Dáil debates

Wednesday, 26 September 2007

Priority Questions.

Pension Provisions.

2:30 pm

Photo of Olwyn EnrightOlwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 106: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when, in view of the fact of recent findings by the Ombudsman in relation to a dispute regarding entitlements, he became aware of this case; the action he has taken to prevent a repeat of same; if his attention has been brought to similar cases of this nature; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21088/07]

Photo of Martin CullenMartin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The case in question relates to a customer who had requested a pension forecast from my Department on two separate occasions in 1989 and 1995. On both occasions the forecasts provided made reference to 260 contributions, which led the customer to believe he had sufficient contributions to qualify for a pension.

In October 2003, the customer applied to my Department for a retirement pension. Qualification for retirement pension is based on a number of conditions but primarily the customer must have 260 paid full rate contributions and a minimum yearly average of 24 paid or credited contributions. The rate of payment is determined by the yearly average. His application for a retirement pension was refused on the grounds that he had less than 260 full rate contributions paid since entry into insurance. The customer, a retired public servant, had a combination of insurance classes but less than the 260 paid full rate contributions. A decision outlining the position issued to the customer in February 2004. On receipt of the notification of disallowance for retirement pension the customer appealed my Department's decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. His appeal failed because the decision was correct, based on his paid insurance record. However, in this case the customer claimed he had a legitimate expectation to a pension based on the information provided for him twice by my Department. He was of the view that if accurate information had been supplied to him when requested and the implications pointed out to him, he would have had ample time to secure the additional contributions required to qualify for a pension. He subsequently took his complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman which made representations on his behalf. It was of the opinion that the customer had a legitimate expectation of entitlement to a pension on foot of the information supplied to him by my Department.

The background and circumstances of the case were fully reviewed and in the interests of fairness, in 2006 my Department sought and received sanction from the Department of Finance to pay a pension under existing legislative provisions, as though the customer had 260 paid contributions. The customer was subsequently paid his pension in September 2006.

Photo of Olwyn EnrightOlwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Was the pension paid on the basis that the Minister's staff had created a legitimate expectation? Was that the basis on which the senior official decided to pay the sum of €32,000 plus a lifelong pension to the individual in question? What review has the Minister carried out to ensure there are no other individuals with a legitimate expectation created by officials in the Department because of inaccurate information? Will he confirm that the Social Welfare Appeals Office established that the Department had provided inaccurate information when it reviewed the case? Did it inform the Department of this at the time? Was the appeals office unaware of this? Would it not have been more appropriate for that office to establish the claimant's entitlement at the time rather than obliging the claimant to revert to the Ombudsman?

Photo of Martin CullenMartin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Social Welfare Appeals Office upheld the decision of the Department. Officials provided the information in good faith in 1989 and 1995, confirming that 260 contributions were required. However, it was not made clear that these should be at the full rate, which they were not, and therefore did not qualify as payments towards a full pension. That should have been made clear when the information was provided. The procedures have now been changed and such cases are isolated, this being the only such case that has arisen. It was agreed to pay a pension in the interests of fairness because the individual concerned thought he had qualified for a pension on the basis of the information given. When we receive a request for information, customers are now provided with a copy of their insurance record to facilitate pension entitlements. The danger is that people want forecasts, which is a separate issue. We provide the full insurance record and the method used to calculate it. This eliminates the possibility of a recurrence of what happened in this case.

Photo of Olwyn EnrightOlwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the fact that changes have been made. Must steps be taken across all sections of the Department to ensure adequate information will be provided by the customer to officials in the Department? We should reduce the need for people to make appeals to the Social Welfare Appeals Office and the Ombudsman.

Photo of Martin CullenMartin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must consider the context. Given the scale of involvement and the customer base with which the Department deals — over 1 million people per week, benefiting 1.5 million individuals — the number of errors is small. Nevertheless, I would like to reduce it further. Most would say the quality of the information provided by the Department over the past years and long before I came to it was of the best available to customers. However, nothing is perfect in society and the Department will continue to strive to improve on its parameters and guidelines so the information provided to customers is easily understood so as to allow people make judgments based on the correct information and facts.