John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 392: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will consider allowing persons who are in receipt of both the disability benefit and the blind pension continued payment of both when they reach the age of 66 years in view of the financial hardship that immediate loss of one of these payments causes; if he will have the matter reviewed with a view to providing continued payment in view of the problems incurred by the disability; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27676/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The qualifying conditions for the payment of Disability Benefit are that a person is under 66 years of age, unfit for work due to illness and satisfies the PRSI contribution conditions. Persons over the age of 66 are not insurable under the Social Welfare Acts at a class reckonable for Disability Benefit purposes and the age limit for receipt of Disability Benefit is thus 66 years.

There is a general rule in the social welfare code whereby a person who is entitled to more than one income maintenance payment at any one time may only receive one of these payments. However, there are some exceptions to this rule which includes the treatment of persons in receipt of Blind Pension.

A person in receipt of a blind pension aged less than 66 years who has sufficient PRSI contributions may also be eligible to receive disability benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity benefit, adoptive benefit, or health and safety benefit. Alternatively, they may concurrently receive widow or widower's pension or one parent family payment. However, once a person reaches 66 years of age, only one payment may be made.

The payment rate of Blind Pension increases at age 66 years or over from a maximum personal rate of €165.80 per week to a maximum rate of €182.00, with increases per week for qualified adults and/or dependants. This payment rate is equivalent to the rate of Old Age (Non Contributory) Pension. If the person qualifies for payment of the Old Age Contributory Pension, this is paid at a higher rate. Entitlement to extra benefits such as the Free Travel Pass and Household Benefits Package also applies to these payments.

In cases of exceptional need, assistance is available under the Supplementary Welfare scheme, administered by the Health Services Executive.

As part of the Social Welfare Budget package 2006, I am introducing a standard State (Non-Contributory) Pension, with effect from September, which will replace the Old Age Pension and, for recipients age 66 and over, will replace Blind Pension, Widow/er's Pension, One Parent Family payment, Deserted Wife's Allowance and Prisoner's Wife Allowance. The new scheme will provide a standard non-contributory pension with an increase in the means disregard from the current level of €7.60 per week to €20 per week which will mean that a single person, with no other means will be able to have up to €35,000 in capital and still qualify for a pension at the maximum rate. A specific earnings disregard of €100 per week is also added which is intended as an initial incentive to encourage longer work amongst older people. I will continue to keep the issue raised under review and for consideration in the context of the wider budgetary package.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 393: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of cases in 2004 where the pensions officer raised overpayments and where the next of kin claimed that assets re-assessed were accrued partly or in total from savings from the non-contributory pension of the person. [27677/06]

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 404: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the amount of overpayments recouped from the estates of deceased non-contributory pensioners in each of the years from 2000 to 2005 inclusive. [27778/06]

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 405: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if, in view of the decision of the appeals officer in a case (details supplied) he will review previous such cases to ensure that the correct procedures were carried out by deciding officers in accordance with the legislative provisions for consideration of the circumstances of each case. [27779/06]

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 406: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the measures he is taking to ensure that similar cases of injustice will not arise in the future in view of the decision of the social welfare appeals office in a case (details supplied). [27780/06]

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 407: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason his officials did not adhere to the procedures they outlined to the Joint Committee on 17 May 2005 for the exclusion of funeral and legal expenses when calculating the overpayment they pursued in a case (details supplied) that they lost at appeal to the social welfare appeals office. [27781/06]

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 408: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if officials dealing with estate cases are paid a performance related bonus commensurate with the amounts recouped from overpayments and the operation of the bonus scheme in the Pensions Office. [27782/06]

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 409: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason non-contributory pension payments due to residents of welfare homes but made to the directors of nursing in these homes prior to the Supreme Court judgment are counted by his Department when calculating the assets of the estates of these pensioners. [27783/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 393 and 404 to 409, inclusive, together.

The number of estates cases in 2004 where the Pension Services Office of my Department raised overpayments was 335. There are no statistics available on the number of cases where the next-of-kin of the deceased pensioners in question stated that the overpayments arose partly or in total from savings accumulated from non-contributory pensions.

The amount of overpayment recouped from the estates of deceased non-contributory pensioners in each of the years from 2000 to 2005 is as follows:

There have always been procedures in place in my Department to address situations where a person feels that an injustice has occurred arising from a deciding officer's decision. Before any decision is made by a deciding officer to raise an overpayment of pension against the estate of a deceased non-contributory pensioner, the next-of-kin are given an opportunity to provide any new facts or fresh evidence regarding the case. If, on re-examination of the case the deciding officer makes a decision which results in an overpayment of pension, the next-of-kin have the right to seek a review of that decision. The next-of-kin also have a legal right of appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office if they are not satisfied with the deciding officer's decision.

Where appeals are lodged against deciding officer decisions, the facts of each case are independently examined by an appeals officer and a ruling is given based upon the particular circumstances which apply in each case. As the circumstances in each case appealed are rarely similar, the ruling that is given in any one case does not necessarily provide a basis for making decisions in relation to other cases.

In dealing with the particular case raised by the Deputy, the appeals officer considered, in the light of the circumstances of the case, that there were very reasonable grounds that the decision should take effect from the date of the pensioner's death and that the overpayment which occurred was not refundable.

