The next item on the agenda is statements on the mobility allowance. I understand that because this matter was raised by Senator Marie Moloney, Fine Gael has conceded that she should be allowed to speak first.
Mobility Allowance: Statements
I thank the Leader for facilitating this debate. I would have preferred to have it when the Minister was here. I did call for the debate two weeks ago but unfortunately it was not put on the schedule. As time is passing while the working group is meeting, it is important to debate the issue here. I would have preferred to have a Minister present but I am quite prepared to go ahead with the debate without a Minister. However, I ask that the transcripts of today's debate be sent to the working group for its consideration, if that is in order.
The mobility allowance issue has been flagged for the past 12 years and the Ombudsman ruled that it was illegal. In recent years, it has been brought to the attention of various Departments but nothing was done. Suddenly, we have now been told that the allowance is finishing in four months.
I appreciate that the working group has been established under the stewardship of Ms Sylda Langford who is a very able person. I know she will do the best she can. A lot of disability groups' representatives, including a person with a disability, are working with her. That is fantastic because at least the needs of people with disabilities will be discussed in full.
The mobility allowance should be retained as an individualised payment to people with disabilities. I am speaking specifically about those who are confined to a wheelchair. The Ombudsman has said that the mobility allowance should be available to people with all types of disability, including psychological, intellectual, mental and physical.
The working group should consider ideas and proposals concerning the relatively small number of people involved. We are talking about almost 5,000 people who are in receipt of this allowance. It is costing approximately €10 million per year, which is a relatively small amount. If we were to go down the road suggested by the Ombudsman and open the allowance to everybody with a disability we could be talking about a figure of between €200 million to €300 million per year. Such an outlay would not be sustainable due to funding restraints.
As there are many experts and legal advisers in the working group, surely with all that expertise it can come up with a method to retain an individualised payment to people who are confined to wheelchairs. There has been much talk about access to transport for people with disabilities, which is fantastic. That is the way to go, but right now an undue hardship is being imposed on approximately 5,000 people. Life is hard enough for people who are wheelchair bound. They must face challenges every day which we cannot comprehend. One would have to be confined to a wheelchair to know what life is like for them. Such people may be able to walk a few steps but they cannot live without their wheelchair. I am referring to those suffering from muscular dystrophy and other complaints. In order to live life to the full they do need a wheelchair; therefore, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they can live independently and without unnecessary challenges.
The Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, have assured us that funding will continue for four months for recipients of the mobility allowance while a new scheme is being devised. I appreciate that all applications received for the motorised transport grant will be processed but I am worried that the introduction of accessible transport will deflect from individualised payments.
I know the problems that people living in rural areas can encounter. I can cite a few examples where accessible public transport will not work. I know of a young girl who has a severe disability. She cannot walk or talk and can only communicate with her eyes. Her parents bought a bus that has been adapted to suit their daughter's needs. They paid for that vehicle with the mobility allowance. That young girl had to go to Limerick from Kerry five times in one month for a fitting for a specialised wheelchair. Who would be able to transport that girl if that family did not have the specially adapted bus? Would transport be available, with a driver, to take her and her parents to Limerick when necessary?
Another case concerns a man in his 20s who is intellectually outstanding, but requires a motorised wheelchair. He goes out at night with his friends to the pictures or for a drink. With the end of the mobility allowance, who will be there at 1.30 a.m. to take this young man home? As his friends cannot take him out because their cars are not adapted for motorised wheelchairs, he is dependent on specialised transport. He will have to pay for a taxi to get home.
I could cite other examples. I know one woman with a disability who uses the motorised transport grant to drive. She takes her children to school in the morning, picks them up and takes them to after-school activities. She needs individual transport and cannot book a van or bus to take the children to football or swimming.
The individual payment must be retained for people with disabilities, especially in rural areas where accessible transport is not available. I will be making my own submission to the working group because I am unable to say everything I want to here in five minutes. I hope that other speakers will also have constructive ideas that we can present to the working group.
I welcome any opportunity to talk about an important issue and I thank Senator Moloney for raising the matter, but I do feel this is somewhat farcical.
I remember on one occasion that it happened when we were on the Government benches, too. This is basically a slap back to Senator Moloney for speaking against the Government and asking to debate a particular issue. Here we are with no Minister, principal officer or Secretary General to listen to what is said. I intend to participate in the debate in the spirit in which Senator Moloney has raised it and I hope the transcripts can be given to the working group. We had a robust exchange here on the Order of Business the morning it happened. It was unruly, I participated in that myself and do not apologise for it. Equally, however, this issue goes back a while and more than one Government could be blamed for not dealing with the issue.
