Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Nov 1971

Vol. 257 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Deserted Wife's Allowance.

8.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare why a person (name supplied) was not awarded the deserted wife's allowance or some portion of this allowance.

To be entitled to a deserted wife's allowance statutory regulations require that a woman must establish that her husband wilfully refuses or neglects to contribute to the support of her and her children. The person referred to in the question is receiving a retirement pension by virtue of her husband's insurance under the British National Insurance Acts. As, therefore, her husband could not be regarded as having refused or neglected to contribute to her support, it was decided that she was not a deserted wife and her claim for the allowance was rejected. Her appeal against this decision was rejected by the appeals officer, whose decision is final. I should add that there is no provision under the deserted wife's allowance scheme for the payment of a reduced allowance to a woman who has failed to satisfy the prescribed conditions for title to an allowance.

Would the Minister not agree that the present British pension being paid to this woman is not being paid through any goodwill on her husband's part but comes as a result of her husband's insurance pension—that the husband did not contribute in any way to her welfare for 17 years? The fact that she is getting this small pension now, much less than she would get if she qualified for a deserted wife's allowance here, is not through any goodwill on the husband's part. He still refuses to contribute in any way to her upkeep, and in these circumstances would the Minister not agree to have another look at this case? The British authorities would appear to have dealt more favourably with this lady than the Irish authorities.

I will have another look at it. The Deputy has already written to me, I have had a good look at it already, but I will look at it again. It is an unusual case.

Top
Share