponded with my Department through her solicitors, who have been made aware of the position at each stage, but recent correspondence was acknowledged only, a reply being deferred in the hope that the inquiries referred to would be completed quickly thus enabling a definite reply to be issued. I have arranged that she be informed fully of the present position in the matter.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this lady was informed on 30th October last that her appeal was allowed? She was not told any more at that time but that her appeal was allowed. Notwithstanding that, she was unable to get any pension or any reason why she should not get a pension until I put down this question and got this answer today. Does the Parliamentary Secretary feel that this is good enough?
My information is that the lady was informed on 30th October that her appeal was allowed covering the period back to 1962, but, although she had qualified in that respect from the point of view of the stamps with which she was accredited, due to the holding of that appeal, she did not qualify by virtue of the fact that she had not got sufficient contributions.
With regard to correspondence, there have been letters from the lady's solicitor since 1971 and all the points raised in the first eight letters have been dealt with. The most recent letter of 11th March last was acknowledged and that of the 3rd May, 1974, led to further investigation with a view to finding out whether any evidence could be made available as to the extent and insurability of her employment prior to 1962.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this lady, who was subsequently found by an appeals officer of his Department to have been in insurable employment since 1962 was, in fact, employed by the Department of Social Welfare?
Yes.
Does he not agree that it is doubly regrettable that the Department as her employer should have failed to stamp her cards during that time and left her in the position in which she is now?
No. I find it rather encouraging that an appeals officer will, in fact, find against the Department. It shows the impartiality of the appeals officer and I find that very encouraging.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not find it very discouraging that this lady, whom an appeals officer found had been in insurable employment for nine years, did not have her cards stamped by her employers who were, in fact, the Department of Social Welfare?
No. The lady first made the claim in 1971 and it was not allowed under that Administration. I find it very encouraging that her appeal was upheld under the present Administration.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting the appeals officer was not given discretion in the matter and that he was directed to find against the Department?
(Interruptions.)
I am calling the next question. The Chair is trying to make some progress.
I suggest this shows the complete impartiality and objectivity of appeals officers.
I have allowed a number of supplementary questions and I am passing on to the next question.
May I ask one question. I have been on my feet——
This is a special case in Limerick.
In Limerick?
I presume so.
Is there not some procedure during the course of employment which would make it possible for an employee to know in advance whether the employment is, in fact, insurable employment with all the benefits attaching thereto so that at the end of the day the employee will not suddenly discover that he or she has nothing coming?
We may not broaden the scope of this question.