Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to inform the House that I am not attempting to extend my remit into other constituencies. This issue was dealt with in the first instance by my colleague and party leader, Deputy Kenny. He adroitly and correctly referred to the appeals system, a hearing was held and the original decision upheld. However, it has come to my attention that the refusal to award a respite care grant was in respect of two people, not one. When I challenged the refusal, I was informed that it was the decision of the deciding officer that neither person qualified. I pursued the matter further to discover that one of the people was elderly, the mother of the carer. Given the decision, I assumed that she was in her 70s and did not require ongoing care and attention. However, I discovered that she was aged 82 years. It was concluded that she was ambulant and did not require care and attention as envisaged under the scope of the grant. I reject that opinion in its entirety. There is no 82 year old who does not require ongoing care and attention.

To make matters more complicated, I discovered when pursuing the case further that the person concerned was also caring for a brother. I assumed that the brother was in receipt of a disability allowance, was not severely affected and could get by on his own, but I was appalled to discover that he was a cancer patient who required ongoing care and attention. It transpires that he qualified on medical grounds, but the Department overlooked this fact for some unknown reason.

Where two people were receiving care and attention of the nature provided by the carer, thereby ensuring that the State need not incur an expenditure by way of providing institutional care at a time when hospitals and other institutions across the country are overcrowded, would it not be in everyone's interests, including the Exchequer's, to make a decision in favour of the claimant? For the life of me, I cannot understand how a decision could be made on medical or economic grounds to refuse a grant to someone claiming it on behalf of two persons. As the grant is envisaged, the legislation provides that a person is regarded as requiring full-time care and attention where they require continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day. That criterion applies in both cases.

The Minister of State opposite me will probably read a history lesson. With all due respect to Members — I listened to the plight of Deputy Barrett's case — we are wasting our time if we go down this road. An appalling decision was made in respect of someone caring for two people, a cancer patient and a person aged 82 years. I rest my case and I hope that the Minister of State will use his care and compassion as a medical practitioner to ensure the decision in question is overturned. I hope he will contact the office of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and tell it that there are no economic or other grounds for a decision of this nature to be repeated.

See this speech in context