Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope I will not repeat the issues my colleague has raised. There has been much coverage in the media about the decision to remove the mobility allowance and motorised transport grant in June this year, following the findings of the Ombudsman of inconsistency with the Equal Status Acts. However, in contrast to this it appears there has been very little coverage regarding the open consultation process which has been highlighted on the Department's website since 2 April to aid the process in replacing the former mobility allowance and motorised transport grant.

Any constituents who have contacted my office have outlined that they were not aware of the consultation process that was taking place. Had they been notified in advance, they would have completed the questionnaire. Many constituents have raised concerns over the limited timescale regarding the consultation process, the deadline of which happens to be today. The forms can only be accessed on the Department's website. While I am an advocate of IT and reducing paper trails, one may ask how many of these people have Internet access. Some Departments seem constantly to overlook the fact that not everybody is computer literate or has access to such facilities. It appears the form cannot be accessed by any other means.

I note on the website that the purpose of the consultation is to hear the views of the widest possible number of people who have an interest in this matter, and in particular those who are currently in receipt either of the mobility allowance or the motorised transport grant.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is over her time.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely those in receipt of the latter two items should have been prioritised by mail. Those are the people who ultimately need to be consulted. In order to have a fair and accurate consultation process, I will go further than my colleague and seek a two-week extension to the deadline so that the people who have contacted my office can at least have their say.

I also wish to draw the Minister of State's attention to section 3 which was questioned by the Ombudsman.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is a minute over her time now.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The language in section 3 certainly has to be re-examined. Asking people to rank disabilities in order of importance will get us into a lot of bother.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both Deputies for raising these important issues concerning the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant schemes. I apologise that the Minister is unable to attend the House, but I am taking this matter on his behalf.

I am pleased to outline to the House the Government's position on the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant schemes. The Government is conscious of the needs of people with a disability who rely on transport supports from the State.

Following detailed consideration arising from the position of the Ombudsman regarding the schemes' legality, the Government decided in February that they can no longer continue and that an alternative must be devised. The funding of €10.6 million remains committed to meeting the needs of relevant people. While the schemes are closed, mobility allowance payments to those who had been in receipt will continue until June as we devise alternative solutions. A tight timescale is involved.

An independently chaired review group is seeking solutions which will not run counter to the Equal Status Acts. The group includes a number of people with a disability and a number of disability sector organisations. The work of the project group includes a public consultation process, which has been available on the Department's website for the past three weeks. A number of focus group sessions will take place shortly. The HSE is to undertake a survey of a significant number of people who were benefiting under the schemes. The purpose of these consultations is to hear the views of the widest possible number of people, and specifically includes those who have been in receipt of payments to date.

The public consultation questionnaire attempts to elicit from individuals their views on issues such as the highest priority transport needs, who faces most difficulties in getting where they need to go, eligibility criteria, whether support should be in the form of access to transport services or individual payments and how often qualification should be reviewed.

The consultation questionnaire was developed in consultation with the review group. For questions which ask for a ranking, individuals may rank more than one option with the same score, if they wish. There is no intention to exclude or compare any particular disability and the review group is not approaching its task in that way.

The Department has received submissions, comments and observations from individuals and organisations by e-mail, in the post and online. The expressed views of many individuals and organisations have been shared with the members of the review group. The public consultation was advertised in national newspapers in advance. Offices of the Citizens Information Board will assist, if required.

The public consultation is part of the much wider deliberations of the group and will not be the only thing which will decide what solutions are recommended. Given the very tight timescale, it is not possible to extend the closing date. However, the Department will be flexible where submissions are received over the next few days. Results of the review will be presented to the Government before any decisions are made. At this stage, I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the review or any Government decision.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputies have one minute each to put supplementary questions.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has exceeded her time.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply but I am also somewhat disappointed. I do not doubt the Minister of State's bona fides but, having dealt with Departments in the past, I am not sure how they can be flexible on deadlines. The Minister of State could elaborate, perhaps by e-mail, on how that might take place.

I agree with my colleague on section 3. Unless something was lost in translation, I fail to see how anybody filling in the form would come to the conclusion that one can rank disabilities and give them the same score. One is asked to rank them in order of importance but I do not see how one can give the same score to different disabilities. I find it hard to believe how that kind of language could have got through a review group. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Conway, in that regard.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both Deputies for their supplementary questions. An independent review group was established and people with disabilities were represented on it. It also had organisations from the disability sector on it, which are still there.

As regards the public consultation, advertisements were placed in newspapers, as well as requests for information online. The HSE advertised the consultation process as well. There was a short time during which all that took place.

I note Deputy Conway's point that she was told an individual letter would be sent to persons with disabilities. I am not aware of that but I will certainly follow it up and will obtain a response for the Deputy.

Second, on the language used in the third question, I will see what I can get in respect of a response or reply to that. However, I understand the information that was considered in an individual capacity was not so much to rank matters in terms of what was a less or more serious disability but to decide what were the priorities to deal with the mobility issue and the transportation issue. This is what they were endeavouring to do. Finally, on the length of time, the Government seeks to receive a report next month and for the review group to have completed its deliberations by that time. While that is a tight timescale, as I indicated in my reply any submission that is received over the next few days or for the rest of the week via letter, e-mail or other mechanism will be considered. I am sure there is no problem about that. However, I also will seek to ascertain whether a further extension is possible. I understand one Deputy mentioned an extension of one week, while the other Deputy suggested two weeks. Perhaps a slightly extended compromise, between one and two weeks, might be achieved.