It is a privilege for me to move this motion on the Adjournment which concerns an extremely courageous, as well as gifted, student at third level. This student, who is a constituent of mine has contacted me with regard to a situation which, while it may be legal, certainly reveals a most appallingly niggardly, parsimonious and ungenerous attitude on the part of the authorities and one which constitutes a very clear disincentive to third level study and to the achievement of independence by those who suffer, unfortunately, from what one might term to be a physical handicap. I spoke to the person who is the subject of the Adjournment Debate by telephone this evening and he used the word, "disincentive", in the course of that conversation. He feels that the attitude of the officials involved constitutes a disincentive to him to continue his studies.
I understand that the Minister is familiar with the details of the case. This is a story of a young man who is almost totally blind, has struggled to overcome the difficulty and has been successful in that valiant struggle to such an extent that he achieved an exceedingly distinguished primary degree. He has subsequently been accepted for higher study and has enrolled on the register of PhD. students. He is a candidate for the post-graduate degree of Doctor of Philosophy. In fact, his academic distinction is such that he has received an award from the Higher Education Authority through Cavan County Council. However, most regrettably, the attitude of the authorities has been to take the view that he is not entitled to both amounts of money simultaneously; they have subtracted one from the other.
That action seems to me to be morally unjustifiable. I agree that it is a disincentive. Having been awarded a major prize in the university on one occasion, I was subsequently told that the monetary value of subsequent prizes would not be awarded to me. I was told that as I had received a certain amount of money, that was my ceiling and I could have the honour and glory of the titles listed but no further cash. I can assure the Minister that I took no further steps to acquire academic distinctions. We are living in a very practical world and it is not enough to be given empty titles, particularly — and, thank God, this is not true in any case — to somebody who is visually handicapped. When I mention the sums of money involved the House will see that the word "parsimonious" is justified. The higher education grant from Cavan County Council was just over £1,000 and the pension is not a great deal in excess of that figure. We are not talking about enormous sums of money. The Minister has the exact figures and there need be no confusion about them.
The person involved informed me this evening that he feels hurt and insulted. He has attempted to overcome his personal difficulty with as little reliance as possible on State help and on the sympathy, which he rejects, of the general public. While part of his attitude has been to underplay his physical disadvantage and to desire that he should be treated as a normal member of the community, he feels, for the first time, as a result of this controversy that he has been treated as less than normal and that, paradoxically, his handicap is being emphasised by the unfeeling, unyielding and inflexible attitude of officialdom. He is not alone in that view. He has been supported by the Students Union's welfare officer in Trinity College who has described the attitude of the authorities as disgusting, disgraceful and discriminatory. I hope the Minister will take on board these very strong feelings not just of the person involved, who I am sure the Minister will agree should be rewarded rather than being penalised for his excellence.
I would like very briefly to run through a catalogue of the circumstances of this case. I have been supplied by the person involved with a series of documents. I believe he should be encouraged if his approach to medieval history is anything like as meticulous and precise as the skill he has demonstrated in preparing this brief for me so that, despite the lateness of the hour and the fact that the Minister and myself have been here now for many hours discussing other matters, I feel I can present a logical and coherent case. Rather than a disincentive, a really strong incentive should be given to him. I would like to say, before I get into a recital of the case, that it seems not only morally right but also very practical that somebody in this situation should be so encouraged rather than discouraged. After all, whereas this gentleman could have sat back, could have accepted welfare, disability pensions and so on and perhaps done nothing other than a little spot of basket weaving every so often or operated a telephone switchboard, instead of taking this line of least resistance, he has placed himself in a situation where he can add to the intellectual life of the country and support himself independently of pensions. This is the kind of independence we all wish to see.
On 24 September last the person involved received a document in printed form which I have here, entitled Document 1, from the Department of Social Welfare saying that the social welfare officer would call to see him on the next Friday, 25 September to "interview you in connection with your claim for blind pension". There is a further note which says: "the appropriate officer wishes to have produced for inspection full detail of the subjects income and savings." The response of my constituent was that he was not aware that the Department did not allow the receipt of a blind pension and an education grant until he received formal notification of the subsequent reduction of his pension.
