asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons for the delay in the payment of unemployment assistance to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
18.
The claim for unemployment assistance of the person concerned was disallowed by a deciding officer from 29 October 1980 on the grounds that his means exceeded the statutory limit of £1,521.00 applicable in his case. The person concerned appealed against the assessment of means, but an appeals officer upheld the decision of the deciding officer on 30 December 1980. However, if the person concerned is of the opinion that his circumstances have changed since the date on which his case was determined by the appeals officer, it is open to him to apply to have his means reassessed.
19.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a person (details supplied) in County Kilkenny has not been paid disability benefit since April 1980.
The person concerned claimed disability benefit from December 1976 and was paid to 17 May 1980. Payment was disallowed after that date as he was considered by a medical referee of my Department to be capable of work.
He was examined by a second medical referee on 1 May 1981 and was considered to be incapable of work but from 1 March 1981 only. Payment has therefore been made from 1 March to 11 May 1981. His claim is being passed to an appeals office for decision in respect of the period 18 May 1980 to 28 February 1981.
Was the person who examined this applicant a qualified doctor or a lay citizen?
A qualified doctor. Medical referees are all qualified doctors. That sort of question arises from time to time because a person may bring additional evidence, or additional supporting evidence to the second medical referee, so if there is a dispute we often arrange for the attendance of a second medical referee.
But the applicant is always wrong.
20.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the availability of EEC funds, he will initiate a nationwide scheme to provide milk in schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
21.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to introduce the EEC scheme to subsidise milk for distribution to primary schools.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 20 and 21 together.
The EEC Council decided in 1977 to make funds available for the supply of milk and certain milk products to school children at reduced prices for a period of at least five years. The funds provided under this arrangement have been availed of since then in respect of milk and cheese supplied under the existing school meals scheme. Of the 89 urban local authorities entitled to operate schemes 44 do so and of these 26 supply milk as part of the meal.
A special scheme is in operation in the Gaeltacht areas but none of the local authorities concerned supplies milk.
The question of introducing a nationwide school milk scheme under the terms of the EEC regulations was examined in 1977 and the Government decided that the scheme on these lines was not suitable for general implementation in this country.
To introduce such a scheme now would involve increased expenditure of about £5.4 million annually from the Exchequer and there would, of course, be enormous administrative problems.
The position will be re-examined, however, to see whether it would be feasible to operate a free milk scheme in particular circumstances where there may be a demand for such a scheme.
Would the Minister not agree that certainly in the winter months there is a need for a nationwide scheme? It is unfortunate that only half of the urban authorities referred to by the Minister have even a partial scheme. Would he not agree that it is important that all the local authorities, especially in relation to primary schools, would establish a scheme to ensure that young children who have to travel many miles to school by bus on winter mornings should have the benefit of such a scheme?
I am certainly prepared to have this matter re-examined. The Deputy is aware that the co-operation of the local authorities and, indeed, of the schools, is required. If it is feasible to operate a free milk scheme in particular circumstances, where there is a demand then we will have that matter examined.
Is the Minister aware — and I am sure he is — that under this scheme half-a-pint of milk could be supplied each day to primary school pupils throughout the country at a cost of about 1p per week per pupil? Is he saying that he is prepared to examine this? Has he not examined it since 1977? The money is there from EEC funds to pay for this scheme. I am assuming that that is correct. Is the Minister saying that he is now prepared to consider and investigate it? Has he not done so previously?
This study was undertaken and the various people involved were consulted and at that stage it was not seen as feasible——
Why not?
——or desirable to introduce that scheme. It is fairly obvious from the figures that only half the local authorities presently operate the scheme that exists at the moment, as Deputy Collins has pointed out. In addition, the schools have to undertake administrative arrangements. Certainly, I have an open mind and I am prepared to look at the whole matter in circumstances where it may be seen as desirable or necessary.
Would the Minister not agree that Bord Bainne are very neglectful in not ensuring that milk and milk products are available to all the young children in our schools? Have any representations been made to him by Bord Bainne to ensure that such a system would be established?
I am not personally aware of any but it is an interesting point. There might be some way of dealing with the administrative arrangement through particular forms of packaging and so on. I will certainly look into that matter.
It would appear that Bord Bainne have been extremely neglectful in not trying to ensure that such a nationwide scheme is available.
The Minister said that this matter was investigated with the various interested parties concerned and that it was found not to be desirable to introduce this scheme. That was one phrase the Minister used. Why is it not desirable, especially during the winter months, to have free milk available to our pupils in rural areas as well as where this is being done? We are advertising milk and agriculturally as well as socially and economically, it is important that this milk scheme be utilised. It is there to be used, particularly by us as a milk producing country.
I would ask the Deputy is the scheme in operation currently in County Kildare?
No.
Then perhaps the Deputy could tell me more about the difficulties in that respect——
You are the Minister concerned.
——in connection with the local authorities concerned. If only half the local authorities are using the existing scheme——
What about the Minister's colleague sitting beside him?
