asked the Minister for Defence if he will furnish the following information concerning an application for the payment of a disability pension by a person in Portarlington, County Laoighis: (1) the date of the original application, (2) when the papers were sent to the social welfare officer before the decision of June, 1951, (3) when the appeal was received, (4) when the papers were sent back to the social welfare officer, and (5) if and when they were received back and, if so, whether he will now sanction payment of the allowance.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disability Pension Applications.
The following is the information required by the Deputy in regard to an application for the payment of a special allowance by a person in Portarlington, Laois:—
(1) Date of original application—21st January, 1947.
(2) Papers sent to social welfare officer for annual revision of award expiring on the 31st May, 1951—17th April, 1951.
(3) Representations received from Deputy Davin asking for review of rejection decision—4th February, 1952.
(4) Papers sent to social welfare officer for review of rejection decision—20th June, 1952.
(5) Papers received from social welfare officer—10th July, 1952.
The award, or refusal of an award, will be based on the information contained in the social welfare officer's report.
If the appeal was received in February, will the Minister explain why it was not sent to the social welfare officer before the date referred to in June, seeing that the claim was due for revision on the 11th June this year? Is the Minister defending the peculiar kind of delay which has taken place in dealing with a deserving claim of this kind, especially in view of the fact that there was a definite challenge in the appeal as to the kind of evidence originally given on the ground of means?
There was no avoidable delay.
What is the explanation of the delay between February and June with regard to sending the file to the social welfare officer?
It was undergoing examination between these dates.
Was it not due for revision on the 11th June?
Yes.
Why was not the file sent to the social welfare officer before the 11th June, the date on which it was due for revision?
Is the Deputy referring to the 11th June, 1952?
Yes.
It was with the social welfare officer before the 11th June for examination, but the applicant was not entitled to apply before the 11th June. We actually had it under examination. The social welfare officer would have had it in hands on any date from the 11th June onwards.
The Minister has admitted that the appeal was received on a date in February, and apparently it was put into a pigeon-hole for about three months.
Under the statutory regulations, the appeal would not be entitled to be examined until after the 11th June this year.
I know that.
The application could be made, but the examination would not take place until any date after the 11th June.
asked the Minister for Defence if he will furnish the following information concerning an application for payment of a disability allowance by a person in Birr, County Offaly (DP/19937), (1) the date of receipt of the original application; (2) when the papers were sent to the local social welfare officer; (3) if and when they were received back; and (4) whether he will now state the decision regarding this very old and deserving claim.
The following is the information required by the Deputy in regard to an application for payment of a special allowance under the Army Pensions Acts by a person in Birr, Offaly:—
|
(1) Original application received |
4th April, 1951 |
|
(2) Papers sent to the social welfare officer |
28th April, 1951 |
|
(3) Papers returned by social welfare officer |
24th May, 1951 |
Since then, following receipt of medical evidence from the applicant, the case has been under examination by the Army Pensions Board. This resulted in a postponement by the board to see what response the applicant would make to hospital treatment which he was undergoing. A report received from the Army Pensions Board on the 7th April, 1952, indicated, however, that the applicant was incapable of self-support. The social welfare officer was then asked to report on the case and this report is now awaited.
I am sure that the Minister would like to deal with these cases as generously as possible, but while all this delay is taking place this man and his wife and four children are trying to exist on the miserable national health insurance pittance.
The Deputy must also be aware that the individual is not entitled unless it is proved that he is incapable of earning his livelihood. He was undergoing treatment in hospital and the authorities were waiting to see if he would respond to that treatment. If he responded and was found to be capable of earning his livelihood he would not be entitled, but as the result of examination it has been found that he is incapable of self-support and the matter is now proceeding.