Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jun 1968

Vol. 235 No. 13

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Waterford Social Welfare Payments.

34.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that a person (name supplied) in County Waterford has been cut in benefit by 7/- as he has not received credits for a number of certificates which he handed in in England and on which benefit was paid; if he will have the matter investigated; and if he will have an adjustment made in payment.

From 3rd June, 1968, when a new benefit year commenced, a reduction of 4s 6d a week was made in the rate of disability benefit payable to the person in question as, according to the records of my Department, he did not have the 48 employment contributions in the 1967 contribution year required to qualify for the maximum rate of benefit. When it was ascertained that the insured person had been ill in Britain in 1967 the necessary inquiries were made and the appropriate credits were allowed. An adjusting payment of 6s 9d has been made.

Could the Minister say if this payment was made after or before the Parliamentary Question was put down? Immediately after, I would suggest.

Eight credit contributions were received on 19th June, and the adjusting payment was made as soon as possible.

Was it made before or after the Question was put down?

Happily, the dates synchronised.

It is amazing what can be done the minute I put down a question.

That is the glory of the Parliamentary Question.

It is the power.

35.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will investigate the non transfer of credits for illness in Britain to the insurance record of a person (name supplied) in Waterford and the resultant reduction in benefits.

Credited contributions were in fact allowed for the period from 12th December, 1967, to 11th January, 1968, during which the person referred to in the question was incapacitated while in Britain and the reduction in his rate of benefit from 57s 6d to 53s weekly from the beginning of the current benefit year on 3rd June, 1968, did not arise in the manner suggested by the Deputy. This reduction arose through the absence of contributions for five weeks of unemployment in October/November 1967 and as the local office of the Department of Labour has now indicated that credits are due for these five weeks the weekly rate of benefit has been restored to 57s 6d from the date of the original reduction.

It is amazing what a Parliamentary Question can do.

It shows the power of the Question. That is 100 more votes.

It could not have been done sooner.

It is amazing what the Parliamentary Question can do.

36.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that no payment has been received for a number of weeks by a person (name supplied) in County Waterford; if he will have the matter investigated; if he will state the reasons for this omission; and if he will make the appropriate adjustment in payment.

A payment of disability benefit in respect of the person concerned for the week ended 15th June, 1968, was authorised in my Department but through inadvertence no cheque was issued. On discovery of this the payment in question was issued on the 17th June, 1968, jointly with the next payment due.

Apart from the week mentioned payment of disability benefit has issued to the person referred to every week.

Another one.

Deputy Kyne is having a field day.

The dates there do not happen to synchronise.

Do they not?

No. It was on 17th June that payment was issued.

They all get consideration when the Parliamentary Question is put down.

We are not infallible.

37.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that no payment has been received by a person (name supplied) in County Waterford although five certificates have been submitted; if he will have the matter investigated; and if he will have an adjustment made as soon as possible.

Cheques in payment of disability benefit for the person referred to issued on 30th May, 1968, and 14th June, 1968, but, through an error, were addressed to Portlaw instead of to Ardmore. They were returned to my Department and have been reissued to the correct address.

Thank you.

Top
Share