Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. McLoughlin and his officials for appearing before the joint committee. While I did not participate in the discussions during previous meetings, it is clear that many issues arise. I am conscious that this issue predates the current Administration and that we are working in extraordinarily tight economic times. It could be argued, however, that the Department of Health has been careless because other issues have arisen with regard to nursing home subventions and long-stay charges for medical card holders. Now we have the decision to abolish the mobility allowance scheme and motorised transport grants.

I am concerned at the thought processes in evidence in some of the decisions that have been made. At our previous meeting, the Minister indicated that once it became apparent that the schemes had become a problem on the basis that it was illegal not to extend them, it was considered that they no longer accorded with the Government's mainstreaming policy on disability. What better example of mainstreaming can one find that providing financial assistance or grant payments to allow people with a disability to adapt a vehicle or pay for taxi or other form of transport in order that they can travel, pay visits and so forth? This is essentially the definition of mainstreaming.

I am concerned by the emphasis officials and the Minister have placed on what have been described as "administrative" schemes. Dr. McLoughlin stated the "motorised transport grant and mobility allowance were established on an administrative basis, in good faith and with the best intentions, in 1968 and 1979, respectively". It is almost as if an apology is being made for doing so. What is the difference between a scheme that is introduced on an administrative basis and other types of schemes? How many services are provided through schemes that are administrative in nature?

I am concerned that other bodies and individuals will be deterred from seeking the assistance of the Ombudsman if a Department refuses access to a scheme. If such a decision is considered unfair or illegal and the Ombudsman agrees with that view, will the Government's response always be to withdraw the service in question on the basis that it cannot afford to extend it to those who should be afforded access to it?

I ask the Secretary General, in consulting organisations in the disability sector and individuals with disabilities who depend on these services, to bear in mind the likelihood that the individuals in question will be in receipt of a range of other services that have been savagely cut in the past two years and that their income will, in many cases, have been reduced in the past two years. Every cut that has been made, whether to administrative or statutory services - if that is the distinction that is being drawn - has a dramatic impact on the quality of people's lives. If we cannot protect the quality of life for people with disabilities, none of us should be here.