Vol. 505 No. 7
15 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the benefits which can be paid retrospectively following the ruling by the Ombudsman that late applicants have to be re-examined. [14503/99]
People claiming social welfare payments are required to make their claims within a specified period. Where a claim is not made in time, payment can only be backdated for a specified period, the duration of which varies with the type of claim. The Ombudsman conducted a formal investigation into complaints by pensioners who suffered loss of payment under these arrangements and published a report on his findings and recommendations on 14 March 1997.
In the light of this report, a number of improvements have been made affecting claims to retirement, old age contributory, widow's and widower's contributory pension and orphan's contributory allowance. Provision was made in the Social Welfare Act, 1997, for backdating claims in the case of retirement, old age contributory, widow's and widower's contributory pension and orphan's contributory allowance for up to 12 months, instead of the six month period applicable up then.
These new arrangements applied to claims made on or after 1 January 1997. Under subsequent regulations which I made in February 1998, a proportion of arrears due in respect of the period beyond 12 months may also be paid, for those who made claims on or after 1 January 1997. While these provisions represented a considerable improvement on the previous position, I was concerned that a significant number of pensioners who had applied for pension prior to 1 January 1997 did not benefit from these improvements.
I am happy, therefore, that provision was made in this year's budget for the payment of proportionate arrears of pension in the case of late claims made prior to 1 January 1997 in respect of retirement, old age contributory, widow's and widower's contributory pension and orphan's contributory allowance. Payment of proportionate arrears of pension due under these new arrangements has so far been made to 706 pensioners. Work is under way in my Department to identify and pay other pensioners where such arrears payments may be due.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I welcome the review. However, I ask the Minister to consult his officials. I am aware of one case where it is obvious why the individual did not apply. It is nine weeks since the application was made and, having spoken to the social welfare office, I am under the impression that it could be many weeks before a decision is made. It is a black and white case for which medical evidence can be supplied. Will the Minister tell his officials to get on with the job? I am sure he will tell me that he will immediately crack the whip and get things going.
I assure the Deputy that if he supplies me with the details, we will have the case investigated, but, as he is aware, I cannot intervene in specific cases to insist that an individual is paid.
I thought the Minister could.
People are dying.
At the end of the day, deciding officers and appeals officers are independently appointed to make decisions which are, obviously, subject to appeal. I am aware from representations I have received from a number of Members that difficulties have arisen on this in terms of its interpretation and the decisions made. In many cases, when the case is not put properly by the people involved and they do not have the full information some redress is made.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I do not want the Minister to specifically deal with my case as I am only citing it as an example. People who apply should receive a quicker service when there is a black and white reason for a late application. The officials will either honour it or not.
The Minister referred to the Ombudsman's decision to extend the back payment period from six to 12 months. Was that the Ombudsman's decision or one made by the Department as a result of his decision that six months was not sufficient? Why does this not apply to other social welfare benefits, such as the invalidity pension and the unmarried mother's allowance? If a person is not literate – and there is a huge amount of adult illiteracy in Ireland, even among adolescents – or in poor health or of unsound mind, why is it not applicable indefinitely?
The extension from six to 12 months was implemented by the previous Government based on very strong suggestions by the Ombudsman. I brought in the regulations which followed from that based on the decision of the previous Government and I do not say this in any political way. The Ombudsman was still not happy and issued a subsequent report. It was an issue which I felt strongly about because a number of Members on all sides of the House had specific cases where difficulties were encountered by people who through no fault of their own had not applied on time. That is why the Government allocated an extra £10 million for this to allow even further back payment to people. It did not go all the way but the new arrangements are significant because it is estimated that an extra 4,000 to 5,000 people will apply.
The reason it does not apply to other benefits is that the Ombudsman's report was based on pensions alone, particularly those to which I referred. There are a number of exceptions to all those let outs. For example, if my Department issued incorrect information and based on that people did not apply, they would be entitled to the full amount of back pay arising from the supply of wrong information. I have come across cases where that has been acceded to.