However, the Government cannot take refuge from the previous one on this matter. Blocking this allowance unilaterally without having an alternative in place was wrong. It is my earnest wish that within the four month review period those in receipt of the allowance will continue to receive the same monetary benefit while new applicants are facilitated immediately. We are talking about people who are on only €190 per week. It is a means-tested payment which is made to 4,700 people with disabilities. This is also the week in which we heard about a bank executive earning €840,000.
When I was on the other side of the House, I recall sitting all night to put in place new legislation for this and that. However, when it comes to the most vulnerable in society, we seem to be powerless to produce a principal officer to listen to the genuine solutions being presented on a cross-party basis. Mr. John Dolan of the Disability Federation was not even consulted about the removal of this grant. Has he even been asked what he considers is the best way forward? For me, there is a legislative solution to the problem posed with this allowance. I agree that it would be difficult to adequately pin down how many disabilities should be eligible to be covered by the allowance, but we must try. In doing so, we could bring it into line with the Equal Status Act. I am not saying the drafting of these legislative provisions will be easy, but it should be tried.
Nobody has an issue with the spirit with which the Government is trying to deal with the loaves and the fishes. The reality is that there are choices, but sometimes bad ones are made. This was one of them. Yes, there is a legal anomaly that has to be dealt with, but, surely, it could have been dealt with without taking away the allowance first. We could have continued to be in breach of European law, as we regularly did in the case of septic tanks and turf-cutting, for another four months while we put together a legislative solution. If eligibility for the allowance needs to be broadened, perhaps that should be the case and we need to provide more funds. I doubt if anyone would have an issue with adding a little levy or a duty on alcohol to provide for this allowance which ensures the mobility of the most vulnerable and the less well-off. Those in receipt of it were on €190 a week. When the allowance was removed, it represented an effective 20% cut to their income. This is at a time when all Members are bemoaning the fact that an additional 13% was given by way of a salary bonus and increases to the chief executive of a bank in which we are meant to be shareholders.
There is something wrong with the system. I thank Senator Marie Moloney for giving us this opportunity to debate the matter. This to me, however, is the epitome of why some want to abolish the Seanad.
I thank Senator Marie Moloney for raising this issue and the Leader for allowing a debate on it. It is an important issue that has to be dealt with. As many in receipt of the allowance are concerned, it is important that its future be clarified at an early date.
There seems to be a tendency in some Departments to hope that when certain issues are raised, they will go away. I have referred on several occasions to the way the Department of Health dealt with the nursing home charges for over 25 years before the issue suddenly came to a head. The same seems to have happened in the case of this allowance. We need to have more openness in Departments when such issues are raised to ensure they are reviewed quickly, rather than being put on the backburner. The Ombudsman stepped in on the issue of payment of this allowance when previously people would have had to go to the courts to establish their entitlements. Nowadays, they have access to information at an earlier stage. Departments need to respond to such issues at an earlier date.
We need to examine how other EU member states deal with this type of allowance. I have just attended a conference on ICT tools in health care and how far behind Ireland is when compared to Denmark and other EU member states. The use of ICT tools also makes health services in these member states more efficient, too. Ireland needs to respond to this change.
We must also ensure those in receipt of this benefit will not be disadvantaged by changes to it. My problem is that a decision was taken on it and that it seems to be written in stone, whereas I believe there should be far more consultation during the review. The Oireachtas committee on health should review the allowance and the circumstances surrounding it.
This is an important issue which we must review and on which we must make a decision. However, the decision should not be made until all those involved and those in receipt of the allowance have been consulted. This is the opening debate on the matter and it should not be the last. The issue should be raised in the House again, once we have some idea from the Department and Ministers of how they propose to deal with it.
I again thank Senator Marie Moloney for raising this matter and the Leader for allowing time to debate it. Once the review group makes its report, its decision cannot be written in stone.
I, too, thank Senator Marie Moloney for initiating this debate and the Leader for allowing time for it. However, I note the fact that no Minister or official has attended the House for the debate, which is very disappointing. I am happy that the working group on the mobility allowance will be meeting shortly. Under the chairmanship of Ms Sylda Langford, I have no doubt that it will take into account what we have to say. As I had the pleasure of working a lot with Ms Langford in her role when director general of the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, I have faith in her.
