asked the Minister for Social Welfare the provision, if any, he intends to make for a person (details supplied) in County Dublin who is in receipt of disabled person's maintenance allowance, who is unable to provide a telephone from his own resources, who does not qualify for a free telephone rental allowance as he does not satisfy the living alone conditions, who received a heart transplant in March 1988 and whose wife works part time and is absent from the home for several hours each day leaving him at risk by reason of not having a telephone.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Free Telephone Rental Eligibility.
10.
The free telephone rental allowance scheme operated by my Department is designed to cover beneficiaries for whom a telephone is their sole means of summoning aid in an emergency. The scheme is confined to persons in receipt of a qualifying payment who are either living alone or only with children under 15 years of age or with other persons who are so permanently incapacitated as to be unable to summon assistance in the event of an emergency. The person concerned lives with his wife, who is not incapacitated, and two children aged 17 and 13. Therefore he does not meet the qualifying conditions of the scheme. I understand he has had a telephone since 1986 and the question of risk does not arise on this account.
Extension of the scheme in the manner envisaged by the Deputy would have considerable cost implications. There are no proposals for such a change.
Is the Minister implying that there are very many people here who have had heart transplants? Is he aware that the applicant in question had a heart transplant in March 1988? Is he aware that his only source of income amounts to approximately £30 per week DPMA because the couple have two children aged 17 and 13 at school and a mortgage of £177 per month and his wife is forced to take part-time work? Furthermore, would he not agree that somebody who has had a heart transplant would fall into the category of a person in need of constant care and attention, particularly as it took place eight months ago only? The reality is that the applicant, while having a telephone, has not got the money to pay the rental.
The DPMA basic rate for a couple amounts to £71.90 and in a case where there are two children there would be an additional £15 approximately allowable for each child. I should say that the DPMA allowance in respect of the case cited here would be £100 so the fact that only £30 is paid means there must be independent income involved.
But his wife is working part-time.
The point the Deputy is raising is extension of the scheme to cover other categories of people. This is a scheme whose provisions apply to very limited categories of people; that is true. An extension of the provisions of the scheme along the lines obtaining in relation to other schemes in existence — such as the other living alone conditions — would cost approximately £15 million per annum.
The Minister cannot be serious that there are such numbers of people in this country who have had heart transplants and where the provisions of the scheme if they were to be extended to cover them would cost £15 million per annum. Would the Minister agree that what he is putting to that applicant's wife is that she gives up her part-time work and lets the State pay over £100 DPMA so that her husband can claim the free telephone rental allowance? Are we really serious about reforming our social welfare system? Surely in cases such as these discretion can be used? Surely the Minister, in exceptional circumstances — which obtain in this case — can afford to grant this free telephone rental allowance because that is all that is being asked?
The Minister is very warmhearted and would be happy to help the Deputy but the provisions of the scheme are based on certain criteria being met. There are many other groups, people who would seek similar extensions——
An applicant who had a heart transplant eight months ago.
The Deputy cites the example of a heart transplant. There are also many other people who will have had heart attacks, with somebody else in the dwelling who can get a telephone or call somebody. The provisions of this scheme were meant to provide a means of obtaining assistance in an emergency for persons who would otherwise be unable to get such assistance. That was its whole purpose and is why the living alone condition is so defined in the provisions of the scheme. It is not merely a question of changing that definition in the case of an individual applicant but right across the board, and that is where the wider financial implications enter in.
But would a CEO provide a medical card in exceptional circumstances?
I am calling Question No. 11.