Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Jimmy Devins (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The main conditions for receipt of the respite care grant are that the person or persons in respect of whom the application is made must require full-time care and attention and that the applicant must be providing that care. 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 in connection with normal bodily functions or to avoid danger to themselves.

The person to whom the Deputy refers submitted an application for a respite care grant in respect of his mother and his brother. In respect of the applicant's brother, the deciding officer refused the application on the grounds that the care given is in the nature of help around the house and farm which does not constitute the care and attention envisaged by the legislation. In respect of the applicant's mother, the application was refused on the grounds that her condition is not such that she requires the level of care envisaged by the legislation. The deciding officer based this decision on the advice of a medical assessor who reviewed the medical evidence submitted by her general practitioner. Also, in respect of the applicant's mother, the deciding officer was not satisfied that the level of care being provided was consistent with that envisaged in the respite care grant legislation.

The decisions were appealed to the social welfare appeals office. The appeals officer examined all the evidence submitted, including that adduced at an oral hearing, and upheld the decision of the deciding officer. A decision by an appeals officer is final but can be revised if new evidence or facts or any relevant change of circumstances come to light after a decision is made. It is open to the person concerned to make an application for the 2008 respite care grant if he feels that he may qualify. The earliest date for receipt of any such application is 10 April 2008.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Things have changed in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It should be called the Department of social indifference.