For the second time in less than a month, the Department of Health has been severely criticised by the Ombudsman for its handling of a disability scheme.

Last month, a report by the Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, revealed that the department had been acting illegally by failing to remove the upper age limit on the Mobility Allowance scheme for people with disabilities.

The payment of up to €208 per month is made to people who cannot walk, but who would benefit from trips outside the home. Failure to remove the upper age limit of 66 years is contrary to the Equal Status Act, the Ombudsman said.

This latest criticism centres on the Motorised Transport Grant, a means tested HSE payment made to people with disabilities who need to purchase a car in order to retain employment. It is also aimed at people with disabilities who need to have a car or other vehicle adapted, again for the purpose of having a job.

The office of the Ombudsman carried out an investigation following a complaint by a young man with severe disabilities, who had been refused the grant.

The office upheld the complaint and found that the HSE's operation of the grant ‘reflected an approach to disability which is unduly restrictive, improperly discriminatory and fails to have proper regard to the Equal Status Acts'.

The Ombudsman insisted that these ‘defects' in the operation of the scheme ‘reflect a failure by the department in its responsibility to oversee the implementation of the scheme and a failure to provide the HSE with adequate and clear guidance'.

One of the main problems identified by the Ombudsman is that eligibility for the scheme is confined to people who cannot walk because of a physical disability.

"The Ombudsman's view, echoing that of a 2009 equality officer decision, is that the scheme should have regard also to the consequences for mobility of psychological or intellectual disabilities," the office explained.

The HSE has since approved payment of the grant to the young man who initially made the complaint. However, the department has rejected a recommendation from the Ombudsman, which sought changes to the scheme in order to make it complaint with the Equal Status Acts.

The department insisted that acceptance of this recommendation would have serious financial implications for the State.

However, Ms O'Reilly stated that there could be ‘no justification for allowing this disregard for the law to continue'.

"We are a society ruled by law," she insisted.