Ms Emily O'Reilly:

I thank the Deputy. I agree that sometimes strange outcomes can emerge when people are trying to be equal.

Regarding the mobility allowance, the issue was that people could not apply for it if they were over the age of 66 when they applied but if they applied for it under the age of 65 they could keep it. We had the anomalous situation where we might have had two 68 year olds with similar disabilities, backgrounds, conditions and so on but only one of whom had the allowance and the other had not. Obviously, that would be deemed to be unfair.

Regarding the direct provision, I wrote quite a lengthy article for Studies magazine during the summer, a copy of which is on my website, in which I explored the direct provision issue. This arose from a complaint I had handled in regard to a woman and her family who had been in direct provision but then one of her young children developed mental health problems. She left direct provision. Unusually, she was granted supplementary welfare allowance, SWA. Normally, people in direct provision get nothing; they are not entitled to anything. She was given that. She applied for it but did not get it. An appeals officer allowed it and that was then overturned. Was it overturned on appeal?