'Slap in the face' to be excluded from disability payment

The €500 cost-of-disability payment is a once-off payment introduced in Budget 2027. It is meant to help disabled people meet extra costs linked to disability. The key eligibility rule is that recipients must already receive long-term disability payments. It is therefore connected to social welfare status, rather than applying to every disabled person.

That distinction matters because disability-related costs do not stop when someone enters employment. James Cawley uses a powered wheelchair and medical equipment, while also paying higher heating, electricity, accessibility and personal-assistance costs. His disability remains part of his daily life when he works.

The payment currently excludes working disabled people. Cawley and Ann Marie Flanagan say the Government should consider a standalone, non-means-tested payment, or a tax credit, so support would not depend on employment status. They want inclusion for disabled people who work as well as those receiving long-term payments.

Full-time workers are excluded because the payment is linked to long-term disability payments, not simply to disability or disability-related expenses. That creates a gap for disabled people who earn their income through work. Their disability does not disappear when they start a job, so the costs the payment is intended to address can remain.

James Cawley describes paying more for heating, electricity, medical equipment, accessibility and personal assistance. Ann Marie Flanagan also highlights support, food, transport, adaptations and the cost of needing another person when going out. These expenses can affect workers as well as people on social welfare.

The exclusion has wider policy implications. Cawley says employment policy encourages disabled people into work, while welfare rules can make people fear losing secondary benefits. The working group wants a universal payment, or at least a tax credit, to recognise costs regardless of employment status.

Census 2022 recorded more than 346,000 disabled people working in the Republic of Ireland. The figure provides the scale of the group affected by a payment restricted to people receiving long-term disability payments. It shows that employment and disability are not separate categories.

The article gives examples of workers who face ongoing costs. James Cawley works full-time while using a powered wheelchair, medical equipment and personal assistance. Ann Marie Flanagan is also a full-time worker and wheelchair user. Both argue that employment does not remove the practical costs of living with disability.

The figure also strengthens their call for a different policy design. They want a universal, non-means-tested payment, or a tax credit, for working disabled people. Their aim is to recognise disability costs without requiring someone to remain outside employment or dependent on a social welfare payment.

Disabled people can face extra costs simply to live safely, independently and participate in society. The article lists higher heating and electricity bills, medical equipment, accessibility needs, personal assistance, specialised equipment, home adaptations, transport, food and support when going out.

James Cawley says his powered wheelchair and medical equipment increase electricity use, while his home must stay warm. He also pays for equipment not covered elsewhere and employs two personal assistants. Ann Marie Flanagan says her accessible van cost €95,000 and that going out can mean paying for another person’s entrance fee and coffee.

The 2021 Indecon report estimated additional annual costs of roughly €8,700 to over €12,300. These figures explain why campaigners describe disability costs as unavoidable rather than optional. They argue that any support should reflect these costs and should continue when disabled people enter employment.

When disability payments or secondary benefits depend on not having a job, taking employment can appear financially risky. A person may gain wages but lose supports that help cover disability-related costs. This can weaken the incentive to work, especially when those costs are unavoidable and ongoing.

James Cawley describes a conflict between employment and welfare policy. He says disabled people are encouraged to enter employment, but some are afraid of losing secondary benefits if they do. He argues that disability does not disappear when someone logs into work, so the costs remain even after employment begins.

The article presents this as a policy problem rather than an individual choice. Cawley asks whether employment and social welfare policies communicate effectively. The proposed response is support that is not dependent on job status, such as a standalone non-means-tested payment or a tax credit for working disabled people.

The working group wants support based on disability-related costs, not on whether someone is employed or receiving social welfare. Its preferred option is a standalone, non-means-tested payment. Such a payment would give working disabled people help without requiring them to qualify through a long-term disability benefit.

Cawley also suggests a tax credit as another way to provide relief. Flanagan points to Northern Ireland, where she says a personal independent payment provides a universal, non-means-tested cost-of-disability payment. Both speakers describe their request as seeking parity and inclusion, rather than separating working and non-working disabled people.

The group says a universal baseline would help disabled people participate in society. It also says the proposal is supported by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and evidenced internationally. The article does not state whether the Government accepted or implemented these alternatives.

A non-means-tested payment is support that does not depend on a person’s income or household means. In this context, it would be available to disabled people whether they work, receive social welfare or have another income source. The purpose is to recognise disability-related costs directly.

The current €500 payment works differently because eligibility is tied to receiving long-term disability payments. That condition can exclude a full-time worker, even when the person faces extra costs for heating, equipment, transport, accessibility or support. A payment based on income or welfare receipt uses those financial or benefit conditions to decide eligibility.

A universal payment would remove that employment-status barrier. Cawley and Flanagan want a baseline that supports participation for all disabled people. The article also mentions a tax credit as an alternative, but it does not explain its detailed eligibility rules or how much support it would provide.