They have hot tea in our schools; why do they not do that in your area?
We are not going to have a debate on this subject. A question, please.
Did the Minister do anything over the last period of his office to see that this scheme was introduced.? Apparently the answer is no.
I have given an extensive reply to the Deputy.
The Minister has not answered the question.
A final supplementary from Deputy Harte, please.
Would the Minister not——
No, I am sorry, Deputy. A final supplementary from Deputy Harte. If Deputy Harte does not ask his question I shall proceed to the next question.
There is money available from the EEC since 1977 which this country could have used for the benefit of young children's health. The Minister is Minister for Health.
The Deputy should put down such a question.
Could I ask one supplementary question?
Sorry, a final supplementary from Deputy Harte. This is turning into a debate.
The Minister is avoiding the issue.
Can the Deputy not put down a question like anybody else? The Chair should either be fair or not.
In view of the benefit which this scheme can provide for young children, would the Minister for Health not consider giving a directive to the local authorities to implement the scheme? Forget about the prompts from Deputy Power, the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.
I an not in a position to do that. I cannot direct the individual local authorities.
Could I ask one final supplementary?
I will give Deputy Bermingham one final supplementary.
The local authorities do not administer the EEC scheme; the Minister does. He is avoiding his responsibility.
Would Deputy Collins please resume his seat?
Why does the Minister not act positively?
Would the Deputy permit Deputy Bermingham to ask a supplementary question?
Has the Minister made an attempt at any time either to introduce the scheme himself or to have it done through the local authorities?
He has been discovering Ireland.
As I have said in my reply, we studied the matter and had discussions with the people involved.
In other words, there has not been anything but talk.
The Deputy's board is not implementing the scheme that exists.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
Question No. 22 postponed.
23.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (details supplied) in County Offaly has not yet received any occupational injury benefit; and if he will ensure that benefit will be paid promptly.
The person concerned claimed injury benefit on 28 November 1980 in respect of incapacity due to an accident at work on 10 November 1980. Payment could not be made pending inquiries as to the nature and origin of the incapacity.
Ordinarily in such cases payment of disability benefit is made on an interim basis pending completion of the inquiries, but the person concerned was not entitled to such payment because she had not sufficient contributions in the governing contribution year. The last insurance card to her credit was for the year 1976-1977.
On completion of the inquiries it was accepted that the incapacity was in fact due to an accident at work. The claim to injury benefit was allowed and payment has been made for the period from 10 November 1980 to 6 March 1981, when she was certified fit to resume work.
24.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (details supplied) in County Offaly has not been receiving occupational injury and pay-related benefits; when he will be paid in full; and if he will ensure that benefit will be paid promptly.
The person concerned claimed occupational injury benefit in respect of an accident at work on 2 September 1980. Pending investigation of the claim, he was allowed disability benefit on an interim basis from 6 September, the fourth day of incapacity. All disability benefit due at the rate appropriate to a married man has been paid in respect of the period up to 9 May 1981, the date of the latest medical evidence received.
Following investigation his claim to injury benefit has been allowed from 2 September 1980 to 2 March 1981, the maximum period of 26 weeks from the date of the accident that such benefit is statutorily payable. All the injury benefit due for the period less disability benefit paid on account has now been paid.
Pay-related benefit has been allowed from 17 September 1980. Arrears of the benefit due are in course of being paid.
25.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the amount of State expenditure on unemployment benefit and assistance in 1978, 1979 and 1980; and the estimated expenditure for 1981.
There are no separate figures for the State contribution to unemployment benefit expenditure and the State's contribution to total social insurance expenditure varies from year to year. Taking the contribution to be in the order of 20 per cent the total State expenditure on unemployment benefit and assistance in the years in question is estimated to be 1978, £72.3 million; 1979, £75.0 million; 1980, £95.5 million; 1981, £114.0 million.
26.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (details supplied) in County Laois has forwarded 14 certificates to his Department in respect of a claim for disability benefit and that to date he has not received any payment; the reason payment has not issued; and if he will ensure that benefit will be paid promptly.
The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 1 December 1980. She was not, however, entitled to payment from that date to 3 January 1981 as she had less than the required minimum of 26 contributions paid in the 1978-79 contribution year which governed that period.
Her claim from 5 January 1981 is governed by her insurance record in the 1979-80 year. As she had a total of 40 contributions in the 1979-80 year, payment was made to 19 January 1981 after which date she ceased to submit medical certificates. Further medical evidence of incapacity for work has now been received and benefit has been paid to 8 May 1981.
The question of her entitlement to pay-related benefit is being investigated and any benefit due will issue without delay.
Why did from 16 to 18 weeks have to elapse before this problem was sorted out?
It was the computer.
In the first instance the person concerned was not entitled to payment up to January 1981 because she had fewer than the right number of contributions in 1978-79. Subsequently she had a total of 40 contributions in 1979-80 and consequently payment was made to 19 January, after which date she ceased to submit medical certificates. When further medical evidence of incapacity was received, benefit was paid.
