Paul Murphy condemns budget cuts to disability supports

The budget reneged on a key commitment in the programme for government, to introduce a permanent annual cost of disability support payment and then to incrementally increase it. We know that it costs a lot of money to be disabled in this country. The Department of Finance a few years ago estimated it at around €10,000, it has gone up substantially since then. Last year's €400 lump sum disability payment was a drop in the ocean, but far from increasing it, as promised, you abolished it completely. You slashed other payments that disabled people rely on, like the living alone allowance lump sum and the electricity credit. Even taking into account small increases to disability allowance, you still took well over €1,000 out of the pockets of disabled people. It is shocking, in one of the richest countries in the world, with a budget surplus, with a cost of living crisis ongoing, you made disabled people poorer. Not just in real inflationary terms, even in nominal terms, you made them poorer, it took over €1,000 from them. Will you recognise this as a major mistake? Will you bring back an emergency lump sum cost of living payment for disabled people before Christmas? I will find out what I can as quickly as I can, but I am not unconscious of those. Deputy Dempsey raised the issue in terms of transition from child services to adult services, and there was an absence of early planning for that, and also made a comment that the parents were told that there would be therapies would not be available in transition, that is not acceptable, and respite should not be withdrawn. In the disability unit that I have established, a key work stream will be planning and designing for the future. There should be proper data, and there should be proper early analysis of expected need for services from primary to post-primary, from post-primary to adult, or indeed continuing education or other aspects. And that is where I want to get to, and that is where we want to get to as a government, because there is no doubt, and Deputy Ardain has raised this as well, as have others. The insecurity is shocking, it is very sad, that so many parents, and I have met them, have no certainty. Deputy Daley said it was a cliff edge, and it is, for many. And if you talk to some of the providers, and Section 38s and 39s, they are all dealing with emergency cases. That is not satisfactory, so we have got to get a more planned approach to this transition. I think there are also issues in terms of the interaction between the Section 38s, 39s, government, and government services, and how that works, and many of those are under pressure as well. I have to acknowledge, but equally, we have got to work out the models and so forth. There should be proper databases outlining, you know, how many people are in a given service at a given time, and what will the requirements be at a later date, and that issue of creating a secure transition, and that older parents, in particular senior citizens know, have a certain sense of security, and knowledge well in advance, that their children will be looked after in case anything happens in terms of themselves, and that is a very understandable human concern, which has not been met at the moment, but which needs to be met, and very determined that we would put services in place to enable that to happen. There is a fear, as Deputy Arda has said, there, and you called for a national plan for this, and that is something I think that is, that I am going to work on, and that people would have that security, and I think all the deputies in that regard have raised that issue. We should be looking at a seamless transition, ideally, that is what we should be looking at. There is a link to housing as well in that respect, and different solutions at different times in the journey of life that people can move to better accommodation, more suitable accommodation, and we should have greater flexibility around that provision. There can be too many silos between different government departments, but we are working on that, and that is what the Cabinet Subcommittee is for to do, a cross-government, whole-of-government approach. In terms of the income and the cost of disability, Deputy Daly and others again raised that. Again, first of all, the cost of disability will be looked at in the next budget, and there is a working group established in relation to that, but also the relationship between work and disability payment. There are some supports there for transitioning, if you like, from disability, from the social protection system into work, in terms of medical care and those, but I think that can be strengthened, and that those moving into work can be given greater certainty, more long-term certainty that they will retain their benefits, or whatever entitlements they have as they go into work. There has been improvements on the employer grant and so on like that, that has improved, but there is further work to be done in terms of giving greater security around that transition, and encouraging people to go into work without fear of losing what their health entitlements or the various other entitlements that they have. We dealt with earlier in terms of the leaders' questions in respect of Harvey, Sean Morrison, and I would say to the Deputy that the Minister is right this afternoon meeting with the Peridance. The Minister did look for a chronology from the HSE. The Minister has that. The Minister shared that with the family. Sorry, the CEO of the HSE shared that with the family. It's a draft because the family, the HSE wanted the family's input into that. The protected disclosure I dealt with earlier at leaders' questions, the Minister did not see that, and all protected disclosures don't go to the Ministers per se. The Minister has an obligation to establish a system by which it goes to the protected disclosure commissioner, and that that Commissioner has the specific protected disclosure and is not going to deal with that. But without question, there was a meeting on, between the Minister, Taunashta, and the parents of Harvey, with a view to an inquiry, the precise format to be determined. Deputy Coppager had a similar question in relation to this, and it is a fundamental question as to why Harvey was taken off a waiting list. There are clinical decisions clearly involved here that have to be examined and will be examined. And likewise, there are other broader investigations and examinations of issues pertaining to CHI, as you know. Some of them have come in, some haven't. But overall, again, terms of reference have to be specific here, and we have to make sure that we don't have, we can have statutory inquiries that can go on too long and don't give closure to families. So I think there is a bit of work to be done yet, and the Minister is meeting with the family in that regard. In terms of the Deputy Murphy raised the issue of, again, the cost of disability programme, I've dealt with that earlier insofar as the next budget will be dealing with that. The once-off payments were two years. What we were determined to do in this budget was to increase the permanent payments within the social protection system, which we did, for example, and enhance them as well. And also in terms of the carers alone's threshold and income disregard to increase that. And we will eliminate that over the lifetime of this government. We increased the domiciliary care alone significantly. Now in terms of the, and then in terms of education, there's now about 46,500 teachers and SNAs working in our education system committed to supporting and nurturing children with special education needs. So there's huge numbers of special needs assistants have been appointed over the last number of years. There's about 400 new special classes in the budget of 2025. About 2,700 new places for the 25-26 school year. Some of those school places have not yet been under construction and been put in place. There's a number of specifics that have been asked. I checked those up with the Minister. I'm not in a position to have knowledge of every single application from individual schools in respect of autism classes and so forth. But I will follow those up with the Minister. And I presume the deputies are also engaging with the departments in respect of that. The assessment of needs, the Cabinet Subcommittee on Disability did approve outline proposals for a change in legislation, which will have to happen, and to prioritise the provision of services, therapy services to children has been the number one priority in terms of the legislative objective of that. AIMS is a critical intervention for early years in terms of disability. In terms of Deputy McGuinness's question, I would make that point. And that has been enhanced and improved, and will be improved as a result of the recent budget. Again, Deputy Craig raised the issue that Deputy Arda and Deputy Dempsey raised in terms of insecurity and worry. And for ageing parents of children with disabilities, I'm very conscious of that. And we will work to see if we can improve upon that. Deputy Conway and Raj, I have dealt with that question. Deputy O'Callaghan, again, I will check in terms of the School of Belle Doyle. I don't have awareness of that. Deputy O'Callaghan, again, I don't have the specific issue, but I think it's an income threshold issue, in terms of people marrying. And I will have that. I will have that examined. I will have that examined. And that's something that certainly we can look at also. And I'll talk to the Minister of Social Protection in relation to that. Thank you. I think you were referring to the previous question. The one on Mikey Henry Benson. Deputy O'Callaghan, again, I will talk to the Minister with respect, but to be fair, there is a clinical... This should be done at hospital level. It should be done properly through the clinicians, properly engaging with the family and with the parents. There are liaison officers in the CHI as well who should be. I will make the Minister aware of the case.