On 30 September he received a further letter from the officer concerned, Document 2, a handwritten letter which says:
Further to my visit to you on 25.9.87 there are some further details that you may provide for me.
Please sign the attached bank authority that I may confirm the balances on both your accounts in October 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. I did not inspect any old bank statements for your current account to give me that information. Alternatively perhaps you could contact the bank yourself and ask them for a statement showing the balances on both deposit and current accounts on those dates.
Please also state if you are in receipt of any other award or bursary from any source other than Cavan Co. Council.
I enclose an officially paid addressed envelope....
I would like to comment on that a little. For example, this letter states: "any other award or bursary". Is it the intention of the Department that there should be absolutely no reward whatever for intellectual excellence? In other words, are prizes, special awards and bursaries to be, in this niggardly way, deducted from the disabled? I cannot believe that this is the intention of any civilised person, far less the Minister whom I have come to know in debates in the House.
The subject refused to sign this authorisation, of which I have a photocopy, because he read it in some detail and it is disclosed to him the fact that the form in question contains no terms of limitation regarding the time for which it is valid nor does it confer its powers on a single named person. The subject said he was afraid that in signing it he would be providing permanent access to his financial affairs to whoever wanted to use it. That seems to be a reasonable attitude to take. This kind of State Chamber inquiry seems to be an unnecessary intrusion into the financial affairs of the person involved. This is where we get into what I think are degrading and sordid details. Having inspected the bank account — the subject makes the point that the funds in his bank account were funds accruing from savings made on his blind pension — the sum involved was annualised as £9.74. This miserable pittance was subsequently deducted from the blind pension.
We are often told about this being a Christian country. I wonder where in this is Christian charity? I know rules may be inflexible but I am perfectly certain that somewhere up the chain of command there resides the authority to alter or investigate these rules. I believe that not only in this case — this is one of the reasons I took it up — but in a number of cases which this is illustrative there is a pressing need for an investigation into the unnecessary narrowness of these kinds of rules. I exonerate the officials lower down the chain from moral culpability in this. I do not believe there is a personal vendetta going on but I believe that these rules and regulations are totally wrong.
On 1 November this man received a further document which baldly said:
The Social Welfare Officer has reviewed your Old Age/Blind Pension and has reported that your means have increased since your last assessment. Your weekly rate of pension will, therefore, be reduced.
Please return your pension book(s)...
There was no information as to by what amount it was going to be reduced or what his immediate circumstances were. Imagine the plight of somebody who is already visually handicapped, who is not by any means living at an extravagant level — you can tell that from the sums involved — and who is suddenly told in a printed form that there is going to be a reduction but is not told by how much. He telephoned the Department and was told that everything was all right and that he would be no worse off. Is that not a cheering thought? Are we not all happy? You win a prize and all the Department of Social Welfare can tell you is that you will be no worse off. That is a big treat. However, my informant was not particularly pleased about this.
He asked subsequently to receive formal notification of the decision. A further document informed him that he could make an appeal against the decision but it did not inform him that he was entitled to make an oral appeal. As regards the Department of Social Welfare old age and blind pensions office, it is really rather insulting that these things are so blandly joined together —"old age" and "blind". They are two separate and distinct items. I will return to this because it seems to be utterly and morally disgusting that subjects are not allowed to have both the old age pension and the blind pension. Surely to goodness it is an additional infliction to be blind as well as old and some recognition should be given to this point. It is a particularly simple point and I would have thought that anybody could take it on board. Perhaps the mind that conceived these sorts of documents is incapable of taking it on board because when writing to a blind person they make no mention of an oral appeal. The section that deals with blind pensions says: "If you are not satisfied with this decision you may appeal in writing to the above address within 21 days", emphasising the very qualities and areas of expertise in which blind people experience difficulty. This insensitivity is most regrettable although I accept that it may well be just an oversight.
Subsequently my constituent provided further information, including a letter which I would like to read into the record because it is from a most distinguished Dublin ophthalmic surgeon. Am I allowed to name the doctor or is that inappropriate?
