The matters which are the subject of this debate are related to the social welfare entitlements of an individual who was a self-employed taxi driver. As Senator Costello is aware, under social welfare legislation decisions in relation to claims or entitlements must be made by independently appointed deciding officers and appeals officers. The officers are statutorily appointed and as Minister I have no role in making such decisions. I cannot instruct my officials to make a payment to which there is no legal entitlement, just as I cannot direct them not to make a payment if one is due. I regret that the appellant has chosen to go on hunger strike. Many people, including the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, Deputy Eoin Ryan, many officials in my Department and the South Western Area Health Board and I have spent many hours trying to resolve this difficult matter.
The person concerned was a self-employed taxi driver for 20 years until 22 November 2000 when he suffered a stroke. He has not been employed since that date and the severity of his illness will probably prevent him from returning to work. Following a period of hospitalisation he applied for disability allowance, which is means tested, and invalidity pension from my Department. Under existing legislative provisions, he does not qualify for either of these long-term disability income support payments. As a protest against the decision not to give him a pension or allowance, he commenced a hunger strike in July 2001 which lasted over 30 days. Following a series of interventions which took place during the initial hunger strike and the payment of a once-off urgent needs payment by the South Western Area Health Board, he ended the strike on 17 August 2001. He has since recommenced the hunger strike, however.
Disability allowance is a weekly allowance paid to people with a specified disability. It is subject to a medical examination and a means test. An application for disability allowance was received on 16 March 2001 along with representations from the National Taxi Drivers' Union. The appellant satisfied the medical criteria. He did not satisfy the means test as his weekly means, based on his spouse's employment, far exceeded the statutory limit and his application was accordingly refused by a deciding officer on 28 April 2001. He was advised of the decision and the reasons for it, as well as his right of appeal within 21 days to the social welfare appeals office, which is independent of the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs and his Department. He appealed against the decision and forwarded supplementary medical information from a medical social worker in St. James's Hospital. A deciding officer considered the supplementary information but the decision was not changed. The man was advised of this on 2 July 2001 and his case was submitted to the social welfare appeals office for formal decision.
In order to qualify for invalidity pension, which the appellant also claimed, one must be permanently incapable of work and must have made at least 260 paid PRSI contributions at the appropriate rate, with 48 paid or credited similar contributions in the last complete tax year before claiming. An application for invalidity pension was submitted by the person involved on 19 May 2001 and it was decided on 25 June of that year that he was not entitled to such a pension as he did not satisfy the PRSI conditions. He was notified of this decision and the reasons for it as well as his right of appeal. He did not satisfy the conditions for eligibility to invalidity pension as he had no qualifying contributions in the governing contribution year from 6 April 2000 to 5 April 2001.
As he had not made the appropriate PRSI contributions, he does not currently qualify for an invalidity pension. He does not qualify for disability allowance as his household income is in excess of the statutory limit as a result of his spouse's earnings. It has been emphasised to him that if his wife was not working and cared for him full-time in the home, he would qualify for the means tested disability allowance and she would receive a carer's benefit. These facts were indicated to them many months ago. If she took time off from work to mind him in the home, she would qualify for the carer's allowance and the attendant free schemes. He does not qualify for disability allowance at present because of his spouse's income and that of other people in the household. Two once-off urgent needs payments were made to Mr. Flanagan over the period. This individual has paid only S contributions – self-employed contributions – in some of the intervening years since 1983. Such contributions are not reckonable for invalidity pension purposes. In other words, no self-employed person who pays a stamp is paying towards an invalidity pension.
Given the special circumstances of the case, arrangements were made for an appeals officer to hold an oral hearing of both appeals as a matter of urgency. The oral hearing was held on 1 August 2001. The appellant attended and was accompanied by his wife and son. The issues for decision were fully explained by the appeals officer and all present indicated that they understood them. Both appeals failed because in each case the statutory entitlement conditions – statutory means conditions in the case of disability allowance and statutory social insurance record requirements in the case of invalidity pension – were not fulfilled. The appeals officer made his decisions on 1 August 2001 and notifications issued on 2 August 2001.
If there is any change in this individual's circumstances the Department will immediately review the question of any entitlements which he may have. I repeat the guarantee from the Department that his wife would qualify for carer's allowance or carer's benefit and that he would qualify for disability allowance if his wife was not working.
As regards the broader issue of social insurance cover for the self-employed, any measure which was introduced could not be ring-fenced to only include taxi drivers, but would have to apply to all self-employed persons. When self-employed persons first became insured under the social insurance system in 1988, it was only with regard to old age and survivor's pensions. Their stamp contributions since then do not contain a contribution element in respect of disability/invalidity allowance as opposed to full rate contributions by way of an A stamp. In line with the recommendations of the National Pensions Board, they are not covered for other benefits under the system, including invalidity pension.
Any extension of invalidity pension or other benefits to self-employed contributors would have major financial implications and would require substantial changes in the general social insurance arrangements for the self-employed. The rate of PRSI payable by the self-employed would require further examination if additional social welfare entitlements were to be provided. If all self-employed persons were to qualify for short-term and long-term disability benefit and an invalidity pension, which is being requested in this case, the annual cost would be over €100 million. I have some sympathy with the view that self-employed persons should have some cover regarding disability and invalidity, but it is a matter of finding a mechanism and estimating the cost of meeting the bill. We estimate that the annual cost of allowing all self-employed persons to qualify for disability benefit and invalidity pension would be over €100 million.
Yesterday my officials and I met representatives of the National Taxi Drivers' Union to discuss the broader issue of providing invalidity pensions to self-employed people generally. I emphasise that this would not be a short-term solution and would need to be considered carefully. We agreed that further discussions would take place between my officials and the National Taxi Drivers' Union with a view to developing possible options in this regard. These options would have to be discussed with the social partners in the spirit of partnership.
I have every sympathy with the difficult circumstances faced by this gentleman and his family. I assure the House that every effort has been made to resolve this matter. The Taoiseach and I, and our officials, are available at any time to try to assist the situation. I appeal to the individual involved to reconsider his actions and, together with his family and friends, to end his hunger strike.
