Passing the buck on disability

CONFUSION surrounds the so-called disability cuts controversy, which brought thousands of protesters on to the streets yesterday, many of them in wheelchairs.

It is not clear that the savings the Government seeks must result in a reduction in frontline services to the disabled.

Nor is it clear why the service providers cannot find ways to reduce spending without affecting people adversely.

The confusion is heightened by vague government and Health Service Executive statements that fail to clarify exactly what has been decided, and by whom.

The Minister for State with responsibility for disability, John Moloney, said yesterday that it was never the Government's intention that respite services would be cut. The Taoiseach said nothing had been finally decided, and that cuts to respite services would be unacceptable. The Health Service Executive said it had "advised" that no frontline services should be cut.

The HSE's advice was directed at the service providers.

These are the voluntary organisations, funded by the State, that provide services to people with disabilities.

Some of them have claimed that reducing their expenditure would force them to shut down respite units, depriving carers who look after children and adults of breaks.

Some of these providers, according to Mr Moloney, have as many as five or six chief executive officers, and he has wondered aloud if this was necessary.

In short, the Government and the HSE believe the organisations can find the savings in backroom costs, without cutting services. But they express this like interested onlookers, rather than responsible agents.

They could be more proactive, drawing strength -- and authority -- from a highly critical report from the Comptroller and Auditor General four years ago, which criticised poor controls over organisations providing services to people with a physical or mental disability, when the sector was receiving €877m in funding.

The public, especially those who fear that their disabled loved ones are to be deprived of essential personal treatment or care, are not helped by vague declarations of intent and advisories.

They would like to know how exactly essential savings are to be made in health service spending, without reducing frontline services, and who exactly is going to enforce those measures.

They would like to know who is in charge.

RETURN TO MAIN NEWS PAGE