asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that the contribution year for maternity benefit which operates from July to July is inequitable; that as a result there are certain cases where persons with more than 26 stamps are denied benefit; and if he will amend the present statutory regulations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Maternity Benefit.
10.
For certain benefits under the Social Welfare Acts there are two contribution conditions. The first requires a minimum number of paid contributions since entry into insurance and the second requires a minimum number of paid or credited contributions in a recent complete contribution year. For women this contribution year commences on the first Monday of July of each year.
In the case of maternity benefit the first contribution test is that not less than 26 contributions have been paid since entry into insurance. The second test requires not less than 26 contributions to have been paid or credited in the relevant governing contribution year. Both contribution conditions must be satisfied. I do not consider these conditions to be inequitable.
Is the Minister aware that, even though some persons have more than the required contributions, because they do not fall within the period July to July, they are denied benefit while others, with possibly fewer contributions, can get benefit? Would he consider amending the regulations to ensure that in this particular instance maternity benefit may not be denied to people?
I am aware of the anomaly the Deputy is referring to where the 26 contributions could be in two different contribution years and do not therefore fulfil one of the requirements for qualification. But the Deputy will agree that when credits are permitted for the second condition it does put the claimant in an advantageous position in that she could have been signing for credits even though she was not employed.
I have details of a case where a person who had been in employment, ceased work at some stage prior to the birth of the child and has more than the required number of contributions, but loses about £50 of the benefit because the year runs from July to July.
Will the Minister not agree that in the case cited there is an element of luck or chance in a person's entitlement to benefit? A woman whose confinement is in May or June has no possible hope of qualifying for this benefit because in the case of her first confinement she cannot have 26 employment contributions paid subsequent to her marriage and prior to her retirement from work pending confinement, whereas if her confinement was in October or November she would be likely to qualify. Surely that kind of position should not obtain? Where a person satisfies the conditions by having 26 contributions paid subsequent to marriage she should get her maternity benefit. We should do away with this element of luck or chance; there is too much of it attached to the Department of Social Welfare regulations.
Is the Minister aware of the great number of women who are denied benefit because of this regulation? I wrote to the Minister's Department recently, and I have just received a reply, about the case of a person who had almost seven years stamps prior to her marriage, did not claim any benefit when she did get married and did not claim benefit through ignorance, on the birth of her first child, but continued to work afterwards. Because she has 25 stamps in one year and did not have a stamp for the 26th week—simply because it happened to be Easter week and there was no work for her in that particular week—she is being denied benefit.
Any replies from the Minister?
These are the requirements set down in the Act as far back as 1955. As I have stated in the House so often, until about that time there was no benefit for a married woman after marriage. The case was frequently made that some provision should be made for those married women who were prepared to go back to work after marriage. In order to meet the case the conditions were changed and considerably improved. It was made possible for them to get benefit if they had 26 stamps affixed and credits for the governing contribution year. The Deputy is asking if we would consider further improving the regulation to provide that, no matter what time the 26 stamps were put on subsequent to marriage, they would still qualify. I will have a look at that.
Thank you.
Arising directly from this question and reply and one which was tabled yesterday, did anybody draw the Minister's attention to the advice given by "The Experts" in reply to queries in the Evening Press? They gave as a reply to a question somewhat similar to this that the reason why this woman's claim was not determined in a reasonable way was that the Department of Social Welfare was overstaffed particularly with executive officers who were making all types of ridiculous regulations, hence the difficulty of the juniors in the office to implement these regulations and hence the woman's grievance. Was the Minister's notice drawn to this statement in the Evening Press this day forthnight?
I am not responsible for any statements which appear in the papers in that respect. I want to refute the statement that my Department is overstaffed. In fact, it is understaffed.