Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Fáiltím roimh an díospóireacht seo, ach cuireann sé an-díomá orm nach bhfuil Aire nó Aire Stáit anseo ná aon oifigeach le bheith ag éisteacht leis an díospóireacht.

I do not see any reason we would not sit on a Thursday evening for debates like this but we should have the Minister or Ministers of State in the House to listen to the debate. Having said that, I must ask whether it would make any difference because myself and Senator O'Keeffe sat on the Joint Committee on Public Oversight and Petitions, where this issue was debated with officials from the Department of Health and the only term to describe the reception we got from those officials is belligerence. Indeed, that was echoed in statements by the Ombudsman in highlighting this issue. I totally agree with what Senator Van Turnhout has said regarding the figures. At the aforementioned committee meeting, we too questioned the figures being put forward by the Department. They simply do not add up and do not make any sense.

We must look at the broader agenda here. While we are dealing with two specific schemes, we are also dealing with a very serious challenge to the role of the Ombudsman, of the elected representatives and the various committees of these Houses, as well as to the role of the legal system itself. It is common knowledge that a case was pending in the Equality Tribunal and that was the reason for the haste in pulling the schemes. That haste must be put in the context of 12 or 13 years of inaction, where the Department and various Ministers stuck their heads in the sand. It is not that they did not know about the issue or about the fact that there might be a contingent liability or that people might take legal action. I would also contend that pulling the schemes does not, in fact, take away the danger of a contingent liability. Somebody who was denied his or her rights previously could still take a case on the grounds that he or she was discriminated against when the schemes were in operation. It is not at all clear that the Government has covered itself, legally, by pulling the schemes. It is absolutely disgraceful, in fact.

I had a certain amount of interaction with Sylda Langford when I was involved with Galway City and County Childcare Committee and I have great respect for her and believe she is an appropriate person to conduct the review. However, as others have said, this review should have been carried out before the schemes were pulled. Having said that, we are here today to look at potential solutions. We must look at what is at issue here. If one accepts that the schemes must be extended to those over 66, in order to make them legal, as pointed out by the Ombudsman, then more resources will be needed. If more resources are required then one must ask the simple question as to what this debate is really about. This debate must focus on people with disabilities and their rights. It must focus on their mobility and access rights. Do we, as citizens, accept that people with disabilities have the same right to mobility as everybody else in this State? If we do, then we must accept that the money to support that must be put in place.

We have had hours of debate on the Finance Bill in this House today. Issues like this are connected to that Bill because the budgets of Departments are limited by the Department of Finance. We were told at the Joint Committee on Public Oversight and Petitions that the Department simply does not have the money to extend the schemes. One can certainly question the validity of the figures put forward by the Department on the cost of extending the schemes because it is doubtful that it would cost anywhere near the amount projected. However, if we do agree that the schemes must be extended, then the only conclusion we can come to is that the Department of Health must be given a bigger budget for this specific area so that those who are eligible, according to the very narrow criteria laid down, will be provided with mobility assistance, regardless of their age. That will mean taking the money from somewhere else and that is the bottom line. These are the choices that the Government must consider.

To return to the issue of the bigger picture, it is ironic that this decision was taken within days of the Secretary General of the Department appearing, for the second time, before the Joint Committee on Public Oversight and Petitions. The Ombudsman had to fight tooth and nail for 12 years for recognition from the Department that she was right and it was wrong. The Department only acknowledged that at the last minute. The situation is akin to a group of children on a football pitch, where one child takes his ball home because the others are not playing by his rules. That is the image that came to mind when I heard the announcement on the schemes. Essentially, the Department said "To hell with the lot of you, if you want us to find a solution, we will find one but you will not like it" and they scrapped the schemes totally. That was totally out of order and represents a huge two-fingers to the Ombudsman for highlighting the issue. It is also a huge two-fingers to the Joint Committee on Public Oversight and Petitions, which questioned the Department on its decisions and the rationale for them. It is a two-fingers to all of us, as parliamentarians, is totally unacceptable and must be challenged.

While this debate is useful, a Minister or Minister of State with his or her officials should be present to answer our serious questions.

Providing mobility for the people in question will incur a cost. That money must be found somewhere. The Department of Health's budgetary scenarios must be examined. On the Order of Business, I outlined how certain sections in the HSE were not talking to one another, costing a fortune in the process. Someone in the HSE or the Department would, with a little bit of imagination and political will, find a solution. The issue is a budgetary one.