asked the Minister for Health if, in view of the fact that single persons with no family responsibilities and with yearly means up to £1,200 are entitled to benefit under the Health Acts by being classed as persons in the middle income group and that the application of the same £1,200 limit to married couples, especially to couples with heavy financial responsibilities for the maintenance and education of children, is a serious injustice, he will take early action to ensure that married persons are treated by local health authorities no less favourably than single persons.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Health Acts Benefits.
32.
I do not think that hardship is caused by the operation of the provisions referred to by the Deputy: in any case where undue hardship would be caused by rigid adherence to the income limit, the person in question would be regarded by the health authority as eligible. It does not seem, therefore, that there is a need to amend the present legal provisions on this matter.
Is it not true that the regulations as they are at present do operate against a married couple with no dependent children?
No, not if the health authority operate the undue hardship clause fairly.
The Minister as a member of a local authority in the past knows that this hardship clause is very rarely used as far as movement from the middle income group to the higher income group is concerned, that the only time one sees the hardship clause used is on movement from the middle income group to the lower income group, and that the practice has been not to operate it. There is a real difficulty in the case of a married couple with no dependent children as against a single person having the same income who can enjoy the middle income provisions.
I would agree with the Deputy in this much, that I should like to see the hardship clause far more uniform in its operation than is the case at the moment. Some county councils, I am satisfied, do operate it very fairly and so avoid undue hardship. There are others who do not exercise clemency sufficiently. The Deputy, of course, will realise that to do what he is asking me to do would raise very serious implications. It would be better if it were possible to have a uniform interpretation of the hardship clause throughout the country but I do accept that there are cases in some counties which I would regard as cases of undue hardship which are not so regarded by the health authority. All I can do is to try to have this situation amended.
Is there any right of appeal?
There is not, really.
No.
Should there not be?
The Minister talks of serious implications. They are not so serious, because the only person who could be involved is a married person with no children who is just across the brink of £1,200 income. That would be a minority of the population. As Deputy O'Higgins has pointed out, there is no right of appeal in health authority areas where, as the Minister pointed out, clemency is not exercised.
Not in some of them.
Is it not back in the Minister's lap to do something about it?
The answer is that when the present structure of the services is re-organised on a regional basis, I hope there will be effective appeal under the new regional system.
When the health services are put on a regional basis nobody will get benefit in those circumstances.
The Deputy always tries to be very helpful.
If the Minister has come so far to meet us as to say there will be right of appeal, that is some distance.
Does the Deputy mean that it is some distance from now, that it will take some time?
No; I mean that the Minister has come some distance with us.
I am thinking strongly along those lines.
Only thinking? Then it will be some time.