The two relevant schemes in question are the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant schemes. Up to 4,700 people with disabilities receive the mobility allowance, while 300 are in receipt of the motorised transport grant. The schemes were closed on 26 February and a new legally compliant scheme will be devised in the next three months. The €10.6 million allocated for the schemes has been ring-fenced for the new alternatives.
The mobility allowance is a means-tested, monthly payment made by the Health Service Executive. At the highest rate, it comes to €208.50 per month; at the lowest, it comes to €104.25. The allowance is for people with severe physical disabilities who are unable to walk or use public transport and would benefit from a change in surroundings. It is to meet transport costs which are currently unvouched and the occasional taxi journey. The Department of Health anticipated that revising the scheme to bring it into compliance, that is, to remove the upper age limit would translate into a cost of €100 million per annum for the mobility allowance and €200 million over a three year period for the motorised transport grant, not to mention the large administrative costs to, and burden on, the HSE.
These estimations are outlandish. The eligibility criteria are very strict. How many disabled people over the age of 66 are unable to walk, even with the use of artificial limbs or any other suitable aids or whose health is such that the exertion required to walk would be dangerous? That is not to mention the other requirements for qualification. I did a calculation on the estimation from the Department. It is based on the expectation that there would be an extra 39,968 applicants if the upper age limit was removed. Can we just note that in 2012, 43 people over the age of 66 applied and were rejected, which is nothing near the 39,968 figure? I seriously question the figures provided.
As I have said, the eligibility criteria are very strict and I wish to put those criteria on the record. An applicant must be unable to walk, even with the use of artificial limbs or any other suitable aids; his or her health must be such that the exertion required to walk would be dangerous; the inability to walk must be likely to last for at least a year; he or she must not be medically forbidden to move; he or she must be in a position to benefit from a change in surroundings; he or she must be living at home or in a long-term institution; and he or she must pass a means test. The decision on whether an applicant meets the medical criteria is made by the HSE's senior medical officer in the relevant area. In that context, one must question the figures from the Department of Health.
The estimate for the motorised transport grant is €200 million over three years. The Department of Health estimates that 19,000 older people over 66 would apply for that grant if the age limit was removed. This grant is aimed at assisting people in accessing employment, so how did the Department arrive at that figure? Perhaps the Department knows something I do not know.
There are many outstanding questions and so much insecurity and uncertainty for those who are in receipt of the allowance or grant, who have been told that their payments will cease on 26 June. What if the alternative scheme is not ready to be rolled out by then? In devising the alternative scheme, will the Department consult the disability sector and the recipients of the allowance or grant to ensure personal choice and autonomy, in terms of the applicable transport service, is preserved? We talk about personal budgets, money following the patient, maximising independence and so forth but I am concerned that the new scheme will, in effect, remove or diminish personal choice. What is safe and appropriate for one person is not safe and appropriate for all. A community transport service is not safe and appropriate for a person with severe autism, for example. Furthermore, community transport schemes are not always the most cost effective choice. Two of the providers in Dublin, for example, Vantastic on the northside and ACTS servicing the southside, charge a higher price and mileage rate, equivalent to a private taxi, and only operate between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., with a limited number of choices. Senator Moloney has already referred to the challenges in rural areas for community transport schemes.
Will the working group examine the possibility of adding a mobility component to the disability allowance and the supplementary welfare allowance? Given the means test associated with these benefits, I suggest such a move would keep the expenditure within budget. I have serious doubts about the figures given by the Department of Health and seek clarity on them. I also want to know why the decision to scrap the schemes happened overnight. Anybody who has attended a management or leadership training course will know that one does not raise a problem if one does not have a solution. A solution should have been devised because the problem did not arise overnight. We have known for a long time that the schemes were problematic. It is unacceptable. This is a spreadsheet decision when really, it should be about people.
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 Senator O'Keeffe and I sat on the Joint Committee on Public Service 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. 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 Service 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 Service 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 it 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 Service 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 imagination and political will, find a solution. The issue is a budgetary one.
