Having lost the argument, department changes tack

Analysis:The abolition of mobility allowances risks making a bad situation worse

It may affect only a few thousand people but the decision to discontinue two allowances for disabled people has the potential to become another political pratfall for the Department of Health.

Criticism rained down all yesterday on the department over its decision to axe the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant without giving any clear indication of what is to replace them.

The department was responding belatedly to a finding that the operation of both schemes breached equality law but its response runs the risk of making a bad situation worse. It is one thing to remove a potential future payment but another thing altogether to fiddle with a person’s existing entitlements, as the criticism demonstrates.

Having discriminated against some people with disabilities by excluding them from the schemes, it now finds itself accused of discriminating against all existing recipients by scrapping the schemes altogether. The lack of notice provided only added to the level of criticism.

Ministers opined that the funding remains ring-fenced but the absence of any clear plans for a successor scheme, along with the refusal to commit any more money, has caused unnecessary worry to those affected.

The department is poorly positioned to argue points of principle, having ignored for years the fact that it was operating two schemes illegally.

Ombudsman’s finding

It eventually accepted the Ombudsman’s finding that access to the mobility allowance was being illegally restricted to people aged over 16 and under 66. The scheme is designed to give people who are unable to work or use public transport a chance to get out by, for example, taking the occasional taxi journey. The absurdity of the restriction was illustrated by the fact that once you were awarded the allowance, you could continue to claim it over the age of 66.

Similarly, the motorised transport grant, which allows people with disabilities adapt their car for employment purposes, was restricted only to those with physical disabilities, in clear contradiction of equality laws.

Ombudsman’s role

The department’s strategy of keeping its head down might have worked were it not for the persistence of Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, who in successive reports castigated its failure to act. Far from saving the taxpayer money, the department’s history of “carelessness about the law” has proved extremely costly, O’Reilly has pointed out. For example, the illegal charging of holders of medical cards for long-stay care, which continued until 2004, has cost the State €500 million.

Having lost the argument about principles, the department changed tack by announcing that it couldn’t afford to implement the changes desired by the ombudsman.

Minister for Health James Reilly said widening eligibility for the two schemes would cost the exchequer €500 million over three years. At present, they cost just €10.6 million a year.

This estimate seems fanciful – for example, the numbers availing of the motorised transport grant are projected to rise from just 300 to almost 20,000, even though the grant is awarded only in connection with employment.

Tightening criteria

It is clear that there will be some cost to complying with the law. Common sense, though, would suggest this could be kept in check by tightening some criteria at the same time as eligibility is broadened to conform to equality legislation.

The context of the economic downturn is clear enough, but it’s less well known that disability is bearing the brunt of cutbacks in the health services. Spending on disability services is projected to fall 1.2 per cent while budgets for hospitals and front-line services are being increased.

The axing of the mobility allowances and motorised transport grant follows a long line of cuts affecting people with disabilities, including respite services, home help hours, homecare allowances and drug costs.

Some of these cutbacks were reversed after a public outcry and so might this one, to the further cost to the Government’s reputation.