Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

During the debate I have heard comments that this side of the House is not practical with regard to ringfencing or protecting certain areas. It is the responsibility of the Government, particularly during times such as those we are in at present, that certain areas are ringfenced such as DEIS schools, education and disability services. These are services for the most vulnerable in the community who need support. The mobility allowance has been targeted as part of the continued diversion of State money into the bank bailout. This is what lies behind the Government's decision to cut the mobility allowance to approximately 4,700 people and the cut to the motorised transport grant for approximately 300 people at an annual cost of €10.6 million rather than extending these benefits to those aged over 65.

When the Ombudsman referred to the Equal Status Act, I do not think she meant its remit should be cut or finished. She wanted to see it extended to the over-65s and said that any reference to 65 years should be taken out of the legislation in order to allow it to be extended.

On 27 February, the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, said that extending the scheme to the over 65s would cost between €170 million and €300 million, but those figures sound as if they have been made up. How could a scheme costing €10.6 million per year for approximately 3.1 million people aged between 14 and 65 cost €170 million for those over 65, which is a cohort of approximately 550,000? It does not make sense. How could a mobility allowance and a motorised transport grant for the older group, which is about one sixth the size of the 14 to 65 age group, cost 16 times more for those over 65? That does not make sense either.

On what basis is that figure calculated? Is it an annual cost for those over 65? Does it include everybody with any kind of disability or those with mobility difficulties? If we extrapolate it from the number of people under 66 currently in receipt of a mobility allowance and motorised transport grant, approximately 900 people over 66 would be entitled to these benefits on that basis, thus costing around €1.9 million annually.

If we say that the rate of older people needing help with travel costs is twice the rate for the younger age group, the annual cost would be approximately €4 million. If the rate for the older group was five times that of the younger group, the cost would still be less than €10 million a year. How therefore can the Minister of State and the Government say that the cost of extending the existing benefits to people over 65 will be an extra €170 million to €300 million? It does not make sense.

The reality is that the Government's prime concern is the cost of these benefits. This is explicit in a statement from Dr. McLoughlin and the Minister of State which said that the commitments to provide services are now secondary to the bank bailout. The commitments in the programme for Government are meaningless. Fine Gael and Labour declared that they would put in place a plan for implementing a national disability strategy but after two years in Government there is no sign of any plan other than cuts.

Three weeks after the abolition of the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant, the Disability Federation of Ireland's representatives say there has been no contact with them on this issue. There are no indications of alternative benefits from the Government or how they intend to provide benefits to those over 65 who need them.

The Government's strategy is supposed to include people with disabilities in mainstream social life, including employment. People with disabilities have extra costs associated with travel and the mobility allowance recognised that. These benefits helped people with disabilities to avail of transport networks and thus have access to the wider community. It is no good having disabled-access train carriages if people cannot get to and from the station. Cutting the mobility allowance or restricting access to these benefits will reduce the incomes of people who are already being squeezed. People on about €10,000 per year will have the extra €2,500 to help pay for travel costs taken away if these benefits are not restored.

Yet there was no problem in ensuring that AIB and the Bank of Ireland got almost €25 billion stop them from going bankrupt. They are now hounding people for unaffordable mortgages, while the chief executive of the Bank of Ireland, Mr. Richie Boucher, gets over €830,000 per year. The likes of Bertie Ahern gets a pension of over €150,000 along with the other 30 ex-ministers who will receive pensions of well over €100,000 each this year. There is never a problem in ensuring that the highly paid and wealthy are paid out of the State coffers, but when it comes to those in need there is a question.

I wish to make a particular point about the sensitive personal medical approach that is supposed to be pursued in future. I have already raised the case of a person with disabilities who is in a Storm-chair, but the HSE bureaucracy is unbelievable. He got his chair and all the adjustments but he cannot get the HSE to provide lights for it. He works, travels and goes out at night, moving around quite well in the community but due to the lack of required criteria, the HSE will not put lights on his chair. He cannot put the lights on himself because he is not allowed to tamper with a HSE chair. That is the madness we are in at the moment. It is crazy but there are alternatives.

Two weeks ago, the top 300 wealthiest people in this country improved their wealth, on the back of austerity, by €3.6 billion. They are now worth €66.6 billion while ordinary people are being threatened with cuts like this. If we put a 10% tax on the top 300 people's wealth we would get €6.6 billion into the State coffers to be able to protect people with disabilities. Those are the alternatives we should be looking at because €6.6 billion is just couch money for these people.

See this speech in context