I compliment Senator Moloney on her raising of this issue. I agree it is a pity that a Minister or at least a civil servant is not present to listen to our points. Like Senator Burke, I hope that this is the start of the debate and that it will not conclude without further input from the House. I agree with Senator van Turnhout's questioning of a number of the HSE's figures. It makes no sense that 19,000 people over 66 years of age have applied for motorised transport grants to return to work. We cannot even find work for people under 66 years of age. These schemes are designed for disabled people who are unable to use public transport. In many cases, public transport is not a viable alternative for them. In County Roscommon, 60 people avail of these schemes - 45 receive a mobility allowance and 15 receive the motorised transport grant. Pro rata, the figures in County Leitrim might be a little less. County Roscommon has the highest mileage of rural secondary roads in the country. While canvassing in my constituency, I drove down a two-mile byroad that only had one house, which was at the very end. If that person needed a mobility allowance or motorised transport grant, it would be laughable if she was told that the system was being changed and a service was being put in place instead. It will not work in rural Ireland. If the Department believes there is a way of getting around this problem, that is fine. There might be a way to tweak it for urban Ireland to provide a service. There was a big kerfuffle over rural transport, never mind transport that is intended to reduce rural isolation and get people out of their homes. We cannot provide enough transport for rural Ireland. The schemes' ethos is to get people in rural Ireland out of their homes, but the only way to do so is to provide them with the necessary money. It is a matter of connectivity with the rest of the world.
As a community welfare officer, I dealt with the two schemes in question. In the majority of cases, they are used to allow people to return to work. A friend of mine must travel 43 miles to work every day. No public transport system could be put in place that would be any cheaper than giving him a motorised transport grant every two or three years to trade in his car. I have seen the schemes' effectiveness. No working group, regardless of its cleverness, will devise a better system than the one that is already in place.
It is unfair of Senators to say that it is regrettable that the Minister and officials are not present for this debate, as they were not invited. We facilitated a request made on the Order of Business for a debate without a Minister's presence.
With due respect, they were asked to attend two weeks ago.
The Leader to continue, without interruption, please.
At a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, outlined the dilemma facing the Department of Health with regard to these schemes. The Ombudsman found that neither scheme was compliant with the Equal Status Acts, but an extension of either scheme as recommended by her would create serious financial pressure on the health budget and would be unsustainable. The current budget is €10.6 million, but the cost of an extension of the mobility allowance could be as much as €100 million per annum, while the extension of the motorised transport grant would cost €200 million over a three-year period. The Government has decided that the Department of Health can no longer operate the scheme in circumstances in which the significant increase in funding necessary to broaden the eligibility criteria is unavailable. Therefore, the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, has established a project group to review and examine the issues and to recommend an appropriate solution within three months. The group is independently chaired and met for the first time on Thursday, 21 February. The Minister and the Minister of State attended to outline the complexities of the issues. The group includes representatives of people with disabilities and others who can assist in designing a solution. Who better to have on the group? Broader consultation will be undertaken as part of the project group's work in order to ensure that as wide a range of opinions as possible are taken into account.
In seeking a solution that will address the transport and mobility needs of those who require supports, the Minister of State is concerned about the group of people who are benefiting under the schemes. Importantly, she must give equal consideration to the broader group of needs that the Ombudsman has recommended should be looked after on an equitable basis. The challenge is to find a solution that will best meet these needs within the available budget. The Department of Health has also met a number of representative organisations of people with disabilities and asked for their input into a solution that can be delivered on target. I am glad we have held this debate and I am sure we will debate the matter further at the joint committee.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute. I thank Senator Moloney for raising this issue. I seconded her request on the morning in question. Regardless of whether a Minister is present, I am delighted that this debate is being held. It is important that our voices be heard and transcribed.
I echo the sentiments that have been expressed. The bottom line is that everyone is concerned by the sudden announcement about the removal of the mobility allowance in three months' time. We must ensure that something is in place before the allowance is pulled. I have received several communications from constituents who are not affected by the mobility allowance and are confused by what is happening. Others are petrified for their mental and physical health. They are genuinely concerned that if the allowance is withdrawn, they will become prisoners in their own homes. Senators Moloney and Kelly referred to rural Ireland.
This will pose a problem in rural parts of my constituency. It will also pose a problem in urban areas. I have spoken to representatives from the Irish Wheelchair Association about the proposals. A problem arises where a person takes ill suddenly and requires transport to a hospital, because in such a situation advance transport cannot be booked. We need to know exactly what will be put in place. It is envisaged that a person will have to book a van in advance, but people cannot always know what will happen to them two or three weeks in advance. I recently spoke to an American person who told me that while this system is in place in America, one of its biggest problems is trying to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles quickly.
I welcome the working group. It is vital that it includes people with disabilities, who can be the voice of those directly affected. I agree with Senator ColmBurke on the need for consultation. It is important that we have an opportunity to debate the findings of the working group in the House. Also, it is important, if this service is introduced, that sick people being taken to hospital do not have to travel with people who are well and being taken elsewhere, as they could end up being in a vehicle for a couple of hours, which would not do them any good.
