I would not be honest if I were not to accept that the raising of a matter on the Adjournment, especially at 10.30 in the evening, is not an attractive proposition for anyone in the House but I am hoping that when the House has heard my submission it will appreciate that it is never too late to do what is correct. I appreciate that the Minister has seen fit to be present and I trust that when he has heard the facts in this case he will use his powers to direct that the mistake or the omission that led to the insensitive decision in the case in question will be put right.
I refer to the case of a young man in my constituency, Terry Boland, who has been confined to a wheelchair for the past nine years as the result of an accident in respect of which he did not receive any compensation. Within the terms of our social welfare regulations, regulations which indicate a sensitivity in respect of such persons, Terry was in receipt of a mobility allowance of £25 per month and of a disabled person's maintenance allowance of £40 per week. Dublin Corporation were considerate towards him. They provided an extension at his home which made life easier for him. Fortunately for this young man he has many friends in the area. One of these, a young lady, used to visit him and as often happens in these cases, they fell in love and married on 18 August last. Naturally, Terry and his wife, Margaret, were overjoyed. After they had been married for two weeks they had a visitor from the health board services and Terry inquired of this official as to whether he would be entitled to increased allowances to help him in his new responsibility. His young wife is an employee of a local bakery and she is required to begin her day at 6 p.m. so as to be able to report to the bakery at 7 a.m. where she works hard until 3.30 in the afternoon. Her gross pay is £90 per week.
At the end of September Terry had another visit from an official of the health board. I do not know whether it was the person who had visited him on the first occasion but this official informed Terry that because of his changed status and because of his wife working he would not be entitled to any allowance. From then on both his mobility and disabled person's maintenance allowances were withdrawn.
An added burden for this young couple, thought I accept this is not the responsibility of the Minister, was the fact that the wife spent many weeks endeavouring to have the Revenue Commissioners make the appropriate adjustments in her income tax liability so as to make some allowance in respect of her new husband.
Having served both as a young civil servant and as a junior Minister I am familiar with the way in which the parliamentary question process operates. The question is sent down along the line but unfortunately it happens invariably that the special merits of a case are not taken into consideration. The reply I got to my question was that, because of a means test applying in respect of the two allowances Terry Boland was in receipt of, he no longer qualified for them. That was an easy answer but it gives no indication of the caring society we claim to be. I am not levelling any accusation at the Minister in this regard but he, too, is part of this society. I do not believe that the decision in this case and the circumstances were made known to the Minister. However, I wonder what his reaction would be if the person concerned were his brother, his sister or even his son or daughter. We are talking about real people, people who are not very concerned about the outcome of our deliberations on wine lakes or any of the other matters that are been given high priority.
When we think of the numbers of people who avoid complying with the various regulations in respect of social welfare, we can have some idea of how upset Terry Boland and his wife are as a result of what happened to them by reason of their complying with the regulations and disclosing that they had married. If they had not made that disclosure, Terry could have continued to draw both allowances. That situation might have continued indefinitely. But we are talking about two decent and honest young people.
One can only ponder as to what the psychological reaction of Terry and his wife is to this decision. Each time Terry wishes to go anywhere he must engage a taxi. Nobody here would begrudge this young man a telephone or a television but all these amenities have to be paid for. In addition, Terry must have special clothing and special food but here we are with a massive budget for social welfare and unable to allow Terry to continue to draw his allowance of £46 per week. His wife is not very robust. One would not expect her to be since she must start work so early in the day and work hard to earn money to feed and keep her husband. What happens if tomorrow she feels indisposed, and normally she should be able to treat herself to a few days at home? Suppose she is in need of medical attention, she knows now that in the new position she would get from the bakery £6 per week and she would get from the State after a fortnight's wait, the approprivate welfare benefits. Meanwhile, what happens to Terry? Nobody here would suggest that, out of the paltry salary his wife gets and with all the demands on it, she should have any nest egg for the rainy day.
On occasions such as this I am entitled to speak for 20 minutes but I have said enough to make known to the Minister the facts of this case. This is not an imaginary case. At this hour the gallery is inevitably weak and there will not be much publicity but I could not care less if as a result of the opportunity afforded to me to bring this to the Minister's attention I have encouraged him to take an interest in this case and to direct tomorrow that out of the funds available to the Eastern Health Board they renew forthwith the payment of those two allowances to Terry Boland. If not, the cynicism and occasional depression I have arising from what I see about me will have been deepended.