asked the Minister for Social Welfare the present position relating to the recommendations made in the Ombudsman's Report and in particuilar the section relating to the amendments to the 1953 Social Welfare Regulations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Regulations.
13.
One of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman was for a change in the contribution conditions for old age contributory pension to enable certain people who failed to qualify for pension because of gaps in their insurance record from 1953, when the unified system of social insurance came into operation, to qualify for pension. An amendment of this kind would involve substantial additional costs.
The other main issues raised by the Ombudsman concerned the entitlement to social welfare payments of persons involved in trade disputes, the question of interest payments where benefits are paid in arrears, the question of retrospective payments in case of late claims and problems arising because of different methods of assessing means under different social welfare schemes.
All of these areas are being examined in the context of the Ombudsman's recommendations and also in the context of the review of the social welfare system in general that is being undertaken following the receipt recently of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare. It must be borne in mind, however, that any relaxation of the regulations to give entitlements to persons who do not at present qualify will inevitably result in additional costs.
The Ombudsman stated in his 1984 and 1985 reports that the biggest anomaly he could find in Irish law was the way in which the averaging system works, based on the 1953 legislation. I appreciate that it would be very costly to amend it. Has it been costed? If so, what is the cost? Would the Minister accept, at least in principle, that the system is unfair in that people who paid stamps for several years prior to 1953 can end up with a smaller pension than people who paid stamps for a shorter period after 1953? It is a clear injustice in the social welfare legislation. There seem to be thousands of people who are very badly affected. Will the Minister give an assurance or an undertaking that the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman's report will be implemented either as part of the social welfare review or in the next budget?
One could go in some detail into the question of costing because it is a complex issue.
There will not be time.
I know there will not be time, so I will not do that. In the case of persons who lost entitlements because of broken insurance, the cost of providing full pensions at July 1986 rates up to the year 2017, which is a reasonable period in this case, is estimated at £50 million. The Commission on Social Welfare, on the other hand, have recommended pro rata pensions for the persons concerned for the same period. This would be on a different basis and they tentatively estimate the cost at £24 million. That suggestion has its own problems. One is very concerned about the Ombudsman's report and the remarks he made but at the same time one is concerned about the enormous amount of money for a relatively small group of people. I assure the Deputy the matter is being looked at seriously.
May I ask a quick supplementary?
We are well into the time allotted to priority questions.
I accept the cost factor involved in this matter. Is there any merit in taking the people who are affected in 1986 rather than carrying forward the figures on an actuarial basis? In the next social welfare Bill we could provide different regulations for the others. I am primarily concerned about the people who did not know the position in 1953.
There are about 1,017 people involved and we are talking about these large amounts of money for that small group.
I am moving to questions nominated for priority.