I regret that the Minister for Health is not present to hear my contribution; I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, will convey my remarks to him.
I have long experience of dealing with public officials. In this case I am referring to community welfare officers or as they were known, relieving officers. While I often crossed swords with them and we had differences of opinion it was always possible to reach an accommodation. I never found any of these officials to be anything but genuine and caring.
When I come up against a system in my home town of Dungarvan which shows a lack of compassion and sympathy for the most under-privileged section of the community, the poor and deprived, I have a duty to voice my concern in this House. I have tried to redress this through the appeal system in the South Eastern Health Board but to no avail. I do not believe that there has been an on-the-spot investigation into any of the cases I highlighted. There should be an independent mechanism in the Department of Health under which people, or their public representatives, who feel they have been unjustly treated can have their cases examined. I do not think an appeal system within a health board or any other body will work satisfactorily as personnel will not over-rule other members of that body. I would like the Minister for Health to introduce a system which is truly independent under which hardship cases can be investigated.
I wish to give a number of examples. Case A involves a woman who is suffering from diabetes and asthma. As a result the heating system has to be left on almost continuously. Even though her husband — who has a drink problem — is in receipt of unemployment assistance she cannot obtain any assistance towards her electricity bill.
I am referring to genuine cases only; I am aware that there are people who are not genuine and try to secure payments. I am long enough around to know who is genuine and who is not.
Case B involves a battered wife who has returned from England with her young family. She was refused payments on the basis that she was in receipt of payments in England. She spent any money she had in returning home with her family. She was also refused money to cover the cost of school uniforms for her children. She was shown no compassion and the wrong attitude was adopted. This is unacceptable.
Cases C and D involve a deserted wife who is in receipt of a lone parent's allowance and a woman who is in receipt of a prisoner's wife's allowance. Both were in receipt of payments from the community welfare service but neither was informed how to go about applying for the statutory allowance in each case. Were it not for the efforts of my constituency secretary they would not have received any back money which in turn was refunded to the health board. I am objecting to this lack of compassion and understanding and it must be attended to.
A scheme to refurbish houses which are in a poor condition is nearing completion in Dungarvan. In some cases people have been given a grant of £300 to provide furniture and fittings. However, some of the most deserving cases have not received any grant. Case E involves a family, the adult members of which are unemployed, who could not obtain a grant.
Case F involves a woman whose husband is a pensioner. She is in bad health and was discharged from hospital three or four weeks ago. She does not have the money to pay the bill of £145 and she was informed by the community welfare service that if it paid the bill she would have to pay back a larger sum.
The final case involves a woman with three children whose husband is on a FÁS scheme. She works in a local school for which she receives £40 per week when it is in session. Their mortgage repayment is £192 per month but she can obtain no relief from the community welfare service. I cannot accept this. Poor people who are in difficulty must be helped. I accept that these are discretionary payments but someone should ensure that the people who administer this scheme do so in a just and proper way.
