Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Dec 1984

Vol. 354 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Withdrawal of Disabled Person's Allowances.

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 From then on both his mobility and disabled person's maintenance allowances were withdrawn.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.

This question has been the subject of a Dáil Question by the Deputy and he has elaborated this evening on the background and the issue involved. The disabled person's maintenance allowance is governed by the DPMA regulations, 1984 and Article 4 of those regulations states very clearly that in assessing eligibility for the allowance the health boards shall have regard to the income of the person concerned and to the income of the spouse of that person. I signed the regulations in July 1984 and all my predecessors implemented and processed the same regulations. There has been no change in the regulations approved of and implemented by successive Ministers for Health.

The Deputy will appreciate that the health boards were obliged, once the information was given, to end paying the allowance. Once the health board became aware that the means of the spouse of the person in question exceeded the income guidelines laid down under the scheme they had to cease paying the allowance. In order to qualify for an allowance of that nature the basic personal income is £39 a week. If a single person has an income over £39 a week he does not qualify for disabled persons maintenance allowance. Likewise a person does not qualify for the mobility allowance of £300 a year. These allowances are means tested. There is an allowance for a spouse of £22.15 which means affectively that if the income of a couple is £61.15 gross per week they are eligible but if the couples' income exceeds that amount the person is not eligible for the DMPA or for the mobility allowance. In this instance I am not quite clear as to the exact income of the wife in question but her income has been stated by Deputy Tunney to be in the region of £90 a week gross and I noticed in a newspaper article in relation to the case that Margaret's wage is £85 a week.

The Minister knows she is a little girl working in a bakery and that she is not a professional worker.

I accept that it is in the region of £85 or £90 on the basis of the evidence heard. The Deputy will appreciate that with the limit for a husband and wife being £61.15, the applicant has quite clearly well in excess of the guidelines laid down. The Deputy will understand that in order for the regulations to be seen to be applied in an equitable manner the health board must apply the regulations in a standard way and they cannot make exceptions to the regulations.

Of course they can.

To do so would be in breach of the regulations. I do not know what other income the family would have. Presumably they have no other income. Deputy Tunney stated that the person was involved in an accident. I know that the newspaper referred to a car accident and Deputy Tunney stated that the person did not receive any compensation. I accept what the Deputy says and I will inquire as to why he did not receive compensation. The other inquiry I will make is in relation to the matter referred to by the Deputy, that the applicant concerned requires special food and special clothes. I can ask the health board to review his position to see what assistance might be required. There is, as the Deputy knows, the supplementary welfare scheme whereby a person who is in need can be aided. I do not know all the circumstances of this case as the matter has been raised so very recently in the Dáil and tonight by way of Private Notice Question. I do not know whether the couple are living at home. They may well be living with his parents.

It is a very good job that they are not paying a big rent, is it not?

That is a matter which the health board will take into account — I understand that they may not be — I am not quite sure of the extent of rent.

They are getting charity. They are not getting much from the State.

A couple living at home with their family and not having any rent to pay would have that taken into account by the health board in assessing any additional assistance which the family might need.

I would make the point to Deputy Tunney that, if there is exceptional difficulty facing this family in meeting their ordinary financial commitments, then I would approach the health board on their behalf requesting that their situation be reviewed. The regulations so stipulate, to use that rather official term. They have been in existence for quite a long time now. They are applied on that basis, whether in terms of the mobility allowance or the DPMA. I cannot make any statutory exceptions in that regard. I shall also check if the couple in question have a medical card.

He has a medical card.

If their income is £90 or £100 they may be over the income eligibility limit of £85 but that will be reviewed in January anyway. I will check but that is the position. At this stage I am afraid I am not in a position to add anything to what has already been stated on the question.

A Cheann Comhairle——

A question only, Deputy.

There are particular circumstances in this case. If the seventies were not socialist, why could the eighties not be? Would the Minister not have the right himself? I am surprised that the Minister would say that he feels hidebound by decisions of other Ministers.

I will not permit another speech.

Would the Minister not accept that in the case of a single man in a wheelchair who gets married to a girl who is working——

The Deputy is making another speech and that is not permissible.

——surely it is not intended that he be subjected to the exclusion.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 5 December 1984.

Barr
Roinn