Tony Mulcahy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome both the Minister, Deputy Reilly, and the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch.

I am not in favour of global schemes in any shape or form because, in my experience, firing money at a problem has not resolved the problem for the individual. When one considers that to avail of these schemes one must have the disability and then undergo a means test, that is restrictive. I think the officials have overestimated the numbers. If one considers that few people over 66 years are working, the number who are trying to get transport to work is not that large. May I request that committee members receive information on the level of means necessary to qualify for the grant in the first place and the description of a severe disability? I understand the spirit of both schemes. My daughter has a travel pass and avails of care-accessible transport. That is quite sufficient for her needs and she does not need a mobility allowance or any other allowance. I agree with Deputy Harrington that it is critical that the advocacy and disability groups are consulted as to what is best. I think we must drill down to find what is best for each individual client. A global scheme does not work. I could give the names, although I will not do so publicly, of 20 different friends of my daughter each and every one of whom has a different transport need. If we are to put a scheme in place, I think we need to get down to considering individual need. As a partial solution, we could certainly extend the car renewal period from three years to five years. I would have no difficulty with that given the quality of the cars available. I know that only a small amount of money is at stake, but it is a step in the right direction. However, we will have to put more money into the scheme to make it work for those with a disability.

I know for a fact that those who shouted loudest in the past got the benefit of these schemes. Perhaps it is time to review the recipients of all schemes, in particular in the intellectual disability area. What I would like to see is the development of a person-centred scheme. The Secretary General rightly pointed out that the information on different schemes in the community should be disseminated. Things have changed dramatically since the introduction of the schemes and now young adults with an intellectual and physical disability are availing of the scheme. I know of up to 23 young adults coming out of Shannon every morning on those schemes. Should any one of them have a mobility allowance? Absolutely not. Should any one of them have a motorised transport allowance? Absolutely not. These young lads are mobile; they may well have an intellectual or physical disability, but they are well and able to travel with their colleagues on the buses. If we were more person-centred in seeking solutions, we could resolve the problem. I do not think the current allocation is sufficient but we certainly do not need hundreds of millions extra to come up with a solution. We need to be more innovative. We could further support the rural transport schemes. It is a no-brainer to extend the period of car renewal.