James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to appear before them and to answer their questions in regard to the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant. I propose to make some opening remarks on the complex issues which the Ombudsman previously highlighted to the committee and the considerable efforts being made to address these issues. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, who has responsibility for disability, mental health and older people will talk in more detail about the schemes, their history and how they operate. She will also outline for the committee the significant cost implications which have been identified so that members can understand in more detail the considerable challenge facing us in addressing this matter.

The motorised transport grant and mobility allowance were established in good faith and with the best of intentions in 1968 and 1979, respectively, to meet mobility and transport needs of a particular group of people with severe physical difficulties. The transport and mobility needs of these individuals were not adequately catered for at that time. Were we to try to meet the mobility and transport needs of people with physical, sensory, intellectual and mental health disabilities today, it is extremely unlikely that we would establish schemes of this type. This is especially important in terms of the general policy of mainstreaming of services for people with disabilities. Clearly, these schemes in their present form do not comply with that policy.

The recommendations of the Ombudsman in regard to how these schemes have been operated are clear and neither I nor my Department has disputed the position she has taken. The Department has previously acknowledged the inequalities in the schemes as they currently operate. However, the direct costs in terms of expanding the eligibility criteria for the schemes as they now operate are completely unaffordable for the State.

In seeking a solution which will address the transport and mobility needs of all those who require supports, we are mindful of the group of people who are currently benefitting under the schemes but, importantly, we must equally consider the broader group whose needs the Ombudsman has found must be looked after on an equitable basis. We have no dispute with the Ombudsman in that regard.

However, it is imperative that all members understand the financial implications. Funding for both these schemes, as they operate currently, is €10.6 million per annum in total. Any solution to this issue must be delivered within that resource capped budget. Widening the eligibility criteria, as required, will mean that many multiples of additional claimants will have to be paid out of that allocation of €10.6 million. Based on the Department's best estimate using data from the census and the disability databases, this would mean reducing both the allowance and the grant to a level which would severely limit the benefits to all recipients. This does not even factor in the increased administrative cost. Were we to increase the budget for the schemes, this additional funding would have to be taken from front-line services for disabilities, mental health and older people and I do not consider that option to be either practical or fair when one considers the sums involved into which I will go in a minute.

I am continuing to consider the recommendations of the Ombudsman in regard to both schemes very carefully. It must be acknowledged that an extension of either scheme, as recommended by the Ombudsman, without a dramatic reduction in the monthly payment or grant, would create serious financial pressure on the health budget in the current climate and would be unsustainable. The estimates we have are €200 million over three years for the motorised grant and €100 million per annum for the mobility allowance. That would mean a €500 million additional spend over three years. That would be much greater than the current home help-home care packages' budget, and when one considers the size of the fair deal budget, that would be more than 50% of it.

However, I am happy to discuss the matter with the committee and, in particular, I would be most interested to hear any ideas the members may wish to propose as to how the matter may be addressed in the best interests of all, within the severe financial constraints imposed on us. Following our discussion today, which I sincerely hope will be productive and positive in terms of proposing solutions to this matter, I will take further advice with a view to making proposals as to the future of both schemes following further discussion with my Cabinet colleagues and ministerial colleagues but not before a full dialogue with service users who must be to the fore of our concerns.

In short, the difficulty we face is to meet the needs of those with disabilities whose very independence is dependent on these grants. To put this in context, this could mean the difference between being able to get into one's own car and going where one wants to go when one wants to go, something we all value, and having to call and wait on someone else, no matter how kind, obliging and efficient the person. We must look after the needs of the people who need this grant yet stay within the law and have an affordable scheme. I will hand over to the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch.