Mr. Gary Lee:

We would question the Department of Health figures. Deputy Peter Mathews fairly well summed up the position we would take. If we are looking at a cost of €200 million over three years for the motorised transport grant, that is 65 million per annum, and 100 million per annum for the mobility allowance, it is interesting to note that the press releases mentioned the cost as €300 million, now they say one component of that costs €200 million over three years. Even taking €200 million for the motorised transport grant, that is €65 million per annum, in terms of the people in receipt of that grant, it would cater for 50 times the number of people who are currently in receipt of it.

The Secretary General specifically said there would be significant financial risks to the State. I do not think that enabling people with disabilities to participate in society should be considered in the same breath as a significant financial risk to the State. We often hear that language in terms of the banks and the amount of money that has been paid out in relation to that area. That sort of language is not acceptable when talking about the people with disabilities who are the recipients of this allowance and are the most vulnerable members of society.

This allowance was established, as the Secretary General said, by way of a Department circular in 1968. That circular was amended over the years. The 1992 Finance Act, which amended the 1989 Finance Act, enabled the then Minister in 1994 to set out the parameters in terms of medical criteria to qualify for a primary medical certificate. It is clear from the regulations that a very restrictive interpretation was taken of disability and they refer to severe impairment. Any person who has sought an assessment for the grant and the allowance will be aware of the strict criteria that apply. If one is not issued with a primary medical certificate in one's locality, one is entitled under the 1994 regulations to go to the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal in Dún Laoghaire. No matter where in the country one lives, one has to present there for appeal. That appeal is, effectively, another medical assessment, although in our view it should be wider than that. The regulations would seem to suggest that it could be wider than that. The appeals board, effectively, is a further medical assessment. I was there the other day when 27 appeals were being heard that day by one board comprised of three medical doctors. I was there with a gentleman from County Clare who lives ten miles from the nearest bus stop. He arrived at 12.20 p.m. and was seen by the board at 1 p.m. When we sought clarification as to the actual function of the board there appeared to be some confusion. In this day and age it is not acceptable that 27 cases are heard in when one day when two or three hours should be spent on a particular case. I will ask Mr. Michael McCabe if there are any further points he wishes me to make.