asked the Minister for Social Welfare, why a person (name supplied) has not been able to have her social welfare benefit paid in full while she is in hospital, although this money is needed to assist in the upkeep of her family as her husband is a farm labourer.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Payment of Social Welfare Benefit.
19.
Disability benefit has not been paid in full to the person named in the question while she is in hospital as under the Social Welfare (Overlapping Benefits) Regulations, 1953 payment in full, other than to a person who may be regarded as a dependant within the meaning of the Social Welfare Acts, may not be made until the patient is discharged from hospital. The person named in the question has no dependant within the meaning of the Social Welfare Acts.
Advances of benefit, however, sufficient to cover the purchase of comforts or the defraying of minor personal expenses while in hospital may be made and, in fact, such advances, up to 50 per cent of the benefit due, have been made in this case.
Would the Minister not agree that this particular case highlights something and that a mistake was made in the passing of the Social Welfare Act when a case like this can arise? The wife of a farm labourer was herself working for the purpose of helping to keep the house when she fell ill. Her social welfare benefits would not be paid to her until she returned home. The fact that she was in hospital prevented her from drawing benefit, even though the money was needed for the upkeep of the house. Would the Minister agree that appears to be stretching the regulations a bit too far and would he ask the Minister for Social Welfare to consider amending the regulations so that where a wife is concerned, the regulations may be relaxed?
I do not know about amending the regulations. It does not appear that there has been any stretching of the regulations in this case. Further, when we realise that the husband is working and three sons are working and living in the house, it can scarcely be said that the £1 withheld of the 40/- due would make all this difference in the meantime.
Surely when the Minister has such a great file on the case, he is aware that nothing at all was paid to this woman until I raised the matter with the Minister's Department and made special representations that at least some of the amount be paid to her, pending a decision on the matter?
The regulations specifically provide for payment of personal comforts and personal costs that might fall to be defrayed while in the institution. I would not dispute whether or not it was as a result of the Deputy's representations: it probably was—I could not say. However, it is being done in accordance with the regulations and not in spite of the regulations.
The Minister must know, from his file, that nothing was paid to the woman for the first month she was in hospital. In fact, a letter addressed on 14th May last shows that she was not paid until representations were made. Would the Minister have the matter further considered as it is a hardship on the family despite the fact that a number of the family are working?
I will pass it on, but the regulations are being adhered to.
I should be grateful if the Minister would do so. The regulations are being bent in the wrong way.