In seeking to recover an overpayment of pension from the estate of a deceased pensioner, my Department normally deducts from the value of the estate any funeral and legal expenses which were incurred by the next-of-kin in finalising the affairs of the deceased. The question of such a deduction did not arise in this case in that there were sufficient assets to cover such expenses apart from the amount of the overpayment assessed.

Under Social Welfare legislation it is possible for a pensioner to appoint an agent who will cash his/her payment book at a nominated post office if the pensioner is unable to do so for whatever reason. In circumstances where a pensioner enters into a long-stay residential care centre, it is not uncommon for him/her to apply to my Department for the director of nursing of the centre to be appointed as an agent for this purpose. In addition, the pensioner has the right to rescind the agency arrangement at any time or to appoint another person as the agent.

Pension payments made under an agency arrangement as outlined above are not, per se, taken into account when my Department is reviewing the means of a deceased non-contributory pensioner. Instead, my officials seek to establish the full extent of the assets which were owned by the pensioner during the period when he or she received their non-contributory pension. This is then compared against the means which the pensioner declared to the Department during the same period. If a discrepancy between the two arises, this may result in the person being overpaid on his or her pension and this would be recoverable from any estate at the time of death.

Officials of my Department who deal with estates cases are not paid a performance related bonus on the lines outlined in the question. I am satisfied that deciding officers operate to a very high standard in their interpretation and administration of the legislation in this area and in carrying out their duties generally.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 394: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which the estate of a person (details supplied) in County Mayo was assessed; and if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the assessment in view of the recent test case in the Courts and that this case now be reassessed. [27689/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The pensioner in this case who is now deceased was in receipt of an old age non-contributory pension from my Department since 1982. Following her death in September 2003, her schedule of assets indicated that she had a substantial amount of savings which she did not declare to the Department as she was legally obliged to do.

Her circumstances were investigated by a social welfare inspector of my Department who has reported that an overpayment of pension totalling €28,325.00 would appear to be due by her Estate for the period from February 1993 to August 2003. A detailed breakdown of this overpayment was sent to the Deputy recently along with a letter outlining the facts of the case. Discussions are currently taking place between the Department and the solicitors who represent the estate concerning the amount of the overpayment and its recovery. This process is expected to be finalised shortly.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 395: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which the estate of a person (details supplied) in County Mayo was assessed; if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the assessment in view of the recent test case in the Courts and that this case now be reassessed. [27690/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The pensioner in this case who is now deceased received an old age non-contributory pension from my Department between September 1976 and the time he died in July 2005. Following his death, his schedule of assets indicated that he had a substantial amount of savings in four separate financial accounts.

His circumstances were investigated by a social welfare inspector of my Department in recent months who reported that an overpayment of pension totalling EUR 87,655.00 appeared to be due by the Estate for the period from July 1983 to July 2005. A detailed breakdown of this overpayment was sent to the Deputy recently along with a letter outlining the facts of the case. An offer in settlement of the overpayment has been made by solicitors representing the estate and this is currently under consideration by my Department. The solicitors will be notified of the outcome as soon as possible.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 396: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his Department has any plans to increase the living alone allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27692/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The living alone allowance or living alone increase as it is now known, is an additional payment of €7.70 per week made to people aged 66 years or over who are in receipt of certain social welfare payments and who are living alone. It is also available to people under 66 years of age who are living alone and who receive payments under one of a number of invalidity type schemes. The increase is intended as a contribution towards the additional costs people face when they live alone.

The living alone increase is a targeted measure aimed at a particular group of pensioners. However, the policy in relation to support for pensioners has been, for many years, to give priority to increasing the personal rates of pension rather than focusing on payments such as the living alone increase. This approach ensures that resources are used to improve the position of all pensioners.

The Government is committed to increasing the level of the basic State pension to €200 per week by 2007. Further significant progress towards achieving this target was made in Budget 2006, which provided for increases in pensions of up to €14 and €16 per week. The maximum rate of the old age contributory pension is now €193.30 per week with the non-contributory pension paid at €182 per week, whereas two years ago, the corresponding rates were €167.30 and €154.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 398: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason rent allocation for the month of May has not been paid in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27696/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which includes rent supplement, is administered on my behalf by the Community Welfare division of the Health Service Executive. Neither I nor my Department has any function in relation to decisions on individual claims or operational matters.

The Health Service Executive has advised that, due to an administrative error, the rent supplement payment for May 2006 of €411 did not issue to the person concerned. It has further advised that this payment will be issued to the person concerned as soon as possible.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 399: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if mortgage support will be awarded in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27698/06]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which includes mortgage interest supplement, is administered on my behalf by the Community Welfare division of the Health Service Executive. Neither I nor my Department has any function in relation to decisions on individual claims.

The Health Service Executive has advised that the person concerned was refused a mortgage interest supplement in April 2005 on the grounds that she could afford to meet the cost of her mortgage interests from within her own resources including maintenance payment. The Executive has further advised that the decision of the community welfare officer to refuse payment of mortgage interest supplement to the person concerned was upheld by the HSE Appeals Office in November 2005 and by the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office in March 2006. The Executive has confirmed that it has not received an application for mortgage interest supplement since this date.

It is open to the person concerned to re-apply for a mortgage interest supplement should any changes in her circumstances take place that may have an impact on her entitlement.