asked the Minister for Defence if he will state in detail why a special allowance under the Military Service Pensions Acts was refused in respect of Mr. Patrick Gallagher, Boyagh, Porthall, County Donegal; if he is aware that Mr. Gallagher was dismissed by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs because of permanent infirmity; and whether, in the light of this, the application will be urgently reconsidered.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Special Allowance Application.
118.
Mr. Gallagher's first application for a special allowance under the Army Pensions Acts was refused in Bealtaine, 1960, because he was not found, on examination by Bord na nArm Phinsean, to be incapable of self-support by reason of permanent infirmity. He re-applied this year and was again examined by Bord na nArm Phinsean with the same result.
I understand that Mr. Gallagher's position as postman ceased in 1959, because of the condition of his health. While his main disabilities, viz., deafness with some varicosity of veins, may have rendered him unfit to continue his duties as postman, they were not considered by Bord na nArm Phinsean as rendering him incapable of self-support by reason of permanent infirmity.
Does the Minister want to tell us that when this person is no longer able to carry out his ordinary avocation as postman he has to look for something else? Surely the fact that he was found unfit for the avocation he pursued for 30 or 40 years, shows that he is incapable of self-support?
I do not want to argue that point with Deputy MacEoin just now. The Board are asked to assess the man's physical condition, to find out whether he is capable of earning his living. I do not think that they are specially referred to the point about his ordinary avocation. Anyway, the fact is that this man is receiving quite a considerable payment of disability benefit, which indicates that the Department of Social Welfare do consider him capable of earning his living.
How could that arise?
The Department of Social Welfare are paying him disability benefit?
Unemployment benefit.
Did the Minister not state that he was in receipt of disability benefit and that by virtue of that fact the Department of Social Welfare deemed him to be capable of earning his living? Surely the opposite is the case?
No, not by any means. Does the Deputy not know that to qualify for unemployment benefit——
The Minister mentioned disability benefit, not unemployment benefit.
The Deputy knows that to qualify for unemployment benefit, a man must be willing, able and available for work.
The Minister mentioned disability benefit. It is only now that he is mentioning unemployment benefit.
He said "disability benefit".
I imagine that whether the period would be temporary or permanent would have an effective bearing on the question.