Senator Ó Clochartaigh spoke about the rights of the disabled and what constitutes a disability. Perhaps the working group could examine this issue and, following publication of its report, we, along with the Minister, could also examine the definition. Mention was made of people over 66. Senator van Turnhout asked how many of those people were likely to apply for this service. If, as suggested by the Ombudsman, this service will be open to any person with a disability, be it mental or physical, then we need clarification on what constitutes a disability.
Rural Ireland is not just two words. It is a real place where 40% of the Irish population live. We are increasingly hearing the expression "rural Ireland" in the context of a place where all problems occur. We all know people who are having difficulty accessing their homes in their own cars because of poor roads and infrastructure. People living in rural Ireland are suffering to a far greater extent as a result of any changes to these grants. Rural Ireland is not a magical place on a map; it is where 40% of the population of Ireland live.
I do not know Ms Langford, although people have spoken highly of her. I have every faith in the review group and the work it will do. However, my concern is that the pressure upon it, in terms of its being asked to devise in four months a system for something which the Department of Health has stated over and again is an extremely complex situation, is too great. The review group should be given an assurance that it is not under such pressure, that no payment will be ceased after four months and that everything will remain the same until it reports with its suggestions. The people concerned and the review group will then at least know that they are being treated fairly.
We have spoken many times in the House about community-based transport schemes. In regard to the new proposals for funding, there is concern among the people who have worked hard to establish really good transport groups that they will come under pressure, under the new funding system for county councils, to withdraw their services. I urge the independent review group to reiterate the importance of community-based transport schemes and to ensure that funding for them is retained. I do not know what will ultimately be the new structure but any changes that occur at county council level should not diminish this service at a time when the mobility allowance is being reduced.
I am grateful to have this opportunity to have my voice heard. I have no doubt that the independent review group will be listening to what we have to say here. It would be foolish not to, because we will be asking whether it listened to what we said. I respectfully disagree with Senator MacSharry, who used the words "slap back" in regard to Senator Moloney's stepping out of line. I believe that is a mark of disrespect to the Leader.
Senator Moloney does not agree.
As I recall, Senator Moloney stated on the Order of Business that even if there is no Minister available we should have the debate.
I asked for this debate with a Minister two weeks ago.
Yes. I do not see this event today as a slap back to Senator Moloney for asking for that debate, which I think is what Senator MacSharry was suggesting.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions I am concerned at the approach being taken by the Department of Health as set out in the presentations to that committee by the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly. The Ombudsman expressed concern about illegal practices by that Department in terms of its having already paid out €500 million for the illegal charging of medical card holders for long-stay care provided by health boards, which dates back to 2004. She also pointed out that currently, with regard to the Who Cares? report, a further 300 people are taking cases against the Department of Health, resulting in a potential expenditure of millions in settlement of those cases. I understand approximately 30 of those cases have already been settled. The point I am making is that the Department of Health has already paid out millions of euro owing to illegal practices by it. We had chapter and verse on that issue at the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions.
I would welcome a change of heart by the Department of Health such that it would not be paying out money in legal compensation but would be using taxpayers' money to provide the services required by the thousands of people with various disabilities, thus ensuring they do not remain prisoners in their homes. I am slightly confounded by the figures offered by Senator van Turnhout. I have received an estimate from the Department of Health, which I would like to put on the record as it does not square with that given by Senator van Turnhout. The national disability survey states that more than 59,000 people over the age of 65 either had difficulty walking for 15 minutes or could not do so at all. It further states that although the means test could result in a reduction in the number of people over 65 years of age who are eligible for the allowance, should the definition of disability be expanded to include people with a disability other than a mobility difficulty then the number of eligible people could increase further. It is therefore estimated that the additional cost could be in excess of €100 million per annum.
I was referring to the current eligibility criteria.
Like Senator Ó Clochartaigh, I have concerns about the Department of Health's calculation. It may have given the absolute worst case scenario, which people are paid to do. However, in reality the additional cost will not be anywhere near €100 million. That statistic is, I suppose, being used as a tactic in the war over whether we should be abolishing those particular schemes. The Ombudsman was almost being blamed for abolition of these schemes despite the fact that all she was doing was pointing out that what the Department of Health was doing, in terms of choosing which law it would obey, was illegal. The Ombudsman has, as the old expression goes, done the State some service. I would like to see a change of heart in the Department of Health such that it stops using taxpayers' money to settle legal cases and instead spends it where it is most needed.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 March 2013.