Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 May 1944

Vol. 93 No. 13

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Widow's Pension.

Mr. A. Byrne

asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he is aware that Peter Quigley, 5 Ebenezer Terrace, South Circular Road, Dublin, who died June 28th, 1943, surrendered health and pensions contributions to the National Health Society for many years up to the week ended 26th April, 1942, during which time he was fully employed as a plumber in a Dublin works; that Mrs. Quigley's widows' and orphans' pension claim number 2610296 has been rejected, because, it is stated, his membership of the society was treated as having expired approximately two months before his death; that no lapse notice was given that her husband's membership was about to expire, nor any days of grace allowed to make up the deficiency of eight stamps short; that casual work done by him at Leopardstown was decided as non-insurable; and whether he will have the non-insurable decision reconsidered and pension paid to the widow.

I am aware that a claim for a contributory pension under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts received from Mrs. Elizabeth Quigley, 4 Ebenezer Terrace, South Circular Road, Dublin, was rejected on the grounds that her late husband was not an insured person under the Acts at the date of his death on the 28th June, 1943. It was ascertained from the National Health Insurance Society that deceased had surrendered contributions to the society for many years, that the last contribution surrendered was in respect of the week ended 26th April, 1942, and that, in the absence of further contributions or duly notified incapacity for work within the succeeding 12 months, he was regarded as having ceased to be an insured person under the Acts on the expiration of his "free year" on 26th April, 1943, i.e., some two months before he died on 28th June, 1943. The National Health Insurance Society does not issue special notice to a member warning him of the impending termination of his free year. His membership card contains information as to how the free year operates, and as to how, before its expiration, a member may arrange to preserve his insurance rights by becoming a voluntary contributor.

The eight contributions referred to in the question which would have the effect of extending the free year until the date of death could only be affixed in respect of weeks of insurable employment. It has, however, been ruled that the late Mr. Quigley was not insurably employed subsequent to the 26th April, 1942. From inquiries which were made it was ascertained that deceased's only employment subsequent to the latter date was casual employment as a ticket collector on race-days at Leopardstown and the Curragh.

This employment has been ruled as non-insurable, and the claim for a contributory pension was, accordingly, rejected on the grounds that deceased had ceased to be an insured person under the Acts at the date of his death. Mrs. Quigley was notified of this decision on 15th April, 1944, and was given the option of appealing against the rejection of her claim within one month from that date. It is proposed to submit the case to a Referee.

Mr. A. Byrne

The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary is exactly a repetition of my question. He says that this widow has been denied her widows' and orphans' pension because eight stamps were short on her husband's card. I should like to know whether it is not the duty of the society to serve notice on a person when he has run into arrears. If a person is ill for a few months and neglects to get the necessary stamps, surely it is the duty of the society to ask him to submit an arrears card. The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is not a statutory obligation on the society to give such notification, but I should like to ask him if he will make it an obligation, so that people will not be deprived of their pensions. Further, with regard to this man having worked at a turnstile at Leopardstown Races, is it a fact that some authority has ruled that that class of work is not insurable, and under what section of the Act has such a ruling been given? This matter deals with only one case, but it may affect hundreds of others later on.

I can only say that the matter is being considered by the referee. I can give no further information.

Mr. A. Byrne

Will the Parliamentary Secretary have the point raised as to the authority for the ruling that turnstile work at a racecourse is non-insurable, because it affects thousands of casual employees?

Top
Share