Seán Barrett
Ceist:6 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will back-date the validation of the granting of an old age contributory pension to the date of the original claim made by a person (details supplied) in County Dublin.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.
The person concerned applied for old age contributory pension on 16 March 1987. On 10 April 1987 his claim was rejected as he failed to satisfy the statutory condition which required him to have a yearly average of 20 contributions over a prescribed period. The person concerned had a yearly average of 19 over the prescribed period from 1968 to 1986.
He supplied new details of his history of employment to my Department on 29 July 1987. Detailed investigations by my Department were necessitated by the fact that a number of employers were involved, one of which was in liquidation. Further insurance contributions were paid on 16 May 1988 by one of his previous employers.
In June 1988, as a result of the additional contributions paid, a deciding officer awarded the person concerned an old age contributory pensions of £51.70 per week, with effect from 20 May 1988, the Friday following the date on which outstanding social insurance contributions were paid. This is in accordance with legislative provisions which provide that for the purposes of any right to benefit, a contribution shall not be treated as having been paid on any date earlier than the date on which it is paid.
There are provisions in the legislation governing the late payment of contributions which enable contributions to be treated as having been paid on the due date where it is shown that the failure to make, or the delay in making, payment of contributions was not with the consent or connivance of or attributable to any negligence on the part of the insured person.
These provisions were not applied in this case on the basis that the person concerned was deemed to have contributed to the non-payment of contributions in not presenting an insurance card to a number of employers between 1969 and 1978.
The person concerned appealed this decision and the appeal was disallowed in April 1989 following an oral hearing.
I am satisfied that all inquiries in this case were necessary and conducted in a proper manner. It was not possible to know at the outset which employers, if any, would pay arrears for a period which was statute barred so far as my Department is concerned. The person concerned delayed a long time in reporting arrears spanning back 20 years. In the circumstances, the appeals officer could see no justification for back-dating the period of entitlement.
There is legislative provision whereby the person concerned may seek to recover from an employer the amount of lost benefit as a simple contract debt in the courts.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The problem here is that the individual in question has no opportunity of claiming against anybody because his previous employers are in liquidation. There is the misunderstanding about the length of time it took to investigate the insurability of his employment with various employers from 1968-78; it was an administrative delay, in practical terms, because of the need to investigate in different areas. The second point I should like to make is that the contribution eventually made, which brought up his contributions from 19 to 24, was actually paid by a director of a new company in respect of a company that had gone into liquidation some years previously. I am appealing to the Minister, given the circumstances and the fact that this individual is in dire circumstances and was depending on his money being paid to him from March 1987, to use his discretion to back date the payment to March 1987.
This is an individual case and I will not go into the details. Obviously, there were factors which the deciding officer and the appeals officer took into account which they regarded as very clear. The Deputy has indicated a problem which arises when he said that a director of the new company paid for something just to say: "Well, get that sorted out".
Because it was already collected from the individual.
It was a very decent thing to do. There is the danger in these areas — and it happens with reasonable frequency — that the contributions are not paid and subsequently when it is discovered or when it becomes a problem, the contributions are paid. It is in that area that a major difficulty exists in the social welfare legislation. Given what the Deputy has said, if he would like to give me the fresh evidence he mentioned, particularly in relation to the person's circumstances, I will have it looked at again.
This is a very specific question dealing with a particular case. The Chair is anxious that one would not go outside that case.
This is a very similar question related to this question.
This is a particular case. A person has been named here.
This case could set the precedent for others. I ask that the insured person should not be held responsible for contributions which are collected in the name of the Minister for Social Welfare and not paid by the employer. It should be a matter between the Minister and the company.
I am afraid we are going from the particular to the general now.
That is the danger in drawing general conclusions from specific cases. The question of a stamped card is a different matter.
I will have to take it to the Ombudsman.
I do not want to go into detail but the Deputy should not make those suggestions. The appeals officers are very genuine people who work under the legislation. I have told the Deputy I am satisfied with the position they have taken within the law as it stands at present. However, because of what the Deputy has said in relation to the circumstances of the cases, I am prepared to look at that another way.
The Chair is very concerned that over 35 minutes have elapsed and we have dealt with so few questions today—just six questions. This is simply not good enough.
Mary Flaherty
Ceist:7 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason he is unable to provide statistics on the number of senior citizens who would qualify for pro rata old age pensions if this provision were to be extended generally to those with contribution averages of between five and 19 as currently apply to only one group of pensions; the way in which any decision on the provisions may be made without basic information; and if he will undertake to supply that information urgently to Dáil Eireann, the National Pensions Board and the aggrieved pensioners.
One of the conditions for entitlement to an old age contributory pension requires an average of at least 20 contributions from the date of entry into insurance to the end of the tax year before reaching pension age.
Pension is not generally payable on contribution averages of less than 20. The only exception is the special arrangement which I introduced in 1988 for persons whose contributions averages had been reduced by reason of the operation of the remuneration limit on social insurance for non-manual workers which applied up to 1974.
To introduce pro rata pensions for all persons with contribution averages of less than 20 would have significant cost implications. The information previously requested by the Deputy concerned one particularly of these, namely persons with a mixture of full and modified insurance. These would be mainly workers in the public sector who move from a fully insurable grade to one insured at the modified rate. The estimates of the cost which the Deputy requested on that occasion are being compiled and will be conveyed to the Deputy when available.
