Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 1999

Vol. 505 No. 1

Written Answers. - Social Welfare Benefits.

Olivia Mitchell

Question:

190 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the reason a 17 year old autistic boy (details supplied) in Dublin 18 in the care of the Eastern Health Board has been refused even a partial disability allowance, thereby depriving him of any income; and when the policy on the payment of disability allowance in these cases was changed. [13113/99]

Disability allowance is not payable where a person is resident in full-time institutional care where the cost of their care and maintenance is being met in whole or in part by or on behalf of a health board.

This provision has been a feature of the disability allowance scheme since its introduction and previously of the disabled person's maintenance allowance which it replaced.

Regulations introduced in 1997, however, provide for the first time, for payment of disability allowance at half-rate to persons who spend two to three consecutive days a week outside an institution.

The person concerned is resident in an institution and does not currently satisfy the minimum periods of residence outside institutional care which are specified in the regulations to qualify for payment of disability allowance. His appli cation was, accordingly, refused by a deciding officer and he was notified of this decision and the reasons for it on 24 February 1999. He was also notified of his right to appeal this decision.
The provision for payment of half-rate disability allowance, in the circumstances outlined, was one of a number of improvements which have been made in the disability allowance scheme since responsibility for the scheme was taken on by my Department. The possibility of further improvement of the scheme is a matter for consideration in a budgetary context.

Róisín Shortall

Question:

191 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will address the discrepancy in the operation of free schemes highlighted in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 11 whereby, in spite of satisfying all other conditions, she is denied the benefit due to the fact she is not considered dependent on her husband; if both spouses would qualify for the scheme if either spouse in the case cited had the other's payment; his views on whether many households with substantially far greater income and potentially less social insurance contributions than in the case cited may qualify under the scheme; his further views on whether this is fair on these couples; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13114/99]

The person concerned, who is in receipt of a retirement pension from my Department, applied for a free electricity allowance/television licence on 16 July 1998 and a free telephone rental allowance on 19 August 1998.

One of the conditions for receipt of a free electricity allowance/television licence is that the applicant must be in receipt of a qualifying payment and be living alone or only with certain excepted persons. In this case the applicant is residing with her husband who is not an excepted person as he is not a dependant on her retirement pension or in receipt of a qualifying payment in his own right or does not require constant care and attention. In relation to the free telephone rental allowance where an applicant is not living alone the person with whom they reside must be so incapacitated as to be unable to summon assistance in an emergency. The medical evidence supplied was insufficient to allow the spouse to satisfy this condition. Accordingly, both applications were refused.
However, it is possible for the spouse in this case to qualify for a free electricity allowance/television licence if he satisfies a means test. He would also have to be the registered consumer of electricity. The excepted person condition would be satisfied by virtue of the fact that the person concerned is in receipt of a qualifying payment. I have arranged for the appropriate application form to issue directly to him.
The person concerned can reapply for a free telephone rental allowance and submit additional medical evidence for a decision as to whether either she or her spouse are so incapacitated as to be unable to summon help in an emergency. An application form has issued to the couple to allow them to reapply for the allowance.
Should the couple reapply for the allowances, a decision will be made on their applications as quickly as possible and they will be informed of the outcome.
It should be noted that entitlement to the free schemes is not dependent on social insurance. The general issues raised by the Deputy are being addressed in the context of a fundamental review of the free schemes which has commenced recently. This review, which is being undertaken by the policy institute in TCD, will be published later this year.
Top
Share