Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming into the House to take this Topical Issue matter. I understand the procedure in respect of the application for a primary medical certificate, the appeal system and the possibility of a further appeal to the Office of the Ombudsman. I have no problem with this procedure and I know that each board do their assessments and appeals according to the rules and guidelines as laid out. The problem is that the guidelines are too severe and they act as a deterrent to applicants who are seeking to develop their independence to the point where they can move out of the family home, to a rural setting or even further afield, by being able to purchase a properly designed car that suits their needs.

The rules state an applicant must be completely or almost completely without the use of both legs, or completely without the use of one of his or her legs and almost completely without the use of the other leg to the extent that he or she is severely restricted as regards movement in his or her legs, or without both hands or both arms, or without one or both legs, or completely or almost completely without the use of both hands or arms and completely or almost completely without the use of one leg, or have the medical condition of dwarfism and serious difficulties of movement of the legs. A case in point that has further raised my concern is that of a constituent who very sadly had a bad stroke at the very early age of eight years. This caused great concern for his family and despite a huge commitment that saw the family travel to the UK, the US and other countries, their son never regained the use of his arm and hand. Thus from eight years of age, he had to learn to write, eat and dress himself and so forth without that arm and hand. While he sought to move on in life - he has been very successful in this regard through the use of computers and so forth - he cannot get any assistance under this scheme. He underwent the assessment and the appeal was unsuccessful. The next step was the Ombudsman. I informed the family that it would be a fruitless exercise. I said this with the best of intentions and it was not a slight on the office. However, I believe that because the applicant was assessed rightly on both occasions, the office would not and could not change the decision.

Can the guidelines be re-investigated to determine if they are still fit for their purpose? Do the number of refusals far outweigh the number of acceptances for applications for the certificate? Does this raise enough concerns to ensure a review of the system? During the years I have been in this House, the successful percentage has been very small and probably less than 5%. This is a very high refusal rate. I ask that a review be undertaken. If the regulations and guidelines stand up to scrutiny that would be acceptable. At least applicants will know that the guidelines had been reviewed and updated. If it is the case that the guidelines stand up to scrutiny, people will accept that. At the moment it is a frustrating and very difficult time for those who make the application in good faith. They go to the investigation stage and are turned down. When they appeal, in most instances they also fail because they do not qualify under the very difficult and strict guidelines which apply.

However, in almost every case that has come to my attention the feedback suggests the appeals board simply recommends that the person in question go to a local Deputy, Senator or other public representative to see whether something can be done about the guidelines. In the light of this I call on the Minister to see whether the guidelines could be reviewed with a view to ensuring people like the person in question will have an opportunity to move on in life.

See this speech in context