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

I have a vested interest in this because my nephew has cerebral palsy. He is also a close friend of mine and a delightful chap. I can praise the Centre for Independent Living because I know of the sterling work done at the centre in Sligo. It makes a huge difference to the lives of people.

With regard to the mobility allowance scheme and the motorised transport grant, I picked up on two matters during the earlier session with Dr. McLoughlin. He seems to understand the impact the suspension of these schemes will have on the people who need them, but the Department seems to be blinded by either legal or economic considerations. Can we not do the right thing if the legal or economic situations do not allow us to do so?

It troubles me that such stress was laid on the fact that these schemes are administrative, in other words they are not statutory schemes. I would argue, and the Centre for Independent Living should argue, that schemes such as the mobility allowance scheme and the motorised transport grant should be a right and not a concession. This is what administrative schemes means, that they are concessions and do not fit into the general income maintenance and welfare part of the State. They are concessions, which means they can be taken back without having to change the law. The witnesses must be very vigilant about this. It is one of the reasons I asked Dr. McLoughlin for a comprehensive list of all of the so-called administrative schemes. I am concerned other such schemes exist.

This decision is unfair and unjustifiable. If the witnesses and the committee can make people understand what this is about there would be very strong public backing for the restoration of these schemes. This must be done. I am not convinced the proposal to incorporate the mobility allowance scheme and motorised transport grant as part of the disability allowance would, of itself, solve the problem. There would be some reduction in administrative overhead processing but it certainly would not be of the order of the money the Government claims is needed to apply the scheme more widely. The Centre for Independent Living should be involved in the working group, which should examine the specific mobility needs of people of a certain age. This can be done without breaching any legislation.

I was at a presentation by the Department of Social Protection last week where someone stated the Department has more than 70 different schemes. I have no doubt if they were to be rationalised and streamlined every person depending on the Department of Social Protection could get a far bigger check at a far lower cost to the Exchequer but nobody has taken up this proposition.

It will be a battle to restore the scheme and grant and make no mistake about it. The Government is blinded by the economy at present. The Centre for Independent Living has offered to be part of the review body. I agree with my colleague that we should recommend to the Government that the witnesses form part of the review body, and I ask them to contact us about any help we can be.