Mr. Gary Lee:

When we suspended, a number of people in the Visitors Gallery made some points, one of which follows Mr. McCabe's comments. The grant enables people to choose when they want to go out but that choice is removed when one must book a van in advance. That van or minibus may collect a few others as well, so one may have to wait for a considerable period before getting to the destination.

Before the break I mentioned how the HSE, the Minister and Department may not have considered the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities before going ahead with their decision. We wonder what sort of thought went into it. There does not appear to be any proper cost projects to prove the affordability of problems with regard to the actions. They do not seem to have properly assessed the needs of those in receipt of the funding and the effects that the withdrawal will have on them. It might end up costing the State much more to do what is being proposed. Interestingly, the scheme was not encompassed in the value-for-money review of the disability services programme, and we are trying to tie this in with the national disability strategy.

With regard to what can be done to make this more efficient from an administration perspective, we are not just here to criticise and we can be consulted as well. Perhaps the mobility allowance could become part of the disability allowance, which is means-tested anyway. Did the Department explore that option? On the other side of the coin, people still in institutions may only have €20 or €30 left from the disability allowance once they have handed over moneys and the mobility allowance was really all they had to allow them out of institutions. That was their means of leaving institutional settings in many cases.

We have heard that the Department will write to people in receipt of the allowance to get their views on it. Engaging with people by letter could be difficult. In the past public health nurses could explain what was in the letter and provide assistance but we question this type of consultation. Is this going to be the only form of direct consultation with the recipients or will there be more meaningful consultation beyond writing a letter?

Ms Shelly Gaynor is in the Visitors Gallery and she made a valid point. She told me she paid for her car from the allowance, as she got a loan on the strength of the allowance and the motorised transport grant. It will be taken from her.

She will not be able to afford to keep her transport up and she is still going to have the debt. We spoke before about legitimate expectation. If one has something and one has acted on that, and in Shelley's case, she did, not only was the grant available to enable her to get out into the community but she also used the grant to enable her get finance to assist her in adapting her vehicle. There are other legal questions that arise. There are complex legal questions on this side as well as the other side and the issue may not be as cut and dry as the Government thinks.

A person in receipt of disability allowance receives about €10,000 per annum. The mobility allowance would top that amount up to €12,500. Therefore, €2,500 of €12,500 is 20%. Many people have just been told they will incur a 20% reduction in their income; on any level that is unfair. It seems to me with the personal assistant services, the motorised transport grant and the mobility allowance scheme being targeted that everything is up for grabs. The Government could well look at other areas such as the housing adaptation grant.