I have my seconder behind me. I am explaining why I did not move the motion on the Wednesday before the adjournment.
The motion reads:
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that disabled persons now in receipt of 25/- weekly ...
—incidentally, this motion was put down some time ago and they received an additional 2/6d. in the recent Budget and, therefore, the motion actually should read "now in receipt of 27/6d. weekly"—
... paid by the State and the health authority, should receive the same benefits as blind persons or non-contributory old age pensioners.
Fifty per cent of what disabled persons receive is paid by the local authority, and 50 per cent by the State. It rests with the State, and not the local authority, to move that an increase be granted. The local authority follows suit, but it is the Dáil that must make the initial move to increase the benefits.
Disabled persons can be completely paralysed. They may suffer from the loss of a limb or from various forms of ailments, but they may also have been completely paralysed since birth. There are various degrees of disability. Even in the worse cases of disability, the maximum allowance is 27/6, whereas a blind person or a non-contributory old age pensioner receives 35/-. There is the difference. A person who is 100 per cent disabled receives 27/6. Incidentally, a blind person may enjoy good health; he may be able to work and earn a certain amount of money. Do not forget that all these pensions and allowances are subject to a means test, but even with a means test, a non-contributory pensioner is allowed to earn up to £1 a week. Therefore, a blind person can get 35/-a week and he may earn up to £1 a week also. An old age pensioner may also enjoy good health and he may have a small pension or may earn anything up to £1 a week.
A great many disabled persons have been disabled from birth. In a great many cases they earn nothing and many of them suffer all the time. That is the difference. I have reason to know these cases because when I am not here pitying myself, I go to the hospitals and mix with those people. I have been doing that for the past 40 years, so I know what I am talking about. Twenty years ago, a gentleman set up in Bray with something for electrifying the brain and the muscles. His house was crammed to the doors by helpless people from all over the country who had to be carried from cars.
The reason such people receive only 27/6 a week is that they are beneficiaries of the Department of Health. All others come under the Department of Social Welfare and we have demands on their behalf—whether they are genuine or just electioneering stunts I do not know—several times throughout the year. These social welfare classes have their advocates: year after year we hear all about the old age pensioners, the blind, the widows and the orphans, but rarely do we hear about the disabled people mentioned in my motion. That is because they do not appear in the public accounts for the Department of Social Welfare.
Therefore, on every opportunity when matters of health have been raised in this House I have spoken for those people. On all such occasions, because of that agitation, the Minister acted. That is fair enough. They have got three increases since 1960 because of the agitation here. After all, that is what we are here for. We are not all here for electioneering purposes. We do a lot of good even if we do capitalise on certain things. I feel sure that if it had occurred to members of the House, the class I am now talking about would have been championed more often in the House and not treated with indifference.
As I have said, up to 1960 those people had £1 a week. If there was justification for giving £1 a week in 1960, it must have been based on the cost of living. That being so, there must be further justification for increased allowances since 1960. They were forgotten; their benefits were allowed to lag. My point is that they should have got increases to keep them in step with beneficiaries under the Department of Social Welfare. It is time now that we pulled up that lag. Some of them are 100 per cent disabled and they are to be pitied. They are bedridden. They are so disabled that many of them are unable to leave the bed or the chair. In many cases, as far as their families are concerned, they would be good riddance.
We all know it used to be a practice for families to try to get rid of their old people. They were sent to the workhouses. It is our responsibility, therefore, to give some semblance of independence to those disabled people so that in cases where they are not wanted in the home they can move into a room of some sort and have a few shillings for such small luxuries as tobacco. In that way they would be able to retain a small measure of independence. Since a large percentage of this class have been disabled from birth, it is not a case of their being able to earn a little on the side by taking part time employment. They are entirely dependent on what they get from us.
Since the report of the advent of this motion appeared in the Press, I have received hundreds of letters from all over the country and I had intended to quote some of them today. I hold these people should get at least as much as other non-contributory beneficiaries, that when these other classes get increases the disabled people should not be forgotten. Up to the moment they are the forgotten class. It would not be very costly on the State to improve their lot. The State pays 50 per cent and the local authority the other 50 per cent.
A point may be made that the local authority can subsidise the existing pension but we have evidence that, while in some cases the local authorities are generous, in other cases they are mean. It depends on whether each individual authority or relieving officer thinks a person should get additional money or not. My point is: they have the same right, and exercise it, in subsidising old age pensioners but the old age pensioner in his own right has the maximum pension—35/- at present —and he may get more if the local authority think it justified. Even if he gets a "raw deal", he has 35/- and he also has every aspiring politician on his side always because it is a popular cause.
I want this other class to have at least as much advocacy on their side. They should get at least the same money. I know from experience they could do with more. The point will be made that their families should look after them. We have the same argument made against the old age pensioners but their families we know, often behaved miserably, made little of the old people and, as has been established by evidence and inquiries in the past, often sent them to institutions. Those people should not depend on anyone. In their own right they should have at least a certain amount of money and with the increasing cost of living they, of all people, should get increases in step with everybody else.
We talk about pension increases— and I am not against them—for the Gardaí and others, but those are healthy able-bodied people who may have some claims about pensions but here I am concerned with people who are not in all but in a great many cases, helpless. That is my point.
I am pleased to move this motion and I hope when it comes up again I shall be able to add some evidence. We are at a disadvantage in that we are told: "Your motion is on in half an hour". That is the way we get information. When we look at the Order Paper we see the motion before ours but we do not know it is going to be withdrawn. I have none of the material or data I have prepared for this motion with me.
