Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 2000

Vol. 518 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Vehicle Registration Tax.

Mr. Crawford:

The anomaly in the application for remission of VRT and VAT under the disabled drivers and passengers tax concession regulations is very serious. It is difficult to advise a son who is helping his mother who has lost a leg, a husband looking after his wife who has a serious injury, a disabled son looking after both his disabled parents or a young girl who cannot use her legs as a result of an accident that they cannot get relief.

The first case I will mention tonight is that of a son living on the same grounds as his mother. I will read his appeal:

I am the only member of the family able to bring my mother to Rehab in Dún Laoghaire for her check ups and must take days off work for same. My brother, who sometimes stays with my mother, is involved in the construction industry. He owns a van which is not suitable for my mother to climb into.

My house was built 11 years ago and my mother's leg was only amputated four years ago. When she came home from hospital she stayed in my house for some time but she was nervous when the children were around. She returned later to her own house where she felt more comfortable.

There is approximately 35 feet between the two houses, with an entrance at the rear and full view from both houses. As I am married with a wife and two children, I only stay in my mother's house when my brother is not at home.

I take my mother for check ups, to the doctor, shopping, etc., and I am also responsible for getting her medication and anything else she may require.

Each morning before going to work I go over to my mother's house and have my breakfast with her. My wife comes home each day at lunch time and has her lunch with my mother. Each evening when I come home from work I go over and have my evening meal with her. My wife collects my mother's pension each Friday and gets any messages my mother may need. I have put a swivel passenger seat in the car because my mother finds it very hard to get in and out of the car. I also put a lift in the boot to lift the wheelchair, which is quite heavy. On one occasion I injured my back while trying to get the wheelchair into the last car. It was only when I was changing my car that I was advised to apply for the disabled passengers' scheme.

His appeal was refused on the grounds that the residence requirement was not met. The family reorganised the mother's bungalow with ramps at their own expense. A house extension could have been built which would have been granted aided to the sum of £12,000. I ask that this case be looked at again and that the money which has been paid to the Revenue by this man be paid back. How can I, or the Minister, explain to the family why the regulations are so inflexible when they see millions of pounds being paid out? Only today we saw a person getting a handout of £48,000 and others getting a lot of money. Is it easy to explain how a handicapped person can be refused money on a technicality when others can get money for doing nothing?

The second case is that of an aged wife who has the use of only one leg. The other was badly damaged and she is not able to travel to Dublin for reassessment. A request to send a reassessment from Dublin was refused. The man in question has been refused the benefit to which he is entitled. The third case is that of a disabled son who is looking after both his parents who are also disabled. He does not meet the tight criteria, that is, having lost a leg or an arm, laid down by the Department. I am disturbed the Minister has no interest in people with the types of disability I have mentioned, although he can read the record. This is an extremely serious matter.

The last case involves a young girl who was involved in an accident. She is living in a rural area, does not have full use of her legs and cannot stand without aid. She has been refused access to the scheme and is being sent for reassessment. Given the billion pound surplus in the first three months of this year, those with disabilities and who need a means of transport should be considered. I know a committee has been set but it is important justice is done for those who need it.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen):

I set out again for the information of the House the background to the disabled drivers' and the disabled passengers' tax concessions scheme. Section 43 of the Finance Act, 1968, introduced an exemption from road tax for vehicles adapted or constructed for and used by disabled persons who, in the main, would have been confined to wheelchairs. The scheme was later extended to allow relief from VAT and from vehicle registration tax. A qualifying person is also allowed relief from the payment of excise duty on road fuel. To qualify for benefit under the scheme, a disabled person had to be certified by the senior area medical officer in his or her health board area as to be "wholly or almost wholly without the use of each of his (her) legs".

A framework for a new consolidated scheme of relief was provided for under section 92 of the Finance Act, 1989. The regulations made under that Act set out criteria for eligibility for the reliefs as well as specifying their scope and various procedures to be complied with in order to qualify for benefit. The resultant Disabled Drivers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1989, came into operation on 21 December 1989.

A comprehensive review of the workings of the provisions set out in the 1989 scheme was carried out in 1993 and resulted in the adoption of the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994. Six different types of disability are listed under these regulations and a qualifying person must satisfy one or more of them. For the information of Deputies, a copy of the regulations is available in the Library. These 1994 regulations were drawn up following wide ranging consultation with the Departments of Health, Environment and Justice, the Disabled Drivers' Medical Board of Appeal, the Revenue Commissioners, Opposition spokespersons for Finance and organisations dealing with the disabled.

As has been said in reply to numerous parliamentary questions on the matter, the scheme targets what are very generous tax reliefs at those persons who are severely and permanently handicapped with regard to physical mobility. If a person is refused the necessary medical certificate by the senior area medical officer, that decision may be appealed to the Disabled Drivers' Medical Board of Appeal, an independent board whose decision is final. I must confirm to the House that there is only one board of appeal and this board hears all the appeal cases no matter what health board the person is residing in. This ensures consistency in the operation of the appeals process.

The principal issue of concern expressed in connection with the reliefs in 1994, today and by Deputy Crawford, relates to their scope. Arguably, the pressure to extend the scheme is driven by its substantial benefit in terms of the tax relief available. Each person who is suffering from some disability or illness and who applies for the benefits believes that his or her case is unique and deserving of admittance into the scheme. I am sure that the House will appreciate that the scheme cannot be extended to all and every person who suffers from some form of disablement or disability – however deserving each person or group considers their case to be.

As the Minister for Finance is on record as saying in this House and as I have said myself in a previous debate, it is appreciated that persons who suffer from disability face certain difficulty in coping with everyday life. However, the costs involved in this scheme are considerable. For example, the total number of beneficiaries under the scheme is in the region of 5,400. On average the scheme is worth up to £800 per year from the refund of petrol excise, £7,500 relief on the price of a new car every two years and also gives exemption from road tax. The cost of relief in 1999 was £17 million compared to £4 million in 1994, which shows how this scheme is being sought out and used.

As the House is aware, the interdepartmental review group, under the chair of an official from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is currently examining the scheme to see what amendments or modifications may be made to it. I am happy to tell the House I understand that the review group had a meeting this afternoon and is proposing to meet with representatives of a number of organisations and with a number of persons who indicated a desire to make oral submissions. I understand that the dates for such oral presentations are being finalised and the meetings will take place early in May in a Dublin hotel. I invite all Deputies who have raised this matter in the House to make submissions to that group, care of the Secretary to the Group on the Review of the Disabled Drivers' Scheme, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mespil Road, Dublin 4.

The information furnished at the meetings and through the submissions will facilitate the group in bringing its work to an early conclusion and in finalising its report for consideration. I look forward to an early receipt of the report. I thank Deputy Crawford for giving me the opportunity to update both him and the House on the speedy movement forward which was doubted on the previous occasion when I responded to such a debate. We are now making progress.