John O'Mahony (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Durkan. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise the case of one of my constituents. My constituent was refused the respite care grant for the 2006-07 period, despite the existence of incontrovertible medical evidence from two family doctors. This case was previously raised by Deputies Kenny and Durkan.

The constituent to whom I refer cares for his 83-year-old mother, who requires full-time care, and his brother, who is a cancer patient. As my constituent provides constant care to his mother and brother, he is unable to take up employment. I am familiar with this case and I have good reason to believe that the evidence provided by my constituent at the oral hearing relating to the case did not represent an accurate account of the level of care he provides to his family. The man in question was extremely nervous and did not relate the real story. He appealed the decision to refuse the respite care grant but this appeal was rejected.

My constituent is under considerable stress as a result of being obliged to care for his mother and brother, while being unable to earn a full-time living from work. He has been on medication due to this difficult situation and the level of stress that results from it. Two family doctors have volunteered to provide oral medical evidence to illustrate the true nature of his situation and his commitment to his mother and his brother. By caring for his mother and his brother in this manner, my constituent is saving the State a great deal of money. It is mean and penny-pinching that he should be denied the respite care grant.

I earnestly urge the Minister to have this case re-examined and referred for a further oral hearing in order that justice might be done in this most deserving case. I would appreciate if the necessary arrangements could be made for the oral hearing to be held.

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

I thank Deputy O'Mahony for sharing time. I am glad to be able to support his call in respect of this matter, which I raised on the Adjournment some time ago. I compliment the Minister on coming before the House to reply to this matter. That is a dying practice among her colleagues nowadays.

As a caring person, the Minister will be more aware than others of what is involved where a person is obliged to care for his 83-year-old mother and another relative who is suffering from cancer. I would not have found it extraordinary if there had been a disqualification in respect of one of the patients in this case. It is amazing, however, that both patients were disqualified, one on the grounds of not being in need of care — even though she is 83 years of age — and the other on the grounds that the carer was not entirely occupied. The fact is that the carer could not leave the family home. He was obliged to spend all of his time there caring for his mother and brother. If the man in question were working outside the home — which he could do — the carees would have to be placed in institutional care, which would result in a cost on the State.

I urge the Minister to order a further oral hearing to ensure that the case is fully and properly heard. My comments are not a reflection on those responsible for hearing the case on the previous occasion. Rather they are designed to give the appellant an opportunity to state the case again, notwithstanding the fact that the decisions have already been made.

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank both Deputies for raising this issue. Eligibility for respite care grant was originally confined to people in receipt of certain primary social welfare payments, who received it automatically. Such people continue to do so.

In the 2005 budget, eligibility for the respite care grant was extended to include all carers irrespective of means or contribution record but subject to certain statutory conditions. The main conditions for receipt of 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 such care and attention. 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 Deputies refer submitted an application for a respite care grant on 25 July 2007 in respect of his mother and brother. With regard to the applicant's brother, the deciding officer refused the application as the application form indicated that the care being given was in the nature of help around the house and farm, which does not constitute the kind of care and attention envisaged by the legislation.

With regard to 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 the Department's medical assessors, who reviewed all the medical evidence submitted by her general practitioner. Also, with regard to the applicant's mother, the deciding officer was not satisfied that the level of care he was providing was consistent with that envisaged in the respite care grant legislation.

The above decisions were appealed to the social welfare appeals office. The appeals officer, who is independent in coming to a decision, examined all the evidence submitted, including that produced at an oral hearing, and upheld the decision of the deciding officer. The decision of the appeals officer is final and conclusive under the legislation and may only be altered in the light of new facts or fresh evidence not already presented.

As we are now into the new year of 2008, the respite care grant scheme runs into this year. Deputy O'Mahony stated the applicant had not given the full picture on the original application. I suggest the applicant should make a new application under the 2008 respite care grant scheme for this year.

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

Will it be applied retrospectively?