Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1993

Vol. 137 No. 6

Adjournment Matters. - Payment of Equal Treatment Arrears.

Mr. Cregan

I seldom table Matters on Adjournment. It is not my policy to bring people here unnecessarily, but there is a problem about the treatment of arrears section in the Department of Social Welfare and to many public representatives this is a serious problem. I have been speaking with representatives and staff in the arrears section and, they have emphasised that unfortunately when people look for their equal treatment arrears payments they are paid a certain amount if they apply publicly or through a member of their family, etc. This is very serious.

I cannot understand why more consideration is not being given to informing everyone of their entitlements and giving equal treatment to those who are claiming through solicitors. It is embarrassing for the Department and it must be embarrassing for the Minister and his Ministers of State also. It is certainly embarrassing for me as a public representative when people who make representations to the Department get priority treatment I do not seem to be getting. I see this happening also to many others, including yourself, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I do not understand why the Department is not prepared to publicise the true situation.

The Minister has given replies in the other House explaining the ongoing situation. He gave the impression that if a person was due arrears, they would not have to apply through a solicitor. I have letters from and have had discussions with officials which indicate that people who apply through a solicitor are getting priority. In many of these cases the arrears have already been settled. Unfortunately the Department is not prepared to disclose what a person is entitled to. I have informed departmental officials of the situation so I know the Minister is aware that the amount of money is being paid to the solicitor who makes the claim on behalf of a client.

Falsely or otherwise, people say they do not know what are their entitlements. In a situation like that, aggravation can be created between two people — the person who is paid the amount due and the person who is still waiting to be paid. Where is the equality when people on behalf of whom I have made representations are not getting the same amount as the person who uses a solicitor? EC equality regulations are costing this country an extra £250 million and £300 million, and the way things are going, it will cost much more. I would venture to say that this particular section is costing the Department a lot more than we realise because claims are being made by solicitors. I am not saying they should not be making the claims. However, if the legislation allows it and they are entitled to these arrears, then everyone is entitled to the same amount.

The equal treatment arrears provisions must be a major embarrassment to the Department. People have told me that if claims are made through a solicitor a settlement will be reached, although they do not provide details of such settlements because of the confidentiality aspect between solicitors and the clients. This leaves the general public with a bad impression. We have a duty as public representatives to make out views known in the press and to the Minister, Deputy Woods, who has demonstrated his concern about this issue. He is on top of his job and I cannot understand why this practice continues.

In the Cork region there have already been 900 arrears claims but no disclosures will be made until all 900 have been settled. Many of the claims have been settled and people say they got £7,000 or £9,000. Yet, when I make representations I am told the amount due is around £342. However, if the applicants go to a solicitor they get from £7,000 to £9,000. I cannot let that lie, and I ask the Minister, if possible, to disclose in the press what people are entitled to. If a claim has already been made and the Department has already admitted legally that this person is entitled to that amount, so be it. I know this is going to cost a lot more money and that it cannot be paid at once, but the way things are going I think the Department will have to pay something in the region of £1 billion. The £250 million or £300 million we mentioned in 1985-86 when the agreement was made will not be enough.

I could not believe the reply I got from the Department saying it was not prepared to disclose to me exactly how much a person was entitled to but that if she applied legally it could say the arrears would be settled and she would receive a substantial extra amount. I think that is despicable.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I will try to explain this as clearly as I can.

In accordance with EC Directive 79/7, equal treatment between men and women in social welfare matters was due to come into effect from December 1984. Implementation of the directive was delayed by the Government in office at that time until 1986 when the necessary measures were introduced in two phases. In May 1986 the reduced rates of certain benefits paid to married women were replaced by the standard rates, and the maximum duration of unemployment benefit payable to married women was increased from 12 to 15 months. In November 1986, new dependency arrangements were introduced and married women became entitled to unemployment assistance on the same basis as claimants generally.

Arising from the delay in implementing the directive, court proceedings were initiated by a number of married women seeking retrospective payments in respect of the period of delay. These proceedings raised a number of complex legal issues and the Irish courts found it necessary to make three separate references for preliminary rulings to the European Court of Justice. Having considered the necessary decisions of the European Court, the Government decided in the context of the 1992 budget to introduce retrospective legislation providing for equality of treatment in respect of the period of delay.

The necessary provisions are contained in the European Communities (Social Welfare) Regulations, 1992. These regulations entitle married women affected by the delay to the higher personal rate of benefits and the extended duration of unemployment benefit. They also entitle married women to dependency increases in the form of a household supplement and to unemployment assistance.

There was a 23 month delay in implementing the directive so it is inevitable that there will be differences in the amounts payable to different claimants. The amounts payable to individual claimants depend on the type of benefit involved, the duration of the claim and the number of dependants, if any, in respect of which increases are claimed. Higher amounts are payable where the claimant was unemployed during the period of the delay and qualifies for unemployment assistance.

A woman without any dependants who received disability benefit for the full period of delay will receive about £340 arrears, whereas a woman with two children who was receiving invalidity pension for the same period will receive in the region of £1,000. A woman with three children who received unemployment benefit for 12 months and qualifies for unemployment assistance for a further six months would receive about £3,000 exclusive of any pay-related benefit which may also be payable.

Court proceedings were initiated before the implementation of the retrospective legislation, in some cases, as far back as 1985. As my Department has already made known, settlements were made in such cases in the absence of implementing measures. As the Senator is aware, this whole area is still the subject of court proceedings despite the implementation of retrospective legislation providing for equality of treatment in respect of the period of delay. By any objective criteria, the provisions for paying arrears have to be regarded as being fair and equitable to all concerned. Essentially, the regulations entitle married women to the amounts which they would otherwise have received if the directive had been implemented on time.

There has been considerable publicity in recent months encouraging women to take proceedings on the basis that they would secure additional amounts in excess of their entitlements under the regulations. My Department has repeatedly made known that that is not the case. In response to such comments, a press statement issued by my Department on April last said:

The Department is accountable to the taxpayer and would be duty bound to counter, through the Courts if necessary, any claims which are outside the statutory criteria.

Following the extensive efforts made by my Department to identify all potential beneficiaries, about 85,000 claims have been received under the retrospective legislation. These claims are being processed at present and payments are being made to the married women as of right. Amounts due are being paid on a phased basis over the period 1992 to 1994, at a total cost of £57.5 million which is being met by the taxpayer.

Mr. Cregan

Is the Minister aware that a person who has made representations to a Member of the Oireachtas or other public representative is not getting the same consideration as the person who has made representations through a legal representative?

Dr. Woods

No. That should not be the case.

Mr. Cregan

It is the case and the Minister knows it.

Dr. Woods

If the Senator is referring to cases prior to the introduction of the statutory regulation, that is a separate issue. I tried to make that clear in my reply. What the Senator described should not happen and if he knows of such a case I would be glad if he would bring it to my attention.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 8 July 1993.