Amendment No. 26 is out of order.
SECTION 35.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
I am disappointed that our amendment has been ruled out of order again. The amendment reads:
Notwithstanding any provisions of this Act, regulations may provide for payment of benefit of assistance from the date of eligibility rather than the date of application.
In section 35 there is an improvement. We all have experience as Deputies in relation to this matter. Benefit or assistance ceases to be paid on the day before a person reaches pensionable age and the gap in between is made up in the section. I have for some time been raising the difficulty a person, usually a widow, finds herself in where through ignorance or bad advice she neglects to apply for a pension, not knowing she is entitled to it. The maximum length of time is six months. This has been extended from three months and I would like the Minister to have a further look at that inequity.
The Ombudsman in his annual report in recent years has talked about the inequity of this situation where people are entitled to payment but are not paid. In another section of this Bill the length of time within which the Department can recover money owed to it is increased from two years to six years, yet where the claimant is entitled to payment and is deemed to be ineligible for it this is not revoverable. This is not just the Opposition's point of view. It was also made clear in the Ombudsman's report and I ask the Minister to reconsider that problem.
The gap between schemes has been repeatedly brought to my attention; I am sure it has also been brought to the attention of other Deputies. I am pleased, therefore, to be in a position to fill the gap.
Regarding entitlement for pension payments from the date of eligibility rather than the date of application, we must try to ensure that people claim their entitlements when they become entitled to them. If people had the option of allowing claims to stand for years, it would make the job of the Department of Social Welfare in keeping an up-to-date and reasonably well run system extremely difficult. If that became a general or regular occurrence, the Department would not be in a position to budget effectively for expenditure from year to year.
The current practice of allowing a payment to be made up to three months prior to the date of application, or in exceptional circumstances up to six months prior to the date of application, is reasonably fair. There are exceptions where people, as an result of bad advice or various other reasons, may have a legitimate claim to payment from a date earlier than six months. In certain circumstances the Department has met those claims, particularly on the recommendation of the Ombudsman.
The Department is carrying out a review of what might be done regarding late claims. Inevitably, there will be cost implications. For example, if it was extended to a three year period, it would cost approximately £5 million. Given the nature of things, one must judge whether £5 million would be better spent in that way or another way. This is the type of choice constantly faced by any Minister in any Government. However, there is a need to try to ensure that people apply on time. The Department has a relatively wide-ranging information service. It also supports a fairly wide-ranging independent information service to help people to become aware of their rights in this regard. This is the current position. The review of the situation with regard to late payments is not complete but as soon as it is, I will bring the information to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.