Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

While many of the sentiments expressed and assurances given by the Minister of State are positive, those who are affected by disability have reason to be somewhat sceptical about words of assurance. The programme for Government contains noble aspirations and states the Government will "ensure that services meet the needs of users", "facilitate people with disabilities in achieving a greater level of participation in employment, training and education" and "ensure that the quality of life of people with disabilities is enhanced and that resources allocated reach the people who need them". It is extremely difficult to square these positive aspirations and fine sentiments with the shocking decision, which was taken without consultation with those affected, to abolish the mobility allowance and motorised transport grant. Large numbers of extremely vulnerable people are living in a state of anxiety because they fear their quality of life and ability to participate fully in society will be dramatically damaged and downgraded at the end of June when the proposed cuts are implemented.

Representatives of the Centre for Independent Living appeared before the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions to express their views on the proposed abolition of the mobility allowance and motorised transport grant. They seek an assurance from the Government that individual direct payments will be maintained. No such assurance was forthcoming in this debate. When the Government indicates that alternatives will be put in place in the absence of providing an assurance that these alternatives will be direct, individual payments, people in receipt of these allowances are right to be worried. They want direct payments because they allow them to have a degree of freedom, autonomy and self-determination. It is only by continuing to provide the current supports and enhancing them, as promised in the programme for Government, rather than cutting or downgrading it, as people fear will be the case under the proposed alternative, that the Government can honour the commitments it made and the sentiments the Minister of State has just expressed. Will the Minister of State provide a firm assurance to those who receive the motorised transport grant and mobility allowance that their direct payments will be continued? Those are the words they want to hear. They do not want bus tickets nor do they wish to rely on public transport because they would not have the same level of individual freedom and autonomy as they enjoy with direct payments.

The Government states - wrongly in my opinion - that corporation tax is sacrosanct and we cannot touch the profits of multinational companies. Its position is topsy-turvy. Surely, when one is discussing budgets and resources, the sacrosanct items should be the supports and services provided to the most vulnerable, especially the disabled. Is that not where the Government's priorities should lie? Should it not decide that mobility allowance and motorised transport grants will not be touched regardless of what problems arise? Likewise, should it not state that personal assistants and home help hours to the disabled and vulnerable, funding to voluntary organisations that support the disabled and vulnerable and grants to older people to adapt their homes will not be touched? Those are the assurances the Government failed to provide. They are the items that should be sacrosanct but are not. Many have been cut or, in the case of personal assistants, the Government tried to cut them but was prevented from doing so because disabled people protested and forced it to back off.

Those are the assurances we want, to match the fine words and noble sentiments in the programme for Government. Let the Minister of State match words with deeds.

See this speech in context