AN ERROR by the Department of Social and Family Affairs in a new pension scheme aimed primarily at women has led to it demanding repayments from almost 100 recipients.
Minister for Social and Family Affairs Mary Hanafinsaid the department "understands and apologises for the upset and distress caused to all persons concerned and regrets the administrative error involved".
However Waterford Fine Gael TD John Deasyclaimed: "The whole reason for establishing the scheme is the same reason they now want the money back. The department made a grievous technical error which prevents them continuing the payment of these pensions."
He added: “The Government is culpable for making this mistake in the first place and as a matter of fairness, they should continue these payments and certainly not be looking for repayments”.
Ms Hanafin was responding to a written parliamentary question from Mr Deasy. She said that as the result of a commitment in the Programme for Government, an information leaflet was issued which clarified tax and social welfare implications for families working in a shared business and allowed spouses to be brought into the social insurance system subject to certain criteria.
“In this way, both spouses incur a liability to pay self-employed PRSI and build up entitlement towards a contributory State pension and other social welfare benefits.”
About 1,000 people applied for the scheme and “508 were deemed to have a partnership in existence”, while 268 applied for a State contributory pension.
Ms Hanafin said the person had to have paid one year’s contribution before reaching pension age. “Unfortunately a number of claimants who failed to meet this condition were authorised for payment.” To date 85 claims “which were in payment have been disallowed and 16 customers have had their rates reduced”.
She said that for a partnership to be eligible for a State pension, “the legislation stipulates that at least 52 self-employment contributions must be paid by a person before they reach 66 years of age.Contributions paid by a pension applicant’s spouse do not satisfy this condition.”
However Mr Deasy said the scheme to get particularly women on farms to qualify “was constructed and designed on the assumption that those returns and contributions were being made solely by the husband”.
“They’re disallowing these women because they hadn’t made 52 contributions in their own name, when that phenomenon was the reason for the scheme in the first place.”
