asked the Minister for Health whether a patient who has been incapacitated by tuberculosis and has subsequently responded to treatment, but who is still handicapped as a direct result of his infection, as in chest cases with bronchitis with or without bronchiectasis, cor pulmonale, etc., and consequently is deemed unfit for work, qualifies for a continuance of the tuberculosis domiciliary allowance.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tuberculosis Domiciliary Allowance.
18.
I presume the Deputy's question relates to the cash allowance payable under the Infectious Diseases (Maintenance) Regulations, 1952, by health authorities to persons suffering or suspected to be suffering from certain specified infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, who would otherwise be unable to maintain themselves and their dependents, if any, while undergoing treatment. Section 44 of the Health Act, 1947, under which these regulations were made, empowers a health authority to pay the allowance only during the period when the beneficiary is undergoing treatment for a specified infectious disease to the satisfaction of the chief medical officer of the health authority. Payment of the allowance ceases when the beneficiary is no longer regarded as being under treatment for active infectious disease and after a reasonable period of convalescence has been allowed by the chief medical officer.
The purpose of an infectious diseases maintenance allowance is to assist financially a person in necessitous circumstances, while he is undergoing treatment for an infectious disease. As I have explained, however, the allowance is not payable indefinitely but if such a person on reaching the stage when he is no longer eligible, on medical grounds, for an infectious diseases maintenance allowance, is so handicapped as a result of his infection as to be unable to maintain himself, he may qualify for an allowance under the Disabled Persons (Maintenance Allowances) Regulations, 1954.
Under the latter regulations a maintenance allowance, at a rate not exceeding £1 per week, may be paid to chronically disabled persons over 16 years of age who are unable to provide for their own maintenance and whose near relatives are unable to provide maintenance for them.
Could the Minister give a definition of "near relatives", or is there any such definition?
Yes. A spouse, a son or daughter, perhaps a stepdaughter.
It does not go beyond the immediate family?
It is in the Act. If the Deputy looks it up, he will find it all there.
Am I to assume that the grant of £1 per week to the spouse and the children is considered sufficient? That is all that can be expected under the Act?
It is not a bad idea to have other people contribute that £1 per week. It comes out of other people's pockets, as the Deputy knows.
So does the £4,500,000.