asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the correct rate of old age pension is being paid to a person (details supplied) in County Wicklow given the fact that he has to support his wife, a retarded daughter of 38 years and two sons aged 22 and 17 years who are in full time education.

An appeals officer recently decided that the person concerned is entitled to pension at the rate of £47.05 per week. This is the appropriate rate for a man, wife and one qualified child, where the means assessment is in the range £12 to £14 a week. An increase of pension is not payable in respect of a son who is over 18 years of age. The daughter referred to by the Deputy is receiving disability benefit from my Department in her own right.

Question No. 4 has gone for written reply.

5.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons for the undue delay in granting occupational injuries benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary.

The person concerned claimed occupational injury benefit in respect of an accident at work on 9 November 1981. Normally in such cases payment of disability benefit is made pending inquiries as to the nature and origin of the incapacity. In this case, however, the claimant had no RSI number and it was necessary to contact his employer so that the contributions paid in respect of him could be identified and credited to him. On completion of the inquiries, payment of disability benefit was made from 13 November 1981, fourth day of incapacity.

It has also been accepted that the incapacity arose out of and in the course of his employment and payment of injury benefit has been allowed in respect of the period from 9 November 1981 to 8 May 1982, when his entitlement to injury benefit ceased on the expiration of 26 weeks from the date of the accident. An adjusting payment, representing the difference between the rate of injury benefit to which he was entitled and the amount advanced by way of disability benefit, has now been made. Further payments will be made on receipt of medical evidence of incapacity.

Would the Minister not agree that from November 1981 to the present time, when payment was made, was an inordinately long time for any married man with a wife and dependent children to wait for payment of benefit to which he was entitled?

I agree with the Deputy. The reason was that the person concerned did not have an RSI number and, technically, was not qualified to receive any benefit. He would have qualified for supplementary welfare benefit. The Department investigated the claim and ultimately discovered that the employer, without specifying the employee, — in other words, on an emergency basis — had paid in contributions in the meantime. Obviously there is some problem there. When the Department were satisfied that these payments had been made, they then had to set up an RSI number for him. He has now got an RSI number and has been given credits for the payments which, up to that time, had not been received by the Department in respect of him. It is a complicated case where, in effect, there was a defect, but it should not have taken as long as it did.

Question No. 6 has gone for written reply.

7.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will grant a contributory old age pension to a person (details supplied) in County Dublin; and why no such pension has been granted and paid to the applicant.

The person concerned attained age 66 years on 26 March 1982 and claimed old age contributory pension from my Department. One of the conditions for the receipt of old age contributory pension requires a person to have a yearly average of not less than 20 contributions in order to qualify. The yearly average is calculated over the period from 5 January 1953 or year of entry into insurance, if later, to the end of the contribution year immediately preceding the one in which he attains pension age.

My Department's records show that the person concerned had contributions paid in respect of his employment in 1953 and, therefore, his yearly average must be calculated from 5 January 1953 to 5 April 1981. In that period he had a total of 375 contributions which is equal to a yearly average of 13 contributions. Accordingly, he is not qualified for an old age contributory pension.

Could the Minister confirm there were only 13 payments made between the period 1 January 1953 and April 1953?

Between that and 1974?

Yes.

I do not know if I have the exact number but that is the nature of the problem. The small number paid over that period while he was out of insurance cover is the cause of the difficulty and this is the position as the law stands at present.

Arising out of the Minister's reply, could I draw his attention to the fact that the sole reason this applicant was regarded as in insurable employment in 1953 was because he obtained a retrospective award of wages and that the Department regarded that award as applying purely to the period from March 1953. Could the Minister confirm that, if no insurance contributions had been made by this applicant in 1953, he would qualify for a contributory pension on the basis of all the contributions made since 1974?

I would have to get the exact number of contributions in that period, but from what the Deputy says that seems to be correct. In March 1953 his salary was increased to £638 with effect from 1 September 1952. At about that time a test case regarding retrospective awards of salaries to non-manual workers was decided by the chief appeals officer. After consultation it was decided that these cases were included as income and, consequently, it was included at that time. In effect, there were only ten in the period from 1953 until he re-entered in 1974.

Will the Minister not agree that it is totally unjust that because ten contributions were paid in 1953 this man has been deprived of old age contributory pension, when if no contributions had been paid in 1953 he would be entitled to a non-contributory pension? Would the Minister confirm that the ruling he referred to by a deciding officer away back in 1953 in fact has no legal standing under the Social Welfare Acts, that it was purely an administrative decision? Would the Minister indicate the legal position under the old Act of 1952 or under the Consolidation Act? I want clarification. I am not trying to be antagonistic or unhelpful but a gross injustice has been done to this man not because of the Minister but because of an administrative problem. The point I am making is that in 1953 when neither the Minister nor I was in the House — we were not very long in the world — a ministerial decision was made which resulted in this man having to make ten social welfare contributions. It was an administrative matter uncontested by him. Until 1974 he was not regarded as being in insurable employment. From 1974 when the legislation was changed, he was in insurable employment and he paid contributions. If it had not been for the ten contributions which the Department made him liable for in 1953 he would now automatically qualify for pension. In the light of legislation, I contend he should not have been required to make ten contributions in 1953. Because of that, would the Minister review the position and in the light of the justice of the case take the necessary steps to provide this man with a pension?

