asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the hardship caused by the fact that applicants for disability benefit are not paid for the first three waiting days of illness; and if he will take steps to abolish this archaic rule.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Disability Benefit Payments.
49.
Under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, disability benefit is not payable in respect of the first three days of a period of interruption of employment through illness. Such a waiting period is a normal feature of sickness insurance schemes, the view being that after a relatively lengthy period of employment a person may be expected to bear himself the cost of the first few days of illness. It should be noted, however, that unless an interval of more than thirteen weeks has elapsed since disability or unemployment benefit was last obtained payment of disability benefit is made as from the first day on which it is claimed. Legislaion to provide for payment of benefit in respect of a period of illness of three days or less is not contemplated.
I am sure the Minister realises that what he said in the initial part of the answer is stated in the question, that there is undoubtedly this delay. Does the Minister agree that this is an archaic arrangement and that it is imposing tremendous hardship on the people concerned? I invite the Minister to make a canvass of his Party colleagues to verify this. The rule should be done away with.
What would be the extra cost of making payment on the first day of illness? Does the Minister seriously consider that ordinary working people would have sufficient funds in hands so that they could overcome this themselves?
Is the Minister aware that many work hours are lost as a result of this three day disqualification as people who are being disqualified for three days will not work on the fourth day as they will lose their claim?
Will the Minister bring it to the attention of his colleagues?
The aspect raised by Deputy Coughlan operates all over the place: they will not go back on the fourth day though they are fit. In the long run, money is lost. I know it is meant to prevent malingering.
It is not. This applies in every country——
Not in Britain.
Maybe the wrong word has been used.
I am trying to answer all the supplementaries. The person who is habitually ill for short periods is covered all right. If not more than 13 weeks have elapsed from the previous claim, payment is made as from the first day on which disability benefit is claimed. That meets the case of the person who may intermittently be ill for a short period. It eliminates the many applications which we would undoubtedly get for people who would be ill for a day or two. I think the cost involved there would be more than would be justified. It is not unreasonable for a three day waiting period in the case of a person qualified for benefit.
The fact that the system was changed proves that the Department are aware that it is a hardship.
We are aware that, in the case of people habitually ill for short periods, hardship could be caused — certain insured persons who are ill for maybe three days in every three weeks or a month or so. This meets the case of habitual absence.
This does not relate to persons who are out for a day: this concerns the waiting period. Surely a person who is ill should not have a waiting period of three days? This is the point. It could take six months before all the investigations are completed. I know of such a thing to happen. They get the money later but that is of no use to them.
Would it be possible to arrange that the first three days would be accepted as illness on the word of the applicant? This creates difficulty from time to time.
I do not think it would be possible.
Would the Minister look at it, in view of what has been said?
I am afraid I have been looking into it but I shall look at it again.
50.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the long delay in the payment of disability benefit to a person (name supplied) for the period from 15th August 1968 to 20th October 1968 when he handed in medical certificates in England; and if he will arrange to have the benefit paid.
Under reciprocal arrangements with Great Britain the responsibility for payment of benefit to the person named in the question for the period 15th August, 1968, to 20th October, 1968, during which he was in England rests with the British Ministry for Social Security. My Department sent the necessary particulars of insurance to the British Ministry on 15th August, 1968. Payment of disability benefit by my Department was resumed promptly on 21st October, 1968, following the insured person's return to this country.
An inquiry has been sent to the British Ministry regarding the delay in paying benefit for the period in question.
Is there a service in the Minister's Department which enables people in such a predicament to get all necessary information? It is my information that there has been difficulty on this side.
I would not agree. I think the arrangements are particularly attended to in this respect. In this case, the man was going on holiday to England. All the papers were forwarded and the address at which he could be contacted — the lot — to the British Ministry. There may have been some mistake: I am not aware of it. Immediately he returned to this country we resumed payment. This particular person has been on sick benefit for many years. I would say he has been in England before on holiday and has had no complaint, I hope.