The particular group the Minister referred to are those on mixed insurance. Would the Minister not accept that the particular group who are lobbying very extensively for an extention of similar pension arrangements for themselves had the additional difficulty over and above the group who have already been catered for, in that they had no option but to opt out of the insurance scheme whereas there was a choice available to those who have now been awarded this pension? Does he not see the inevitability, in justice and fairness, of extending equal treatment to all pensioners with an equal contribution record?
It is a much more complex matter than that described by the Deputy. First, the people who move within the public service move on to promotion and to an occupational pension and have an occupational pension as a result. What has happened with the improvement in the pensions in social welfare—especially during the period I was Minister—is that the person who is on a much smaller pension has an occupational pension combined with the social welfare pension and can be better off than the person who went into the management level. It is a much more widespread problem and includes a large number of people who are on mixed insurance. I was able to pick out that particular category which began and ended and to specify them clearly. That is why I took that action at that time. These mixed insurances are tied up with the public service generally and also with the self-employed. At my request, this question is being considered at present by the National Pensions Board, and I hope to have their report later this year. I will be happy to take any action I can in that regard. The question of public service and social welfare pensions is being discussed at a much wider level.
I am sure the Minister will be aware of the group of workers in CIE, who are a dying breed at this stage, and who have left work with as many as 19 contributions. These workers feel bitter — I am sure the Minister understands the reason for this — that with 19 contributions they cannot qualify for an old age pension while other people who leave their employment with as little as five contributions are eligible to receive a quarter of the minimum pension. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this serious problem. These elderly people are at a pensionable age and have worked all their lives——
I think the Deputy has made his point pretty adequately.
I met those people and I think they are very much aware of the nature of the problem and of my anxiety to have something done about it. Anything I do in this regard will, as Deputy Flaherty said, have to result in equal treatment right across the board. The problem is that mixed insurance is a much larger area with much wider implications. If it was a matter of simply changing the rules for that small group it would not have posed any great problem for me in the first instance. Incidentally, this seems to have been a problem for previous Governments but I will not go back into this. I did what I could and the National Pensions Board are now trying to quantify that and delineate it for me so that even if we do not get into the issue of a wider public servant involvement in our schemes we will be able to define it and take action which will stand up.
Would the Minister not agree that this is yet another example of the complexity of our social welfare regulations? These regulations are incapable of reform and the only answer is to introduce a basic income scheme.
That is a separate matter, Deputy. Deputy Mary Flaherty for a final and brief question.
May I hear the Minister's reply?
I have called Deputy Flaherty.
Is the Minister aware that the group of pensioners referred to by Deputy Byrne and other pensioners are very disappointed that no move was made on their behalf in the recent budget. They do not accept that tossing this matter over to the National Pensions Board is a serious response on the part of the Minister. I should like the Minister to tell me how the National Pensions Board can deal with this issue when they do not even have the basic statistics on the numbers involved, etc. They can deal with the issue in principle and there can be no doubt about the outcome of that. As desirable and right as the Minister's change in 1988 was, it has created an anomaly which will have to be——
I had hoped for brevity.
I am sorry for extending my question. Essentially I want to ask the Minister when he expects to have the basic data on which any of us can assess the implications of this necessary change.
It pains me to say that when Fine Gael were in office for five years they could not solve the problem, which I solved for a start. That problem had a beginning, an end and it was possible to define it. Even though it could have been solved at any time it was not touched by them.
It has created this anomaly.
It does not create any anomaly.
It created a huge anomaly.
The difference is that this problem does not recur; it was finished with.
It involves a group of pensioners who have paid the same contributions. Some of these get a pension while others do not. It is different treatment.
This involves a change in the system not only for the people involved at that time but also people involved today, tomorrow and any people coming and going between the two. That is the problem with mixed insurance.
That relates to the quantity only. The principle——
Let us make some progress on questions.
Once we bring in that principle it will have to apply to everybody equally in the future as well as now. That is the problem.
I am calling the next question. We are getting bogged down in questions today. The Deputies want to debate every question rather than put supplementaries.
Toddy O'Sullivan
Ceist:8 Mr. T. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Social Welfare the proportion of his Department's allocation spent on unemployment-related expenditure in each year from 1980 to 1989 inclusive; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The information requested is given in a tabular statement which I will make available to the Deputy.
The following table sets out, for each of the years 1980 to 1989, my Department's total expenditure and the amount spent on unemployment-related payments, including payments to smallholders. The table also shows unemployment-related expenditure expressed as a percentage of total expenditure and the average net live register:
|
(1)Total Social Welfare expenditure |
(2)Unemployment-related expenditure |
(3) (2) as a % of (1) |
(4)Average Net Live Register |
|
|
£ million |
£ million |
% |
||
|
1980 |
899 |
169.90 |
18.9 |
101,481 |
|
1981 |
1,192 |
255.09 |
21.4 |
127,873 |
|
1982 |
1,630 |
379.48 |
23.3 |
156,591 |
|
1983 |
1,900 |
488.67 |
25.7 |
192,689 |
|
1984 |
2,093 |
550.14 |
26.3 |
214,612 |
|
1985 |
2,298 |
626.70 |
27.3 |
230,585 |
|
1986 |
2,480 |
664.95 |
26.8 |
236,404 |
|
1987 |
2,593 |
681.46 |
26.3 |
247,330 |
|
1988 |
2,614 |
675.46 |
25.8 |
241,399 |
|
1989 (a) |
2,663 |
684.00 |
25.7 |
231,556 |
(a)1989 figures are not yet finalised.