Vol. 199 No. 9
asked the Minister for Health if he is aware that local authorities have reduced individual infectious diseases allowances by the amount of the recent increases in social welfare benefits; if he approves of this; and, if not, what he proposes to do about it.
3.
asked the Minister for Health whether he is aware that, as soon as a recipient of sickness benefit in Wexford (name supplied) received the recent ten shillings increase in sickness benefit, the infectious diseases maintenance allowance paid to him was reduced by the sum of ten shillings per week, thus completely nullifying the effect of the sickness benefit increase; and whether he will take steps to alter the Infectious Diseases (Maintenance) Regulations so as to ensure that such increases in social welfare benefits are not removed by a reduction of the infectious diseases maintenance allowance.
With your permission a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to deal with Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
The questions seem to have arisen from a fact that the Deputies appear to have overlooked, which is that the increase last month in the rates of sickness benefit was part of the general increase, provided for in the last Budget, in social welfare pensions, allowances and benefits and in the maintenance allowances under the Health Acts, including the Infectious Diseases (Maintenance) Allowances. The last mentioned allowances were, however, increased a few months before the rates of social welfare disability benefit were increased.
In determining the rate of Infectious Diseases (Maintenance) Allowance payable in any particular case, income from other sources, including social welfare benefits, is ordinarily taken into account but, in exceptional cases, where a health authority considers that undue hardship would be caused by adhering strictly to this policy, they have discretion to disregard such income in whole or in part. I could not, however, accept as a general proposition that a recipient of an allowance who got the benefit of the increase in that allowance should get, in addition, the further benefits of the increase in the social welfare disability benefit.
In the Wexford case referred to in the second of the two questions, the health authority has not abated the maximum permissible rate of Maintenance Allowance by the full amount of the recipient's disability benefit, with the result that the total income of the family exceeds the maximum maintenance allowance appropriate to their circumstances. Since August last, the family have had the benefit of the full increase in the maintenance allowance.
Will the Minister not agree the position now is that, while persons in receipt of social welfare benefits have had an increase as a result of the last Budget, persons suffering from tuberculosis and in receipt of infectious diseases allowances have received, in fact, no increase? Does the Minister intend to allow that anomaly to continue?
Did I hear the Minister say that the local authorities had discretion in a matter like this and that the means test laid down by the Minister for Health for infectious diseases allowances is rather an elastic one?
Yes.
Secondly, how much was the infectious diseases allowances increased by last autumn?
In the particular case referred to by Deputy Corish, it was increased by 5/-. The infectious diseases allowance has to be reviewed whenever the means change. That is the whole point in this. If an additional amount is given on the social welfare side, the means have to be reviewed and the infectious diseases allowance modified accordingly.
In answer to Deputy Corish, the county manager has a fair amount of discretion. He has a set of guiding rules and has discretion to alter that.
In this case, the Minister says there was an increase of 5/-
I think there was.
The Minister for Social Welfare gave 10/- but that 10/- was subsequently taken away from the infectious diseases allowance. In fact, this particular person benefited to the extent of only 5/-, whereas everybody in receipt of sickness benefit benefited to the extent of 10/-.
I can prove from an individual case also that a person in receipt of social welfare sickness benefit because of 'flu got an increase as a result of the last Budget, but an unfortunate person who has tuberculosis has got no increase and will not get one.
He got the increase in August.
I can give evidence that the position in fact at the moment is that he has got no increase. Whereas there has been a 5/- increase in respect of the Wexford case, there is no increase in respect of the Louth case.
The benefits in respect of the infectious diseases allowances were increased in August last. As I said, whenever there is a change in a person's means, it has to be reviewed.
But the result is the same.
Could the Minister try to arrange with his colleague, the Minister for Health, that there might be a review of the means test for the purposes of qualifying for infectious diseases allowances, in view of the fact that in this case there was an increase of only 5/- whereas others got 10/-?
I shall mention it to him.
Would the Minister say whether the Department have sent a letter to local authorities in regard to this matter?
No new circular was sent. The county managers are acting on the guiding rules they got some years ago.
I do not think they are aware they have some discretion.
A circular was sent with reference to home assistance.
