Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

While I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue, it gives me no pleasure to do so. It is an instance of the abuse of the social welfare system to implement a contorted view of an immigration policy. I have supplied the details of the family in question to the Department. The circumstances are as follows. They are a Romanian family with two teenage children, aged 16 and 14. The mother was heavily pregnant when she first came to me and she had a difficult obstetric history. The family was in direct provision accommodation in Galway city. They had supplied information to the Department, the Western Health Board and other bodies. For example, on 16 January 2004, their doctor provided details of a miscarriage the woman had suffered on 8 February 2002 which suggested she had been exposed to chickenpox. This information was submitted to the relevant authorities.

The family left direct provision and went into private accommodation. Since then, they have not received assistance by way of rent allowance, food allowance or otherwise. They sell flowers to live, making approximately €120 per week. They are allocated a €25 food voucher from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, have borrowed €6,000 from friends and have sold personal items, including jewellery. When they came to me, they were worried about the 16 year old girl in particular. A social worker who was familiar with the case had drawn my attention to the fact that she was interested in discontinuing school to be of assistance to the family, as was her younger brother of 14.

The family recently received a letter which suggested that in accordance with supplementary welfare allowance procedures, verified evidence of unemployment, such as a P45 or a letter from an employer, and verified evidence of means in the period prior to their claim would be required to make a determination on the claim. The letter suggested that if they were dissatisfied with the decision, they should appeal. I understand that their appeal has been turned down. Further correspondence to the family suggested that they apply to the refugee integration agency for direct provision accommodation despite the mother having a proven obstetric history of three miscarriages — despite this history, I am happy to record that her baby Patrick was born safely on 17 March last.

As I wish to be fair and I note that the Western Health Board is the only health board acting in this manner. I exhausted all the board's procedures by way of advice to the family in regard to appeals. The family have been awaiting a decision since 27 March 2002 on humanitarian grounds. While I accept that many cases must be processed, it is extraordinary that they are not entitled to the normal benefits during this period. I am shocked that the practice of assistance through a health board or the Department of Social and Family Affairs would be used as an instrument to force people into direct provision accommodation. It is particularly shocking in this case as the family left direct provision accommodation because the woman had a miscarriage in 2002 and had been exposed to chickenpox, as attested by the notes of doctors O'Beirne and Whyte dated 14 January 2004.What would any of us do in such circumstances?

In the most recent correspondence I have read, it is suggested that if the family survived for so long without visible means, they must have had means from somewhere. When I last spoke to a family spokesperson, it was suggested that they are perfectly willing to supply the names of the relatives and members of the community from whom they have borrowed money — I have permission to state the amount, which is €6,000. It is extraordinary that this can go on. They have received nothing from the State by way of sustenance since last November. From my checks at the regional hospital and the testimony of the woman, I found that she is a diabetic who administers insulin to herself four times a day.

It has been suggested that the family go back into direct provision accommodation or get nothing, a suggestion made by the health board and the social welfare system, which should have no role in implementing this kind of treatment for a family who are at considerable risk.

See this speech in context