Vol. 458 No. 2
15 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, he has to review the operation of the free travel pass scheme in view of the mobility of many pass holders to avail of public transport due to moveable services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16703/95]
145 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Social Welfare the considerations, if any, he has given to the extension of the free travel scheme; the considerations and options which have been costed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16891/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 145 together.
The free travel scheme operated by my Department is available to all people living in the State aged 66 years or over as well as certain incapacitated people in receipt of social welfare type payments. The scheme provides free travel at off peak periods for eligible people on the main public and private transport services. These include road, rail and ferry services provided by semi-State companies such as Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Eireann and Iarnród Éireann, as well as services provided by some 42 private transport operators. Currently, about 470,000 people qualify for free travel at an annual cost of about £31 million.
The main purpose of the free travel scheme is to encourage independence, mobility and social integration among elderly and incapacitated people. The scheme also provides a measure of financial support for both public and private transport services operating outside off peak periods and on marginally economic routes, particularly in the case of remote areas. In this way, the free travel scheme has played a part in ensuring the availability or the continuance of public transport services in parts of the country where they might not otherwise be viable on economic grounds. The provision of an adequate public transport service in remote areas not already covered does not come within the ambit of my Department's free travel scheme.
Having regard to its objectives, the scheme is subject to regular review and over the years its scope has been expanded both in relation to the number of routes covered and the concessions made available to certain categories of recipients.
There was a significant extension of the scheme earlier this year in relation to cross Border journeys, which has been a major success. Since last July, the free travel scheme covers cross-Border journeys undertaken by passholders from both sides of the Border.
The free travel companion pass introduced in 1990 has been another innovative improvement designed to enable free travel passholders to make use of public transport where otherwise they would be unable to do so by reason of being unable to travel alone. The companion pass enables a person 16 years of age or over to accompany the pass holder free of charge. The majority of companion passholders are either blind or mentally handicapped. Also the companion pass has been introduced this year for existing passholders being cared for by a recipient of the carer's allowance.
I have no plans at present to extend the scheme further.
I thank the Minister for highlighting improvements to the scheme, especially its extension to cover cross-Border journeys, an initiative of the Fianna Fáil's national women's committee in which I was involved. A proposal in that regard was put forward last September and I am pleased it, and others, were implemented. My question relates to the inaccessibility of the vehicles used for many people. The Minister stressed that the service costs £31 million, but it is sad that many of the 470,000 people who hold a free travel pass cannot gain access to the vehicles used in the service. Given that a large amount is expended on this scheme annually, what pressure can the Minister exert to ensure its participants can use the service and to ensure that CIE will provide buses that are accessible to participants? I am not referring only to people in wheelchairs, but to the elderly, those with temporary injuries and parents with buggies who find it difficult to board a bus. As £31 million is being spent on the scheme, the Minister has an active interest in ensuring that such money is spent correctly to benefit those at whom it is targeted. What can he do to ensure that? Can he go so far as to threaten to withdraw the subvention to CIE if it cannot ensure that people can use its buses?
The Deputy's last suggestion is not a wise one as it would have the effect of cancelling free travel for 470,000 people. I am as concerned as the Deputy regarding accessibility to transport and I will undertake to take the matter up with our public and private service providers who are on contract.
The Deputy's colleague, Minister Lowry, replied to me on ten occasions that he does not have a role in ensuring that the public transport carrier provides accessible transport. Therefore, responsibility for this matter falls on the Minister for Social Welfare who authorises expenditure for travel passes. If CIE does not provide accessible buses, the Minister might consider threatening to withhold a portion of the payment or might suggest that he will divert some of it to the "vantastic" transport scheme with which I am aware he is familiar as he met people involved in it earlier in the year. Buses are provided by the centre for independent living. The Minister might consider diverting the money to the "vantastic" bus service or withdrawing a proportion of the money if it is not being used to make the buses accessible. Many of the 470,000 people who have free travel passes are unable to use them because they cannot access the buses. It behoves CIE to ensure that the buses are accessible and it behoves the Minister as the person who pays for the service to ensure that the buses are accessible or to withdraw or divert a proportion to the "vantastic" service. Is the Minister prepared to consider that type of action and bring the matter to a head?
No, I have already indicated to the Deputy that I will not consider that kind of action. It would be counterproductive and might have the effect of destroying some small companies which operate, as I indicated in my earlier reply, in very remote areas and which depend on the money they receive from the Department of Social Welfare to provide free transport at offpeak periods. I have undertaken to contact the various transport companies with which we have contracts to ask them about their plans for accessibility. If the Deputy wishes to table another question at a later stage I will inform her of the outcome of that inquiry.
Will the Minister indicate how many people use the free passes travelling to and from the North?
It has been an extraordinarily successful scheme. I so not seem to have the figures on file but I will arrange to have them sent to the Deputy. My recollection from discussing the matter with CIE officials is that about 700 people per week used the Dublin-Belfast train during the summer. The number of people from the North travelling to the Republic was roughly the same. A considerable proportion were not simply travelling to Dublin but further afield.
16 Miss M. Wallace asked the Minister for Social Welfare the meetings, if any, he has held during the last month concerning his review of the disabled person's maintenance allowance; the current state of this review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16890/95]
22 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, he has to replace the disabled person's maintenance allowance for the mentally handicapped with right to unemployment assistance. [16634/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 22 together.
My Department is currently working towards taking over the administration of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme from the health boards and the legislative basis for this transfer will be contained in legislation to be introduced in this Dáil session.
