asked the Minister for Social Welfare when arrears of a retirement pension due since 8th August, 1974, will be paid to a person (name supplied) in County Meath.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meath Retirement Pension Applicant.
14.
When the person in question made a claim for retirement pension on 5th November, 1974, he was in receipt of disability benefit which continued in payment up to 14th December, 1974. Retirement pension is not payable concurrently with disability benefit and, accordingly, the retirement pension order book was issued with effect from 19th December, 1974. Payment of balance of arrears due, representing the difference between retirement pension payable from 8th August, 1974, and disability benefit paid from that date, was made by means of a payable order issued to the claimant on 8th January, 1975.
Arising out of the Minister's reply on the last question, the previous one and others which have appeared on the Order Paper, is it not a very unsatisfactory position? Does it not mean that the Parliamentary Secretary would be wise to deal with this problem where such questions as these have to be put down by Deputies in order that people who are experiencing delay in receiving unemployment assistance and other social welfare payments can get some results? Can he hold out any hope that the cause for this type of question will be eliminated?
Every possible effort is made to expedite the payment of any benefits that may be due to recipients. I think the Deputy will agree, and indeed it has been borne out by questions which have been submitted by Deputy Cunningham in particular, that in many of the cases where delays occur they are due to inaccurate information being supplied by the claimant. I am not suggesting for a moment that that applies in all cases, but it definitely applies in a large number of cases and particularly in relation to questions submitted by Deputy Cunningham, as was proved when the cases were gone into and the reply given to Deputy Cunningham.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that Deputy Cunningham has supplied inaccurate information or that the clients who were delayed in being paid social welfare benefits supplied inaccurate information?
We are getting away from the subject matter of this question.
Seeing that the Deputy has asked me, I am stating a fact that in regard to the last question he submitted before the recess about a delay in paying children's allowance, the reason for the delay was that the Deputy in his representations had given a completely wrong address.
During the period while the man was waiting for the Minister to take action he changed his address.
These are separate matters.
We had initialled the book and it was returned because the person was not known at the address given by the Deputy.
He changed house three or four times while waiting for the Department to take action.
Is it not true that in one case where a question was tabled I had an apology from the Parliamentary Secretary after there was a delay of 24 weeks, that during the course of those 24 weeks an ad hoc payment was made pending the result of the investigations, and that when the investigations were completed the man was granted full unemployment benefit over the 24-week period? Was wrong information given by that person or by me?
I can assure the Deputy that in any case where an apology is warranted from me either to Deputy Cunningham or to any other Member of the House or to any member of the public, it will be forthcoming as it has been in the past. I can also assure Deputy Cunningham that if he persists in putting down questions to which he already knows the answer and knows, because it has been communicated by him to me, that the delay is due to wrong or inaccurate information given by either himself or the claimant, that will also be stated in the House.