Vol. 178 No. 6
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state on what basis it has been decided that a married woman who is otherwise qualified is not entitled to an increased rate of disability benefit when her husband has been interned under the Offences Against the State Acts.
6.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether it has been decided that a married woman who is otherwise qualified for an increased rate of disability benefit will be entitled to receive such benefit if her husband is sent to prison on a civil or criminal charge.
7.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state precisely the statute and regulations invoked by his Department in the interpretation of the requirement that a married woman must be living apart from her husband in determining claims for an increase in disability benefit.
8.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (Insurance No. 542096) was refused an application for an increased rate of disability benefit.
With your permission, A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 together.
Questions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Would it be convenient to take Question No. 8 separately?
I cannot take it separately. I have got the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to take Questions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 together and that is the way I am taking them.
I shall have to appeal to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle not to give the Parliamentary Secretary permission.
The permission is purely formal. The Chair has already given it to take Questions Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 together.
May I withdraw Question No. 8?
He is not obliged under Standing Orders to ask the question. He can do that.
May I postpone Question No. 8 until next week?
Yes. Question No. 8 postponed.
In the case referred to by the Deputy, a married woman was refused——
The Parliamentary Secretary appears to be answering Question No. 8, the one I have withdrawn.
I am under the rule of the Chair.
The Parliamentary Secretary should obey it, if he is. The Chair has just allowed me to withdraw Question No. 8.
The Deputy may not tell the Chair what to do.
That is not the way the Deputy should address or refer to the Chair.
I understand that the Deputy wants to postpone Question No. 8 until next week.
And the Parliamentary Secretary appears to be referring to the specific question.
He is referring to the three other questions.
With respect, you have agreed to my withdrawing Question No. 8. Surely he is not entitled to answer it?
I take it the Parliamentary Secretary is now replying to Questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7?
He is not.
The Deputy will have to hear him first.
In the case referred to by the Deputy, a married woman was refused payment——
I do not wish to be awkward, Sir, but on a point of order——
The Deputy will resume his seat.
The Parliamentary Secretary is answering Question No. 8 and I have just asked permission that it should not be answered.
The Deputy will resume his seat.
In the case referred to by the Deputy, a married woman was refused payment of the higher rate of disability benefit as the deciding officer, who determined her claim, decided that she was not living apart from her husband. On appeal, this decision was upheld by an appeals officer.
The statutory authority is contained in—
(a) subsection (3) of Section 14 and paragraph 1 (a) (i) and (ii) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, 1952, as amended by Section 5 of the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1956;
(b) subsection (6) of Section 2 and subsection (1) of Section 27 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952 and the Children's Allowances (Normal Residence) Rules, 1946 (S.I. No. 152 of 1946); and
(c) paragraph (b) of Section 26 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952.
It is provided in Section 42 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, that subject to the provisions of the Act and in accordance with any relevant regulations, every question arising in relation to a claim for benefit shall be decided by a deciding officer. Accordingly I am not responsible for decisions in relation to claims for benefit.
Subject to the foregoing qualification I may say that if a husband and wife are living apart from each other, and the wife fulfils all the other conditions for the higher rate of disability benefit, she would be entitled to the higher rate even though her husband were in prison on a civil or criminal charge or were interned.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that in cases such as those referred to in Questions 5, 6 and 7 married women, who are otherwise qualified, have been denied the extra benefit because they failed to prove they were living apart from their husbands, although their husbands were guests of the Minister for Justice in the Curragh at the time? How does the Parliamentary Secretary stand over the contention that they failed to prove they were living apart from their husbands?
There was a very easy and ready method for persons who were interned for offences against the State to secure their freedom by stating that they accepted the Constitution of this State.
That has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it.