The appeals officer at that time was the chief appeals officer, who was a barrister-at-law, as a matter of interest. I accept what the Deputy has said, that if it had not been for the contributions in that period the man would be qualified now. I will have the matter reviewed. I cannot give any further undertaking at the moment.

I want to ask the Minister ——

I have sat patiently here during many Question Times and I wonder would you, Sir, refer to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the goings on here at Question Time. Certain Members are dominating Question Time to the total exclusion of all other Members. I wish to protest at the number of supplementaries certain Deputies have been allowed to ask. There are 555 questions on the Order Paper.

It is my intention to bring it before the Committee on Procedures and Privileges. However, certain questions demand further supplementaries to clarify the position. In this instance I felt further supplementaries were necessary.

May I ask one brier supplementary——

I have been very lenient because I appreciated the concern you have. I listened very attentively to what you said but I cannot allow any more. We must proceed. The Minister has given you an assurance that he will review the matter.

I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a number of other pension applicants are in a similar position. It is a matter that would cost the State very little. I am asking the Minister if having reviewed the matter, he discovers it is not possible to change the position under existing law, he will introduce amending legislation.

Many people are affected by similar provisions and the problem is whether this case can be so exceptional as to be isolated from the others. It would be very expensive overall. I have told the Deputy I will review this case.

8.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare when a person (details supplied) in Dublin will be transferred to an invalidity pension; and when his pay-related benefits will be paid in full.

The person concerned has been awarded an invalidity pension from 13 May 1982. The pension book has been forwarded to the designated post office for collection by him. He was not entitled to pay-related benefit at any stage on his claim as his reckonable earnings in the relevant income tax year were not sufficient to qualify him for payment.

9.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons for the undue delay in paying disability benefit (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and when payment will be made.

The person concerned claimed disability benefit from 27 January 1982 to 1 March 1982 after which date he resumed work, and has been paid all benefit due in respect of this period at the maximum appropriate rate.

The delay in payment was due mainly to the fact that the medical certificates were submitted by the claimant at irregular intervals. For instance, the three certificates dated 3, 10 and 11 February were received together on 15 February and payment thereon was made on 17 February 1982. The certificates dated 17, 24 February and 3 March were received together on 9 March 1982 and payment was issued on 18 March. In addition, the claim form giving details of his wife and children were received on 22 February, and the adjusting payments due were issued on 1 March and 2 March 1982. The final adjusting payment, however, did not issue until 4 May 1982 after inquiries regarding the nature and origin of his incapacity had been completed.

Is the Minister aware of the stress and anxiety caused to married men with wives and dependent children when payments do not come through when they should? The information given by the Minister does not coincide with the figures made available to me. I urge the Minister to stress to the relevant section in the Department that they should ensure that payments such as these will be made quickly and promptly to deserving cases.

I agree generally with the Deputy about the desirability of having payments made promptly. However, if the certificates come in at irregular intervals, in groups of three covering a period — in the first instance it was not stated clearly on the certificate that dependants were involved — it is made difficult for the Department to get all the payments made specifically and exactly. The Minister of State and I will do everything we can to ensure payments will be made on time.

10.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the long delay in paying injury benefit to a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary; and when payment will be made.

The person concerned claimed occupational injury benefit in respect of an accident at work on 18 January 1982. Normally, in such cases payment of disability benefit is allowed pending inquiries as to the nature and origin of the accident but as the claimant had fewer than the required minimum of 26 contributions paid or credited in the 1980-81 contribution year she was not qualified for such payment.

On completion of the inquiries regarding the occupational injury, payment of injury benefit was authorised from 18 January 1982 and arrears of injury benefit due, less an amount refunded to the South-Eastern Health Board in respect of supplementary welfare allowance advanced, was issued to the claimant on 21 April 1982. Payment of injury benefit has continued and all benefit due to 6 May 1982 has been paid.

I should like to inform the Minister that it is only as a last resort I put down questions like these, after repeated phone calls and letters to the Department to try to get satisfactory action.

Generally speaking, the written reply procedure would cover that situation. The problem in this case is that there are no contribution conditions for occupational injury whereas there are for disability benefit and the only alternative was to provide supplementary allowances. I accept that that can be slightly confusing when it occurs because it is not normal. But if one does not have contributions in for disability one does not get disability benefit. That was the case here. But one can be entitled to occupational injury benefit without any contribution conditions. The fact that one is working and has an accident at work means one can get occupational injury benefit. There is a different process of establishing that there was an injury and that it happened at work. In that sense it is a slightly unusual situation and the only other remedy was supplementary welfare in the interim.

It is clearer and clearer.