Reinstate mobility grants for disabled

34June 2015

IVING with a disability costs more than you’d think. There are

the human costs of living in a society that disables at every

turn. There are signiﬁcant ﬁnancial costs. They have been esti-

mated at € a week for the average disabled household by Dr

John Cullinan of NUI Galway. This is equivalent to % of the

household’s disposable income.

The Department of Health and Children axed the Mobility Allow-

ance and the Motorised Transport Grant for people with

disabilities in . This was because criteria governing the

schemes were in breach of the Equal Status Act. They did not have

to eliminate the scheme but, we were promised, the issues would be

resolved quickly. Two years later, some people with disabilities

remain on the scheme, despite its having been found to be discrim-

inatory, and no new scheme has been provided for the many others

now precluded.

Transport is vital for people with disabilities to get education,

employment and local services, and to participate in their commu-

nities. A recent report from the Centre for Independent Living

highlighted that the cost of buying and running a car was prohibi-

tive for many people with a disability. The cost of insurance was

greater, or in some cases not possible. In one testimony a man was

told by an insurance company that he was “uninsurable”. In

another a man needed € to pay for a round trip by taxi to visit

his GP as there were no accessible alternatives in his area. The situ-

ation is particularly acute in rural areas, where there is a dearth of

accessible adequate public transport.

The Mobility Allowance and the Motorised Transport Grant

were essential in this regard. They ensure that people do not

become trapped in their own homes. These schemes were axed on

foot of a case heard in  by the Equality Tribunal and a second

case dealt with by the Ombudsman in . The two schemes were

found to be in breach of the Equal Status Act  on the ground of

age.

The criterion was that new applicants for the schemes had to be

under the age of sixty-six. Claimants already on the schemes were

allowed to continue to receive the payment after they reached the

age of sixty-six, provided they continued to satisfy the means test.

The Ombudsman’s report noted that the criteria imposed by the

Department of Health and Children for applicants seeking the

Mobility Allowance, also gave no consideration to the fact that

people with intellectual disabilities and/or mental ill health could

have restricted mobility as much as people with physical

disabilities.

The Department could have simply dropped the age

restriction. Instead they chose to eradicate the schemes.

That was in February . The Department said it had

begun a review process on the schemes and, pending its rec-

ommendations, the schemes were no longer available.

Claimants in receipt of the Mobility Allowance at that time

were allowed to remain on the scheme, supposedly

temporarily.

In June , the review group issued an interim report

stating that new statutory provisions would be established

and that an inter-departmental group, chaired by the

Department of the Taoiseach, would be developing these pro-

posals, including the eligibility criteria. This

inter-departmental group would, we were informed, report

back by October .

Four years since the decision of the Ombudsman and seven

years since the decision of the Equality Tribunal this issue

has not been resolved. The inter-departmental review proc-

ess has delivered no decision on the way forward. In the

meantime, people who need to access this payment are left

trapped and ignored.

Last month the media reported an incident on the Sligo to Dublin

train. Gerard Gallagher was left stranded on the train when no

staﬀ came to assist him to remove his mobility scooter which was

in another part of the train. He was eventually found when a

cleaner heard him shouting for help. Gerard said; “the power to the

train was turned oﬀ and I was left in complete darkness…..the

doors closed around me…I had no way of contacting anyone. I was

completely alone and no one knew where I was”.

His words are eerily metaphorical: the isolation being enforced

on some disabled people who need this Mobility Allowance and the

Motorised Transport Grant. The Minister should do the right thing

and ensure people like Gerard are not left isolated in darkness. •

And address Equality Tribunal decision by

removing age limit. By Rachel Mullen

Reinstate mobility grants for disabled

POLITICS Mobility

The

Department

could have

dropped

the age

restriction.

Instead they

chose to

eradicate the

schemes

“