asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (name supplied) has been disallowed seven days' disability benefit, although a reasonable explanation for the delay in submitting his certificates was given.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disallowing of Disability Benefit.
20.
The prescribed time for claiming disability benefit under the Social Welfare Acts is seven days from the commencement of illness. Where notice of illness is not given to my Department within that period the claimant is disqualified for receiving benefit in respect of any period more than seven days before the date on which notice is given unless there was good cause for the delay.
The claimant concerned in the Deputy's question became incapable of work on 22nd February, 1965, and his illness terminated on 7th March, 1965, but he failed to notify his illness until 23rd March, 1965, that is, two weeks after he had resumed work. The explanation given for the delay in notifying the illness was that the relative documents, that is certificates and claim form, had been mislaid. This explanation could not be accepted as good cause since, pending recovery of the documents in question, a simple letter to my Department would have been sufficient notice of the illness.
Is the Minister aware that this man was under the impression that these documents had been sent in by another person? In fact, the documents were not given to him at all because he was considered to be seriously ill. In the circumstances, will the Minister explain why his Department should consider it necessary to deprive someone of the few shillings which he so badly needs?
Obviously we must insist on being notified of illness as soon as possible. It is not reasonable to expect the Department to pay disability benefit when an illness is not notified until after the person claiming it has returned to work. That would be completely unreasonable.
The person gave what would be considered by anyone except the Minister's Department a satisfactory explanation: the documents were mislaid and he was under the impression that they had already been sent. Surely that is a reasonable explanation. What does the Minister want—an affidavit?
That explanation could be given in any case where there was late notification.
In this case it is true.
The Deputy is asking us to waive the question of its being necessary to give immediate notification of illness.
The Deputy is asking that people with their insurance cards stamped should get this £3 12s.
They will have to comply with the regulations.
Will the Minister have another look at this case?
I do not think I will. I am quite well aware of the circumstances of this case. The Deputy is, in fact, asking me to accept any explanation that is given as being good cause for late notification. That would mean completely abandoning the condition that notification should be given as soon as possible.
The Minister has no hesitation in giving a supplement to the insurance companies.
Insurance companies are not subsidised.