In the context of preparations for this transfer, a meeting was held on 12 October with national organisations representing people with disabilities to hear their views on the scheme and to discuss any concerns regarding the transfer arrangements.
The organisation involved at that meeting were the Disability Federation of Ireland, the Federation of Voluntary Bodies Providing Services to People with Mental Handicap, the National Association for the Mentally Handicapped, the Mental Health Association and the Irish Wheelchair Association.
Meetings were previously held with the National Rehabilitation Board and with the COPE Foundation in Cork who provide training and care for over 1,500 mentally and physically handicapped people. These meetings have provided an important source of information and feedback to my Department to assist with the process of transfer and in considering the future development of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme.
My immediate priority is to effect a smooth transfer of the scheme as it stands and to ensure continued efficient delivery of service to clients. Once this transfer has been effected. I will examine all aspects of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme to see what changes are necessary or warranted. The position with mental handicap and how their particular needs in relation to income maintenance should be met will be addressed as part of this evaluation and review. In this regard I will also take account of any recommendations emerging from the work of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities.
I have been receiving promises from the Minister dating back to 23 March in regard to the review of the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme. As the Minister has met with the various organisations involved I hope the review is taking place. Will the Minister confirm that he is prepared to address the issue of a non-means tested allowance for people with disabilities? If a person with a disability takes up employment — 80 per cent of people with a disability are unemployed — they will lose their medical card and various other allowances because they have a certain income. People who suffer from disabilities have extra costs. We should move to a non-means tested allowance based on the extra costs of disability. Whether it is described as a disablement allowance or whatever it should be paid to those people. If they can get a job and overcome their disability we should not ignore the fact that they still have extra costs because of their disability. I would like to see us moving in this direction, especially as the review is taking place. Will the Minister confirm that he is prepared to take on board that issue?
The Deputy will probably be aware that the number of recipients of disabled person's maintenance allowance is around 31,000 at a cost in excess of £100 million. A non-means tested scheme would have enormous financial implications. A case has been made by a number of organisations representative of people with disabilities that an element of the payment should be linked to the costs related to the disability since the costs of living independently with a disability are higher than if one does not have that disability. That is one of the issues I will be addressing when we have the scheme in hand.
My primary concern is to transfer the scheme effectively and efficiently to the Department of Social Welfare, to ensure it is delivered in its present form as effectively as it can be and to consider what improvements need to be put in place. There are a number of differences in relation to means testing of disabled person's maintenance allowance which are different from the means test which normally applies in the case of unemployment assistance. Most people in receipt of disabled person's maintenance allowance are single and live with their parents. They would be at a financial disadvantage if we were to apply the normal Department of Social Welfare unemployment assistance means test to them because we take into account board and lodging whereas the disabled person's maintenance allowance scheme does not take that into account. There are other differences also. It is a complex area and one which I intend to seek to improve.
My primary concern is to have the scheme transferred to my Department. Bearing in mind that the scheme is currently administered by eight health boards all of which are different in various ways, including the way in which they maintain their records, there is a considerable task in bringing all those records together, having them on a single system and ensuring that the payments, once the scheme is taken over, issue on time to recipients. This is the primary objective and when it is in place I will be more than happy to discuss with Deputies and others how the scheme might be improved.
I hope the broad idea will be taken on board in the review because research around the world has shown it would save the Exchequer money. Perhaps the Department could take the point on board that the Exchequer would benefit if people with disabilities were encouraged to go out to work without losing their disability payments. I appreciate the £100 million costs involved, but this move would not cost money in the broader context. People should be encouraged to take up jobs which are available without losing their disability allowances.
The Minister mentioned comparisons with other schemes and I am concerned about an important anomaly in the disabled person's maintenance allowance, which perhaps could also be taken on board in the review. When the spouse of a disabled person's maintenance allowance recipient takes up employment, all the earnings are deducted from the allowance. It is different from schemes, such as unemployment assistance, where £65 a week is allowed before any deduction is made. Perhaps the Department could take this anomaly on board when attempting to address the position because it affects many people.
An important specific anomaly also arises in another area. Persons aged over 16 years who are in a special residential school or some form of residential accommodation do not receive disabled person's maintenance allowance even though they may live at home with their families for over 165 days a year on average. They should receive a pro rata disabled person's maintenance allowance payment and perhaps this anomaly could also be considered in the review.
There are many differences but I am not sure they are, strictly speaking, anomalies. There are differences in how disabled person's maintenance allowance is assessed and paid under the system, which has evolved to suit the particular needs of the category of people involved. The scheme was first introduced in 1954 by the then Minister for Health. It has, therefore, been in existence for more than 40 years and, in common with most schemes of this type, it has evolved and developed as needs changed.
The scheme was first introduced to pay maintenance allowances to disabled persons over 16 years of age who were unable to provide their own maintenance in the community and whose relatives were unable to maintain them. When it was introduced it was not intended to be payment on top of earnings, rather to assist people who were not in a position to earn an income. However, there is a provision in the scheme under which the disabled person's maintenance allowance can be converted into a DPRA, which is a rehabilitation allowance. The health board transfers the disabled person's maintenance allowance payment to the training organisation and it then pays the person in training an allowance. This is usually an enhanced allowance where the person receives more than they would if they were not training and in receipt of disabled person's maintenance allowance.
There is scope in the scheme as it stands for people to take up training and work. It is a matter of examining the position when the scheme is put in place and administered efficiently. We could then examine how the differences between social welfare schemes and the disabled person's maintenance allowance can be ironed out or whether they should be changed. It may be the differences in some cases should be maintained. However, I do not yet know the position, it must be examined.
