asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of a reply of 24th May on the subject of the division of social welfare benefits or assistance between a claimant and his wife, in which he stated that only in cases where the claimant is mentally ill and it is impossible to obtain his consent to such division is such division made without consultation with the claimant, he will state the reasons why in a particular case (name supplied) his Department, without any prior consultation with the claimant and without his consent, paid to his wife £2 per week of the money due to him and the remaining 32/6d. to the claimant; and if he will take steps to ensure that this practice shall cease forthwith.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Division of Social Welfare Benefits.
37.
On being admitted to a mental hospital in June, 1960, the claimant for disability benefit mentioned by the Deputy gave his written authority for the benefit due to be paid to his wife. In accordance with the usual practice, before paying the benefit to the claimant's wife, it was confirmed by reference to the Resident Medical Superintendent of the mental hospital that the claimant's wife was visiting him regularly and providing him with extra comforts; she also had to maintain their two children. Later, on being discharged from the mental hospital, the claimant intimated that he wished to change the arrangement but before the matter could be investigated he was again admitted to the mental hospital. On the basis of the original authority payment of the benefit due was made to the claimant's wife who was still maintaining their two children. When the insured person was discharged from the mental hospital in November, 1960, a further investigation, which revealed that relations between the claimant and his wife were strained, was made but before the enquiries could be completed the claimant was re-admitted to the mental hospital in December, 1960. Accordingly, payment of benefit at the rate of £2 a week, being £1 a week in respect of the wife and 10/- a week in respect of each of two dependent children, was made to the wife and the balance of the benefit due, 32/6 a week—the personal rate of benefit—was allowed to accrue to the credit of the claimant. If the alternative course, of regarding the parties as being separated, had been taken the claimant would have lost title to the increases of benefit in respect of his wife and children and would have been entitled only to the personal rate of 32/6 a week, as it appeared that he was not prepared to pay any part of the benefit to his wife for the purpose of maintaining herself and the children. During his stay in the mental hospital the claimant received advances for extra comforts and on his discharge he was paid the balance of the accrued benefit. Further investigations since carried out indicated that the claimant's domestic affairs have not been stabilised and, in view of the history of the case, the existing arrangements were continued. The case is being kept under review.