Vol. 546 No. 3
26 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the waiting period from the time of application to receipt of first payment for a person who qualifies for a pre-1953 pension; if, when new schemes are introduced, applications will be processed within a reasonable period of time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31633/01]
The introduction of the pre-1953 pension as it is called, has been one of the best developments in pension provisions in recent years and I am proud to have been able to introduce it. It has enabled people who paid social insurance contributions before 1953 and who would otherwise not have obtained benefit from them in pension terms, to qualify for an old age contributory pension.
The success of the scheme is illustrated by the numbers applying and the numbers qualifying. The initial expectation was that around 3,000 people would qualify for payment. Since its introduction, however, my Department has received 23,000 applications for this pension. Of the 13,000 claims that have been decided so far, 8,300 or 65% have been awarded a pre-1953 pension and are in receipt of payment. Apart from new applicants the initiative has also benefited a further 8,500 people who had already been in receipt of a pro rata old age contributory or retirement pension at a lower weekly personal rate but who, with the benefit of their pre-1953 contributions, were able to qualify for a higher rate.
In total, therefore, 16,800 people have benefited from the pre-1953 pension to date and are currently in receipt of payment. This number will grow as the remaining applications are processed. There are currently 10,000 cases in various stages of processing. The people concerned have been advised of the unavoidable delay in processing their applications. When I introduced the scheme I was aware that the processing of claims would be slow, given the lapse of time since the employment which gave rise to the contributions and the difficulties of tracing old insurance numbers and contribution records.
The majority of the records which require examination to determine entitlement date back to more than 50 years ago and pre-date computerisation. I could have reduced the delay by deferring the operative date for the provision but I decided against this on the basis that those affected should benefit from the provision as soon as possible.
Additional resources have been deployed to process pre-53 pension claims as quickly as possible. The staff assigned to this project are taking great care to ensure that applications are not being refused wrongly because of any shortcomings in regard to the old records held. The position is being kept under constant review and steps to further improve the situation will be taken as circumstances and demands on other fronts permit. Due to the way the pre-1953 pension project was set up, it is not possible to say what the average processing time is for claims under the scheme. However, the target is to clear all claims by the first quarter of 2002. This will depend on the number of new applications received in the meantime.
I assure the Deputy that delays in processing applications will not result in any losses to pensioners and those who qualify for payment will have their claims back dated fully in accordance with the normal provisions.
This promise was made two years ago in the 1999 budget but, as the Minister has indicated, thousands of people who are entitled to this award have yet to get it. It is hard to believe they could be waiting for two years. Can the Minister explain this time lapse? Most of the people concerned are in their 70s, 80s and 90s. They were hard working people who paid stamps in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Thousands of them have died since the Minister announced the scheme. Why was the money not paid shortly after the announcement was made?
The Deputy should know that one cannot pay money simply because the announcement was made. This was a much welcomed initiative. In fact, the promise we made before the election was that we would marginally change the contribution conditions to allow people to qualify for contributory pensions. It was envisaged at the time that it would be a short and small change but this was a dramatic change. We went into it with our eyes open and we knew that, given that there was no computerisation, the staff would have to go through old files.
It is incorrect to claim that people are waiting two years for this. While there are some delays, those who were dealt with first have already been determined. It is done on a first come, first served basis so there would not be anybody waiting two years. A sizeable number of claims have been determined to date and we are doing our best to have the backlog cleared before the first quarter of 2002.
This is an excellent scheme and it has been widely welcomed. However, it was always going to be difficult to decide on the entitlement because records are extremely old.
It would be an excellent scheme if it operated as promised. Is the Minister aware that when some of the people who applied for the pension inquired why they were not getting it, they were told, to quote from the letter they received: "Please do not contact us again as it may slow up your application"? How can the Minister justify that?
If the Deputy could give me details of the people who are experiencing difficulty, we will follow them up.
It is a standard letter.
We operated a free phone service in relation to this pension over a two week period and 3,500 people contacted the Department. This was something we had not promised in any of our action programmes or in our election manifesto, aside from the one I mentioned earlier. However, I believed it was the right thing to do and I guarantee the House that we will endeavour to clear the backlog. In fact, some Members of the House have qualified for the benefit and they are not all necessarily from this side of the House.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister might as well name them now.
Thankfully, they are prepared to accept money from a Fianna Fáil-led Government.