27.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the very long delay in processing an application for a non-contributory widow's pension by a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary.
The person concerned has been awarded a non-contributory widow's pension at the maximum rate appropriate to a widow with no qualified children with effect from 12 December 1980. A pension order book, payable from 6 February 1981, has been issued to the designated post office for collection by her and a payable order for the arrears of pension prior to 6 February 1981 issued on 6 April.
There was no undue delay in processing the claim for widow's pension in this case. The widow was the owner of a good-sized farm and also had a considerable amount of capital and the assessed means from these sources far exceeded the statutory means limit for the award of pension. Although she intimated in October 1979 that she was transferring the farm to her son, the formal transfer was only notified to my Department recently.
28.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons for the inordinate delay in paying disability benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary.
The person concerned was in receipt of disability benefit from 6 October 1980, fourth day of incapacity, to 19 February 1981, when, due to an administrative error, payment ceased. The matter has since been adjusted and all benefit due to 16 May 1981 has been paid, less the amount which was withheld for refund to the health board in respect of supplementary welfare allowance advanced.
What precise administrative error was involved which was responsible for the cessation of the payment?
A claim from the SouthEastern Health Board for recoupment of supplementary welfare allowance was received and payment of the benefit was stopped in error, pending the receipt and the details of the amount of supplementary welfare allowance paid.
Would the Minister consider that to have been fair to the applicant?
I appreciate that the workers in the Department are dealing with a very large number of cases.
There were large numbers of cases to be dealt with also last year and the year before and in previous years.
It is almost inevitable in dealing with such numbers that some administrative error will occur.
Is it fair that an official of the Department makes a decision deliberately that is unfair to an applicant?
There was no deliberate decision.
What was it, then?
It was an error on the part of an official.
It was the result of a deliberate decision on the part of an official of the Department.
We, on this side of the House, have always recognised that mistakes can be made. We witness them daily on the part of those on the other side. Can the Minister indicate if the procedures of administration have been so altered to ensure that the type of error we are talking of will not be made again?
I have tried to point out that this was a human error. Unless the Deputy has some special way in his approach to people of correcting human errors, such errors are bound to occur from time to time. Obviously, though, we are very anxious that they would be kept to the minimum.
29.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange for the payment of a non-contributory old age pension at the full rate to a person (details supplied) in County Galway.
As the Deputy is aware, the pensioner in this case died last month. The reduced rate of non-contributory old age pension which had been in payment to her was the rate appropriate to the level of means assessed. It included the relevant increases due to a pensioner over 80 years of age and living alone. The local pension committee awarded the rate of payment in December 1980.
A recent review of the claim by an appeals officer did not alter the rate awarded by the committee. The appeals officer did, however, decide to award the pension from an earlier date. The arrears which arise for payment will go to the personal representative of the deceased pensioner as soon as the necessary formalities have been completed.
30.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the reasons for the long delay in the payment of disability benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary.
The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 17 January 1981 and has been paid at the maximum appropriate rate from that date. Payment of all disability benefit and pay-related benefit due, less amount reimbursed to the health board of supplementary welfare allowance advanced, has been made to 6 March 1981 after which date he claimed unemployment benefit.
The delay in payment was due mainly to the fact that he quoted his insurance number instead of his RSI number on some of the medical certificates submitted in connection with his claim.
I am informed that this applicant submitted at least six or seven applications and that he quoted the correct number on each occasion.
I have given the Deputy the answer as prepared for me by the officials in my Department. If the Deputy believes that there is other evidence or information available, I will be glad to get it. The fact is that the certificates are at present in the Department. It was after looking at those certificates that my officials prepared the answer I have just given.
I do not have reason to disbelieve my constituent who informed me of the facts. I will take the matter up with the officials of the Minister's Department.
Will the Minister tell the House when, if ever, he will have simplified the system to the point where claimants for benefits will be able to claim their benefit on the basis of one number and not have to give up to three numbers to the Department?
There is a complicated answer to that question.
It is a very simple one, resign.
It is not so simple. It depends on people who worked up to 1979 and did not work after that year. Obviously, the only number they have is their old insurance number. People who entered after April 1979 only have an RSI number. People who are in both situations have both numbers. We are giving benefit on 1978-1979 as well as on 1979-80. I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the persons and both numbers apply. There is now a cross-index which is 85 per cent efficient in that area.
One would have a better chance with roulette of getting money than from the Department.
Is it not true that the Minister's predecessor was warned of this difficulty having had experience of it elsewhere? Is it not true that the Revenue Commissioners warned of this difficulty, but it was ignored? Now the people are suffering because of this terrible mix-up which the Minister has failed to rectify in relation to those two numbers.
I gave this information recently to the House. The average figure of people paid is 70,000 and we have been paying 71,000, 72,000 and 73,000 people weekly a disability benefit. In addition, we are paying approximately £3 million per week——
There was never any problem until the Taoiseach and the Minister took over that Department.
The Deputy should either face the facts or not; he should not try to twist them.
The Minister should face facts.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.